Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OtherRealms Issue 06 Part 03
OtherRealms
A Fanzine for the Non-Fan
"Where FIJAGH Becomes a Way of Life"
Volume 1, Number 6
July, 1986
Part Three
Editorial -- Pros and Cons
By
Chuq Von Rospach
Editor of OtherRealms
I spent Memorial Day at BayCon, the annual San Francisco Bay Area
Science Fiction Convention. Cons are a unique and fascinating part of
Science Fiction. Since most readers have never been to a Con I'll try
to explain what they are and help you decide whether or not to try it.
The first thing that you should know is that Cons have very little in
common with Fandom. A Con is a place where all the facets of SF come
together for a few days. Conventions vary greatly, but these are the
most common activities:
o Art: There is always an art show. Most of the art is for sale;
some of it is good, some of it is horrible. There is usually an Artist
Guest of Honor (also known as an AGOH). There are also a number of
other artists talking on panels and selling their work. This year, the
AGOH at BayCon was comics oriented (BayCon has a strong emphasis on
Comic Books as well as SF and Fantasy). Because of this there wasn't as
a strong Pro presence as usual, and I found it somewhat disappointing.
o Authors: Authors love Cons. Big authors come to the Con to talk to
other authors, publishers, sign autographs and go to parties. Lesser
known authors sit on panels, sign autographs, and talk you into buying
their books. Every Con has an author designated as a Guest of Honor (or
GOH) who is the Big Name. A second author, not quite so big, is named
Toastmaster (TM). The TM's job is to keep the crowds from getting restless
when the Costume Contest runs two hours late and to show up the GOH by being
funnier, friendlier and more accessible. The GOH is recognizable by the mob
of security guards protecting them from their numerous fans.
o Costumes: Convention goes love costumes. They'll spend months on a
something they will wear once. Costumes come in two flavors: hall
costumes designed to wear during the day and show costumes that are
reserved for the Costume Contest on Saturday night.
o Films: When things get boring, you go watch movies. In the Good Old
Days, these were normally 16MM wonders like _The Assassination Bureau_
or _Logan's Run_. Now, with the wonders of videotape you get to see
lots of really good movies, sometimes 24 hours a day. A recent fad in
cons is Japanese Animation. Great stuff, especially compared to the
bilge America puts out on Saturday morning.
o Hucksters: Otherwise known as the memorabilia room. This is the
place where your savings goes to die. You want it, you can get it --
for a price. The hucksters sell a wide range of material, from that
ancient autographed first printing of _The Martian Chronicles_ that you
can't afford through T-shirts, movie posters, art, jewelery, comics and
toy robots to things like armor, daggers, and SCA gear.
o Mundanes: These are all the people in the hotel who don't have a
clue what is happening. They see five Stormtroopers in full gear and
wonder if the Russians have landed. Much fun is taken at a Con
watching all the mundanes try to pretend they aren't staring.
o Panels: The main attraction of a Con, this is where groups of
authors, artists, and other invited guests sit down in front of the
audience and discuss (and sometimes argue) with each other and the
audience. The topics range from very serious discussions to silly and
trivial ones. Baycon had a large number of good panels; from serious
discussions on marketing SF and writing techniques to discussions of
Religion and Magic in Science Fiction and Fantasy. There are great
places to hear authors put their works in perspective and to pick up
new areas of interest and information.
o Parties: When you get up at 8AM, sit in on panels all day, go to the
Costume show in the evening, and generally run around until the early
hours, what do you do? You go to a party. Sleep is optional at Cons.
They are places to meet interesting people. They are sometimes the
only places you'll see the authors that are at the Con.
o The Society for Creative Anachronism: This is a group that is
peripherally attached to SF. They get together and pretend they are
living in ancient England by wearing period costumes, donning armor and
bashing each other over the heads with wooden swords out on the grass
in front of the Hotel.
Cons are great fun, and I don't get to enough of them. You can sit
down and talk with people who have the same interests and level of
intelligence, who understand SF, and who aren't judgmental about
reading material. It is a place to learn about new things in the
industry and in the world. For aspiring writers, the information
content in the panels is as critical as the contacts you can form by
talking to authors, agents, and publishers.
