Boskone Friday

[eimarra]

It took me longer than expected to get to bonniers' place (2 tires low on air that I had to stop to fill), but we managed to get to Boskone in time for panels at 6.

First off, I went to "The ethics of first contact" with Walter H. Hunt, Allen Steele, and Vernor Vinge. Topics included historical contacts (Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick and Shogun by James Clavell recommended reading), ability to communicate, whether we should be hiding, and who has written protocols for first contact (Sierra Club, United Nations, and -- purportedly -- the U.S. military). I plan to look for Poul Anderson's High Crusade to read.

After that, I went to a panel on FTL with Geoffrey Landis, Chuck Gannon, Ian Tregillis, and Jordin Kare. Short version: it can't be done.

"Biblical themes and religion in genre fiction" was a very enjoyable panel with Dani Kollin (son of a rabbi), Margaret Ronald (lapsed heathen -- her description), Jeffrey Carver (moderator), Steven Popkes (practicing heathen), and Walter Hunt (raised Protestant). Guest starring giant metal robots. Discussed reading foundational books, the nature of faith, whether gods should appear in stories.

After that they demonstrated that this was a science fiction con by using Skype to create a joint panel with Capricon in Chicago -- Charlie Stross & Alastair Reynolds in Boston, and Gene Wolfe & Robert Sawyer in Chicago discussing "the way the future was." There was some grumbling about the small portion of SF being written compared to paranormal romance (which lumped in urban fantasy, I think, in the speakers' eyes) -- note, though, that at a Saturday panel, David Hartwell said SF has been steady-state since the mid-80s; it has not declined. Charlie Stross made some comments about what has been a crime hasn't been constant through time, and there's no reason to think it will in the future. Arthur Clarke was quoted: data is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.

The last Friday event I went to was the discussion of steampunk with Michael Swanwick, Paul di Filippo, Everett Soares, and Lev Grossman. The point was made that it is a large amorphous genre and it encompasses fashion and music, not just written works or movies. The panelists felt steampunk focuses on London and the Empire and mostly encompasses Caucasians, both in its depictions and in those who have made it a lifestyle, though this may be changing.

And that was Friday. Short version: I'm having fun, my brain is full, and I'm pondering changes to works in progress as well as new ideas. Oh, and I'm getting a huge reading list! Sorry this took so long to get up, but I was having trouble maintaining a connection to get the LJ app on my iPod Touch to post!

Comments

[jongibbs.livejournal.com]

Sounds like you had a good day :)

[temporus.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should post this there, but I wonder what Hartwell means by Steady State? Does he mean it takes up the same raw number of titles? If so, I would have to disagree with his findings then. Anything that is not growing, is in fact shrinking. If year on year, there aren't more titles of SF, then it can hardly be called keeping steady. It's possible that it's growing at a slower rate than, say, fantasy. But otherwise, it's actually shrinking.

[eimarra]

I don't know that I agree with you. If A is selling 100,000 copies every year, their market is not changing. It doesn't matter that the percentage of their titles compared with all titles available is decreasing. Their market is constant.

That said, I don't know whether he was talking about absolute numbers or percentages.

[temporus.livejournal.com]

If I make the same salary year on year, eventually, I'm making less money, due to the cost of living increasing and the rate of inflation.

Same with, in my opinion, book production. If the overall sales and titles are not growing at the same or near the general rate of the industry, then it's losing ground.

Mind you, it is not a static absolutism. There are always booms and busts. But I'm not, in general, comforted with the idea of a steady number of titles per year in a genre. It signifies, to me, an eventual crowding out, as everyone else gets bigger, and SF doesn't.

[eimarra]

I didn't ask him (and nor did anyone else) to define what he meant by steady state. I was assuming that as an editor with decades of experience in the field of publishing, he was referring to steady state compared to the field as a whole. I also assumed that he was including economic changes in his assertion (some are bundled into the changing prices of books, aren't they?). But as I say, I didn't ask. I don't know if he was talking about percentage of total market share or number of titles or total number of copies or percentage of gross profit for the parent companies or what.

I still found it heartening. And certainly better than, say, horror, which I think by any of those measures has shrunk in the past 25-30 years.

[temporus.livejournal.com]

Well, except for zombies, which, apparently are bursting out all over the place. And this new "mashup" idea, which I haven't decided what I think about yet. Both areas seem to be flourishing, despite an apparent decline in horror.