Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Cool Fun Club?

papersky said:

I've never joined SFWA, though I am qualified. Useful reasons for supporting it aside, I'm sure I would have joined if it had felt as if it were a cool fun club to be in -- but instead it has always felt like a claustrophobic toxic club that's better avoided.

If Scalzi could change that perception, that would be great. His initial post filled me with enthusiasm. That election blog, however, though it has a certain train wreck fascination, reminds me that I might need a bargepole

And I started to answer in the thread, and, of course, ran out of room. So I moved it up here, because I think it makes a strong point, and I want to mull it over.

One of the things Scalzi talks about is making SFWA more relevant to writers who are working in the field today. This, coupled with papersky's comment made me think about the reasons I joined SFWA back in, ummm, 1989 or 1990.

When I joined, I joined because of the SFWA GEnie deal for the SFRTs. The closest thing I've found on-line in tone, with its mulitple small communities, is Livejournal. I wasn't enormously active in most of the GEnie topics (but adored a half dozen of them beyond reason) -- but at the time, joining SFWA meant full access, for free, to all of them, including the chat rooms. The various topics were very like the individual LJs here, and the topic host -- frequently these were author-based -- kept the tone of the conversation in lines with what they wanted to see; as you can imagine, the tone varied widely from author to author and topic to topic. But there were always places that were open to new people, and ways in which experiences outside of SF could be relevant.

It was, in papersky's words "a cool fun club to be in".

Ray Feist was still posting frequently in those days; Mike Resnick was very active -- and although I'd worked for years in bookstores by that time, the publishing aspects of the business from the perspective of a writer was new to me. They were perfectly happy to answer questions, they certainly had their own take on the business, and for me, it was a wider window into a world I didn't really understand. I understood what happened to the books once they were published, how they were sold, etc., but that wasn't as balanced a view as I felt I needed at the time.

The web was in its infancy, then. I think it was harder to find information than it is now. So the perceived value, for me as a writer, was access to people who simply knew more than I did, and who were willing to hold forth.

Fast forward to 2007, when you can google almost anything and many, many more people are active on-line. GEnie is long gone. Blogs are everywhere, and easily accessible; time is the constraint. The business has changed enormously since 1990, and conventional wisdom from that time is often no longer relevant.

What, then, does SFWA have to offer writers who do qualify to join, but simply can't see a pressing reason to do so? How does SFWA become a cool fun place to be? I think Scalzi's entry, and the enthusiasm it's generated, even if he does not win his write-in campaign, offers a partial answer to that: Scalzi's Whatever is a fun place to be. Does he hold forth? At length. Not all of his blogs are about the business or the state of the industry – but enough of them are relevant to writers to give them a sense of what some aspects of the business are like, and the rest is the social glue that can hold a community together. But the point is: he has a public face (I know I'm dwelling on that part, but I do think it's important), developed over literally years of almost daily posts. It's not hard to find him. It's not hard to read him. It's not possible to agree with him 100% of the time, but even the disagreements do not tend to tear apart the community there.

He is plugged in. He appears to say pretty much whatever he feels like saying, and he has a very evident sense of humour. On its own, this probably couldn't carry an entire organization. But without something as easily accessible and as apparently open, I'm not sure our organization, with so many on-line members, is ever going to seen to be as relevant as it was when information was so much harder to come by.

And yes, the ire in the ElectionBlog certainly doesn't radiate "cool fun club" either – but I think I expect less from Elections in general.

So: a question. I babbled at length a couple of years back about what various retail elements of this business meant, and I posted a first-book contract because in total, it seemed fairly consistent with what I know of first book contracts now. If more people were willing to do this, on a closed board, would this be some incentive to join in? If there were SFWA guest blogs that were about things that the membership as a whole wanted to know more about – on-line publishing comes instantly to mind – would this be a way of making things more relevant?

I think Griefcom, the EMF, and the legal fund are all good reasons to join – but I think to many people who are considering it, they're also invisible. What visible elements would make things that much more interesting?


Mar. 29th, 2007 02:28 am (UTC)
Re: Sideways and slightly OT (sorry)
On LJ it is strictly a cult of personality and you follow people but not threads.

I think in theory that was supposed to be true of GEnie topics, but in practice, with one continuous thread, it was about the conversations that evolved in each topic. Those were still, imo, in large part due to the personalities and interests of the people for whom the topics were created; I adored almost anything John Barnes said in Alis Rasmussen's topic -- but his own topic was like a bar brawl. Which was what he wanted out of his topic -- but he was entirely different there. Alis wasn't an autocrat -- far from it, although she did say I was not allowed to say anything negative about Jane Austen's work in her topic -- but she conveyed tone, and the tone in her group was very different from other groups.