There are a few rules to remember when you go to Cons. First, everything
starts late. Everything also finishes later. The only exception to this
is when you are running late; then everything runs smoothly. A good trend
I've seen is switching to an hour and a half for a panel. You simply can't
get a good discussion going in 50 minutes, and the good cons (like Baycon)
are scheduling panels to go an hour but giving them an extra half hour
before the next panel starts. This keeps people from getting rushed around,
and keeps things on schedule -- Baycon had very few things start late, which
is quite amazing. This is a trend I hope becomes a tradition.
Second, never expect to see the Guest of Honor. The GOH usually hides
in the Con suite unless they are on a panel. When they are out there
are usually a number of stern looking people between you and them. This
is because everyone else is expecting to see the GOH, to ask them to read
a story, have their baby, or autograph their underwear and it is considered
bad form to have a GOH trampled by a mob. This is a necessary evil, and
if you realize it before going you won't be disappointed.
I've found that the other authors are a lot of fun. I met a number of
wonderful people at Baycon this year -- Ray Feist (_Magician_) was
utterly charming and more than happy to go into great detail about how
I misread a couple of interesting points in his book. Dave Smeds (_The
Sorcery Within_) and Clare Bell (_Clan Ground_) were both fascinating
people; Stephen Goldin and Jon DeCles (a co-founder of the SCA) are also
high on my list of people I'm looking forward to seeing again. Sydney
J. Van Scyoc is about as close to your grandmother as you'll ever find.
One thing that used to bother me was meeting an author and having to
admit that you haven't read their book yet. I've found that they don't
mind, and I've discovered a number of good books after meeting the
author in person. If you limit yourself to the 'known authors, you're
cutting yourself off from a lot of really interesting people.
The highlight of Baycon for me was meeting a God. Larry Niven attended
Baycon this year. Long time readers of the net will realize that Niven
is one of my favorite authors; his work turned me into the serious SF
reader I am today. It was a real thrill for me to finally screw up the
courage to go up, shake his hand, and watch my brain turn to
guacamole. Believe it or not, I was speechless, making such wonderful
comments as 'Gee, I liked your last book', 'Gleeble Blurp', and the
infamous 'Shit! I sound just like a fan!' I am, and Larry smiled his
way though the entire awkward encounter. I hope he enjoyed it as much
as I did. Next time I'll try English.
Only in SF can you meet the people who are so important in your lives.
You don't run into TV stars in the supermarket, you don't get to sit
down and discuss his latest book with Gore Vidal, and you don't see Sly
Stallone holding court in the lobby of a Hotel and swapping dirty jokes.
SF is a unique genre and the most amazing part is the accessibility of the
people. If you write to an SF author, chances are they'll write you back.
At Cons, you can talk to an author and they will talk back, person to person.
There is probably a Convention in your area. Most SF magazines carry
Convention listings -- the most complete is in _Locus_. If you are in
the SF Bay Area, I recommend Baycon highly. Every year it gets better
and better. If you can get to a Con, you should -- until you do, you
don't know what you're missing.
OtherRealms Lettercol -- July 1986
Chuq,
Recently I saw a copy of OtherRealms (Vol. 1, No. 4). This particular
copy had been sent to R.A. MacAvoy because it contained a pair of
reviews of her Damiano trilogy. She read the reviews and asked my
opinion. I read the reviews (as well as the rest of the zine) and felt
sufficiently moved (more like compelled) to write this response.
The reviews were written by Dave Berry. Each was about a page long,
but I was no further than the first paragraph in each before it became
apparent that both were going to be ugly little bits of fluff. I don't
intend to critique the reviews point by point -- there was little
enough content in them to allow a handhold. But there was a sour
feeling in my stomach regarding SF in general when I finished them, and
I can at least examine that.
First, Dave Berry is not a critic. I cannot apply that honorific to the
person who generated those reviews. Nor is he a reviewer, really, because
I don't feel he sufficiently described the feelings or plots of the books.
If he really wants to be a critic, I recommend that he study this
worthy art for awhile first. Learning literary criticism is a bit like
learning the violin or bagpipes. It is best done in private for
awhile, lest you lose your life to an annoyed neighbor. At its best, a
violin can pierce one's soul. At its worst, it holes one's eardrum. At
its best, literary criticism can distill the essence of a story and
rekindle the fire of the original as well point out interesting connections.
At its worst ... well, that's why I'm writing this.
In a nutshell, I feel the reviews were inadequately researched, badly
written, and calculated to sting the authors while illuminating Mr.
Berry. They were also transparent in their failings.
Mr. Berry criticizes Ms. MacAvoy for not adequately portraying the
"shittiness" of the world. Mein Gott, Herr Berry, are you so jaded
that your fundamental assumption is that the world is by nature
shitty? If so, then I am even more firmly of the mind that you have
nothing to say in your reviews that I care to hear. For me, the world
is a spectrum of all things, and though one cannot always have the
best, one CAN have it occasionally. If the world is anything at all,
it is balance. And one CAN explicitly choose what to read, what to
talk about, and who to count as friends. So in that way, one really
can choose the kind of world in which one wants to live. If the world
seems shitty, maybe you have sat too long on a dung heap. No?
But I am writing this response for 2 reasons, Chuq, and have only just
covered the first. The second are 2 questions I direct to you. Why did
you print it? And why did you send Ms. MacAvoy a copy?
I realize you sent this issue to Ms. MacAvoy as a courtesy to keep the
writer informed. That sounds like responsible journalism. But consider
the whole picture, and ask yourself whether you would have appreciated
being on the receiving end. Imagine that some stranger solicits (or
receives unsolicited) a very ugly review of something you did. This
stranger graces that review with publication so that many people can
see that review, and then sends this thing to your door so that you
can't help but see it yourself.
Does not that sound vaguely like prying open someone's mouth to pour in
medicine on the grounds that "it's good for you?" I was recently told
that any advice or criticism (or any unsolicited information) must fit
into at least 2 of the following 3 categories:
(1) True
(2) Kind
(3) Necessary
Certainly, reviews cannot, strictly speaking, be true or false So by
these guidelines, the issue you sent her should have been both kind and
necessary. It was neither.
Ron Cain
Cain@SRI-AI.ARPA
[This is just one of a number of letters I received on the double set
of reviews I published in Vol 1 #4. It was a difficult decision whether
or not to publish those reviews. On one side, they didn't conform to the
OtherRealms review standards (see "How to Write a Review" in V1 #2 or the
OtherRealms Writers Guide). On the other side, they portrayed a viewpoint
that was very different than mine. I enjoyed the _Damiano_ trilogy and am
quite enthusiastic about MacAvoy's work.
Because of this, I was unsure whether my unhappiness with the review
was because of the viewpoint or because of the writing. Since I'm trying
to create a magazine where people speak their mind (as opposed to mimicing
what I would want them to say) I want to be very careful about censoring
opposing viewpoints. The end result was that I published the articles
because I wanted to see what the readers felt -- I needed the guidance on
whether that flavor of material was appropriate.
Very clearly it isn't. The mail and the Pico reviews that followed
those publications shows that most readers disagreed with Dave's views
and, more importantly, with how he said it.
The fault, though, isn't with Dave, but with me. I should have
enforced the standards, and I should have requested rewrites of all the
reviews. Because I didn't, I published a bad issue with #4.
It is VERY important that reviewers take a close look at their words.
Not just because the author involved is going to see it, but because
all of the readers are going to see it. The readership of OtherRealms
is somewhere around 2,500 and growing. To put that in perspective,
Amazing Stories has around 10,000 subscribers, so the words you write
have a large audience. With visibility comes responsibility, both on
your part and on mine, to turn out a professional product. In this
situation I blew it.
My review standards are not there to be arbitrary, they have been
developed out of my experience writing reviews (and my occasional hack
job) as a guide for inexperienced writers around the pitfalls of
writing a review. Reviews are hard work. I plan to be more vigilant
about the tone of reviews in the future; you are welcome to disagree
with me, but be prepared to back up your opinions. -- chuq]
Chuq;
The June 1986 issue of OtherRealms contained a Pico Review of Harlan
Ellison's _Deathbird Stories_ by Alan Wexelblat. Wexelblat spent the
first two thirds of his review making the point that _Deathbird Stories_
couldn't be a high quality collection because of the sense of utter
depression conveyed by the contained stories.
I find the idea of anyone holding such a notion utterly fascinating.
While the nature of "good" writing is of course highly subjective, it
seems to me that one reasonable heuristic for determining the quality
of a given piece of writing is to examine how well the writing achieves
the author's goals. Since Ellison six times prior to the first story
explicitly stated that the contained stories where meant to be very
depressing, I submit that Wexelblat's review is a self-contradiction!
Kevin LaRue
kevin%logic.dec@decwrl.dec.com
Chuq,
In Other Realms Vol 1, # 4, you gave the results of suggestions that
people gave you for books to use in a fantasy course. You said that
you were surprised that no horror was included, as horror was a
subgrouping of fantasy. I feel that for a significant portion of
fantasy, the reverse is true.
Both fantasy and horror have a common source: mythology. The line
between the two is very frequently murky, so perhaps it would be a good
idea to look at the history of both genre. There have been horror
magazines around since the beginning of the century, and the first
"modern" works of fantasy (Conan) etc. were printed in these magazines.
Barring children's fantasy (which I tend to prefer) and the works of
Tolkien and his clones (I like Tolkien, but have liked very little that
other people have put out in this vein.), fantasy is stylistically
identical to most modern horror. You can see this in the works of Fritz
Leiber, and it is impossible to miss in the works of Karl Edward Wagner.
I understand that this is a sort of "chicken-egg" argument, but when
one examines horror and fantasy stylistically and historically, it is
plain to see that a significant portion of fantasy is derived from horror.
I do understand that there is a signifigant body of thought that all
horror (Dracula, etc.) is fantasy, but this is a literal interpretation
of the WORD fantasy, not a stylistic interpretation of the genre Fantasy.
Matthew Saroff
SAROFF@UMASS.BITNET
[It can be argued that SF, Fantasy and Horror are all the same genre.
From the point of view of bookstores that lump them all together it is
certainly true. On the other hand the three forms are distinct in that
few authors cross over from one to another.
Using a very broad set of definitions, I tend to see SF deals mainly with
Things, Fantasy with Motivations, and Horror with Fears. Many things
straddle these lines. Ben Bova once claimed the SF was anything that he
pointed at and called SF. I tend to agree. Genres are useful only to the
uninformed who need to pigeonhole things they don't understand. --chuq]
Dear Chuq,
I noted a number of omissions in Allen's bibliography. The one glaring
omission was the fifth, final Demon Prince novel, _The Book of
Dreams_. So, I hied to my bookshelf, and discovered the following:
The Book of Dreams 1981 DAW
To Live Forever 1956 Ballantine
Maske: Thaery 1976 Berkeley
Best of Jack Vance 1976 Pocket
Monsters in Orbit 1965 (1952)
(Ace Double with _The World Between_)
_The Moon Moth_ was placed in the _SF Hall of Fame, Vol 1_, by SWFA.
While I do not disagree with Gary's recommendations for which books to
read, I find the lack of any mention of what makes Vance's works
special dismaying. How can someone discuss Vance's works without
mentioning his footnotes?
One reads Heinlein for a world to live in. Hal Clement, Larry Niven,
or James Hogan delivers hard science. E. E. 'Doc' Smith, Edmund Hamilton,
or early John Campbell smash galaxies. A similar broad stereotype of Jack
Vance is that he writes a travelogue in which the male protagonist overcomes
adversity by using his brains and sometimes his fists.
The excellence in Vance's writing is due to the poetry of his
descriptions. His footnotes are an integral part, giving the reader a
brief glimpse into the fast world backing up his stories.
I, too, am failing to give a explanation of the fascination Vance's
writing have for me. I also disagree with Gary's appraisal of
_Lyonesse_. While it is totally unlike *all* of his other works it is
not half as bad as the schlock coming out of the paperback houses.
Carl Hommel
{allegra, bellcore, cbosgd, decvax,
gatech, ihnp4, seismo, tektronix}!masscomp!carlton
Chuq;
==>On "The Care and Feeding of Journals" by Barb Jernigan:
I don't generally keep a journal, but Mark and I always keep them when
we travel. Even more than pictures, they help capture the way you
feel. In this case, though, they *are* for "publication," or at least
for handing out to family and friends who ask "How was your trip?" The
only problem one might have is if one is traveling in a country where
negative journals might be confiscated on the way out.
Some extra tips: if you're traveling, stay away from felt-tip pens. The
ink will run if the journal gets wet. Something that will fit in a
back pocket works well--a spiral notebook is not suitable for this. I
agree on the "blank books"--too much like writing in a "real" book, and
somehow I feel I would have to be profound to do justice to it.
==>On "The Chronicles of St. Germain" by Chuq Von Rospach:
My feeling was that there was perhaps an over-emphasis on period costume to
the detriment of the rest of the novel (at least in HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA).
Another historical period series that might interest readers is by Les Daniels
and comprises of THE BLACK CASTLE, THE SILVER SKULL, and CITIZEN VAMPIRE.
==>Comments on "Pico-Reviews":
"GALAPAGOS": Strong disagreement with Chuq. I liked it, and *enjoyed*
it. I even nominated it for a Hugo.
"THE POSTMAN": Strange, I found this Brin's *worst* (rather than best)
novel to date. Well, so it goes.
"TIK-TOK": One quibble with Dave Taylor--John Sladek is hardly a "new"
British author, having had books published in this country fifteen years ago.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
(or ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl)
Notes and Comments on OtherRealms
by
Chuq Von Rospach
Editor of OtherRealms
OtherRealms has mutated further. What I'm trying to do is find the
tradeoff between readability, accessibility and the drudgery of putting
all of this together. The more pieces I use for OtherRealms, the
easier it is to find any single article. At the same time, splitting
things up creates complications for some of the networks; it creates
Copyright problems; it makes it harder to create a hard copy of
OtherRealms and it makes putting an issue together more complicated.
I've decided to try the three part format. The first part will contain
the articles, the second part will contain Pico reviews and perhaps one
article, and the third part will contain the editorial, letters and associated
administrivia. The idea is to simply keep things small enough that you can
skip through the material you aren't interested in without being overwhelmed.
Please tell me what you think. I recently went back to check something
in the first issue. Needless to say, I'm glad the magazine is where it
is instead of where it was.
* * *
A couple of comments on my St. Germain piece from last month. First, I
got two books backwards: _Hotel Transylvania_ was the first book, _The
Palace_ was the second. Also, I somehow neglected to mention the FULL
name of the author: Chelsea Quinn Yarbro.
I got a number of requests for information on availability. The bad
news is that most of the works seem to be out of press at the current
time. The good news is that they ARE available from the Science Fiction
Book Club. Also, All of the books (except _Tempting Fate_, which is still
owned by NAL) have been sold to Beth Meacham at Tor books. Yarbro has also
been contracted for three more books using Olivia as the main character.
The first, _A Flame in Byzantium_ is based in the 6th century and is due to
go to the publisher in August. The other two are to be about the time of
Richard the Lion-Hearted and Louis the XIII of France.
* * *
Two issues keep popping up in my mail, and since I'm chronically short
of time, I'd like to put them to rest here. First is the "problem" of
formfeeds in OtherRealms. I seem to get two or three letters an issue
on this. OtherRealms is formatted for three distinct reading environments:
hardcopy is one, because I want OtherRealms to look as good on paper as it
does on a screen. I send copies of OtherRealms to featured authors and to
various interested parties. Many readers print it out for reading and their
bookshelves. The other two programs are "rn" and Berkeley "Mail," both of
which use the "more" program to handle screen pagination. "More" does the
intelligent thing when it finds a formfeed. It stops.
If your system doesn't, I suggest you fix it. Most readers I've talked
to are happy with the way things are. So am I, and I don't plan on
changing this. Formfeeds are a feature, not a bug.
The other question that comes up is whether to split each item in OtherRealms
into a separate posting for mod.mag.otherrealms. The answer to this is no.
Why? From a philosophical standpoint OtherRealms wouldn't be a magazine
any more. It would be a moderated group and it would have to be handled
differently. It would be significantly different from the real OtherRealms,
both in flavor and format. From a legal point of view, it creates problems
with Copyright. From an administrative view, it would be a royal pain for
me because I'd be supporting two magazines with the same material. I'd
rather support two magazines with different material.
I also think, that the old formats, while familiar, don't work. OtherRealms
is a magazine about SF and Fantasy, but it is also an experiment in new
technologies. I try things, and they work or they fail. Either way we
learn something. Perhaps what we learn here will be useful to the network
at large. I think it is a great improvement on what we used to do.
* * *
This issue of OtherRealms has the first guest editorial. Leigh Ann
Hussey, a SF and Fantasy writer from the Berkeley area, talks to us
about a very important bill now before Congress. I urge you to get
involved and help kill this affront to the Bill of Rights. This is
part of a concerted attack on our personal freedoms by a small group of
Fundamentalist types who firmly believe it is their right to tell us
what to think. The bill is clearly unconstitutional, but it could
create havoc for many before it is proved so. You don't need to be
involved in witchcraft or support it to be against the bill -- the way
it is worded, it is quite possible for the Catholic Church to fall victim,
as it performs exorcisms and other acts involving demons. It is poorly
worded, poorly thought out, and a waste of taxpayers money. It is the
first step towards a state religion, where you are allowed to believe in
only what They deem is acceptable. This was tried before, with very bad
results. If you don't believe me, look up the Inquisition. Or Salem.
OtherRealms is always looking for people to write a point of view that
is of interest to its readers. I'm glad Leigh Ann took me up on it,
and I hope she won't be the last.
Masthead for OtherRealms
Volume 1, Number 6
July, 1986
This issue is Copyright 1986, by Chuq Von Rospach
All Rights reserved
OtherRealms is edited and published on a monthly schedule by:
Chuq Von Rospach
160 Pasito Terrace #712
Sunnyvale, CA 84086
USENET: {major_node}!sun!plaid!fanzine
ARPA: fanzine%plaid@sun.COM
Fidonet: 125/84, user chuq vonrospach
CompuServe: 73317,635
Associate Editor: Laurie Sefton (lsefton@sun.COM)
Submissions: Submissions are welcomed at any of the above addresses.
Electronic mail is preferred, Macintosh format disks through U.S. Mail
will allow me to publish your work MUCH faster (returned with SASE).
Hard copy is accepted but will get keyed into the system when I get time.
A writers guide is available. If you want to write for OtherRealms,
please ask for a copy. Pico reviews are welcome from everyone. Duplicate
the format used in this issue and limit your comments to one paragraph.
If you are on a BBS or other system that does not have access to the
above electronic addresses, contact your SYSOP about making arrangements.
Letters to the Letter column should be mailed to the above address. Letters
to an author should be mailed directly to the author where possible. All
letters will be considered for publication unless requested otherwise.
This magazine is Copyright 1986 by Chuq Von Rospach. One time rights only
have been acquired from the signed or credited contributors. All rights are
hereby assigned to the contributors.
Reproduction rights: Permission is given to reproduce or duplicate
OtherRealms in its entirety for non-commercial uses. Re-use, reproduction,
reprinting or republication of an individual article in any way or on any
media, printed or electronic, is forbidden without permission of the author.
Subscriptions: OtherRealms is available through the newsgroup
"mod.mag.otherrealms" on the USENET network. For those on the UUCP,
ARPANET, BITNET and CSNET computer networks without access to this group,
a mailing list subscription is available. Send mail to the appropriate
address above to be placed on the mailing list. Subscriptions are not yet
available on CompuServe. Please write me for the latest status.
OtherRealms is also available through the following bulletin boards:
SCI-FIDO, (415) 655-0667.
The Terraboard, Fidonet number 14/341, (612)721-8967.
Dim_Sum Fido, Fidonet number 146/5, (503) 644-6129
Other BBS systems or computer networks are welcome to make OtherRealms
available on their systems. Either copy it from an available location
or contact me to make arrangements. If you do make it available, I
would appreciate hearing about where it is being distributed.
