|
The following is from the Readercon 6 flyer as posted by Ed (Zed) Lopez on
internet. Anyone interested in attending or helping run Readercon can contact
Readercon at the address in the flyer, or myself at msbcs::walrath.
As of Monday we are at 89 confirmed guests, with more likely...
A long note with panel descriptions follows in the next note.
Readercon 6
"Terrifically literate, literally terrific"
-- Kathe Koja, author of _Cipher_, _Bad Brains_, _Skin_.
Readercon is a gathering dedicated entirely to books and literature --
many who don't normally go to conventions might be interested in what
Readercon offers. Check the guest list and programming items below and
see for yourself.
Readercon 6 will be July 9-11, 1993 in Worcester, Massachusetts. We're a
fairly intimate assemblage -- usually fewer than four hundred people, a
quarter of them our guests.
Guests of Honor are Brian W. Aldiss and Judith Merril. As always,
Readercon's programming includes a focus on its guests of honor's works.
One highlight will be the presentation of "Kindred Blood in Kensington
Gore", Brian Aldiss's half-hour two-person play featuring Aldiss as Philip
K. Dick in the afterlife -- this will be its fourth ever performance.
Others guests are Terry Bisson, Algis Budrys, Hal Clement, Samuel R.
Delany, David G. Hartwell, John Kessel, Ellen Kushner, Barry B. Longyear,
Barry N. Malzberg, Patricia A. McKillip, James Morrow, Rachel Pollack,
Kit Reed, and Michael Swanwick...
Constance Ash, Lisa A. Barnett, eluki bes shahar, Aline Boucher-Kaplan,
Jeffrey A. Carver, Helen Collins, Don D'Ammassa, Paul Di Filippo, Ann
Downer, Thomas A. Easton, Gregory Feeley, Esther Friesner, Michael Flynn,
Craig Shaw Gardner, Greer Ilene Gilman, Jewelle Gomez, Geary Gravel,
Alexander Jablokov, Michael Kandel, James Patrick Kelly, Rosemary
Kirstein, Stan Leventhal, S. N. Lewitt, Thom Metzger, Jack McDevitt, L.E.
Modesitt Jr., Steven Popkes, Darrell Schweitzer, Melissa Scott, Delia
Sherman, David Alexander Smith, Sarah Smith, Elisabeth Vonarburg and
Stanley Wiater...
Editors Ellen Asher (Science Fiction Book Club), Greg Cox (St. Martin's),
Kathryn Cramer, Scott Edelman ("Science Fiction Age"), Donald G. Keller
(Tor), Warren Lapine ("Harsh Mistress SF Adventures"), Patrick and Teresa
Nielsen-Hayden (Tor), Charles C. Ryan ("Aboriginal SF"), Don Sakers,
Susanna J. Sturgis, Gordon Van Gelder (St. Martin's) and Sheila Williams
("Asimov's SF") not to mention again Michael Kandel (Harcourt Brace) or
Darrel Schweitzer ("Weird Tales")...
New writers Adam Troy Castro, Daniel Hatch, Connie Hirsch, Jonathan
Lethem, Yves Meynard, Resa Nelson, Mark Rich, Jean-Louis Trudel and Paul
Tumey...
And Joseph Carrabis, Bryan Cholfin, Shira Daemon, Daniel P. Dern, Janice
M. Eisen, Colleen Ferro, Glenn Grant, Jeff Hecht, Ken Houghton, Greg
Ketter, Fred Lerner, Ed Meskys, Will Murray, Cortney Skinner, Paul
Williams and Joey Zone.
Nearly ninety guests already and more expected!
The complete programming description is huge, and I'll be posting it in
two separate articles. Here I'll merely include the titles.
Panels:
The Golden Age of SF Was 1968
The Inevitable(?) Failures Of Literary Experimenters
The Real Guide To Tolkienesque Fantasy
Hype Is Incredibly Helpful/Damaging!!!
Philip K. Dick -- Beyond The Famous Novels
When Bad Attention Happens To Good Writing: SF'S Failed Mainstream
Breakthroughs
Hot Spurts Of Subtext: Literature vs. Eroticism
Fooling The Watcher
Slipstream For Beginners
The Book(s) of Mine You Missed
Mars Needs An Agent!
Skepticism, the Paranormal, and Imaginative Literature
The Work of Brian W. Aldiss
SF vs. the Mainstream: The Kessel Report
The Nature of Evil in Horror Fiction
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise: The Conceptual Breakthrough Novel
Hypertext Fiction
Is the Sturgeon Revival at Hand?
The Shock of the Familiar: Escapism vs. Relevance in Fantasy
Frankenstein vs. the Readers
Is SF Rejecting Transcendence?
Can Writers of Imaginative Literature Learn Anything from Romance Fiction?
The Career of Judith Merril
Multiculturalism and Reader Identification
Writers and Their Critics
The Fiction of H. G. Wells
What Practical Things Can We Do to Get Mainstream Attention for SF?
The (Absolutely Unofficial) Retroactive Tiptree Awards.
Ideas from the Daily Paper
The Influence of Film on Fiction -- Horror vs. F&SF
Out of the Bomb Shelter, into the Greenhouse: Writing about the Coming
Ecological Crisis
Philip K. Dick: The Bio-Movie
A Book to Change Their Minds: Imagining an Anthology
Losing the Habit of Fiction
Neglected Masters of Fantasy, Round 3: James Branch Cabell
Judging a Book by Page 117
Man and Machine: The Edge Cuts Here
Fifty-five Panels in Five-Sixths of an Hour
Writers' Mini-Track:
Build a World
Plot a Novel
Sub-Creators Anonymous
Future Boston: Sox Win Sixth Straight World Series -- Finally!
From Being Funny to Writing Funny Fiction in 3 Easy Steps
And several "How I Wrote [My Book]" presentations by authors to be
named later
Events:
Meet the Pros(e) Party
Stupid Writer Tricks
The Brian Aldiss Hour
The Readercon Small Press Awards Ceremony
"Kindred Blood in Kensington Gore"
An Interview with Judith Merril
The Eighth Kirk Poland Memorial Bad Prose Competition
Discussion Groups:
If You've Never Been to One of These
Owners of Dysfunctional Book Collections: Bookaholics Anonymous Annual
Meeting
Memetics
Jurassic Park: The SF Author Project
The Good Old Stuff Today
Help Create the Reading Preference and Perception Survey!
Also worth mentioning is the Bookshop -- our dealer's room dedicated
entirely to book vendors, where you can find the new (including small
press and limited edition books) and the old (including rare books and
collectors' items).
Membership to Readercon is $30, in advance or at the door. Our address
is Readercon, PO Box 381246, Cambridge, MA 02238. For more
information you can write to this address, call our chairman, Robert
Colby, at 508-643-2247, or send email to me (I'll be on vacation from
6/11 through 6/24 so a response may be delayed). We will be at the
Worcester Marriott, at 10 Lincoln Square, Worcester, which can be
reached for reservations at 508-791-1600. Rooms are $70 for a single,
$75 for a double or triple, $80 for a quad, and $125 for a suite
(mention you're with the convention).
|
|
Readercon 6 program
Panels:
THE GOLDEN AGE OF SF WAS 1968. Enough great novels were published in 1968
to fill a decent *decade*: DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, CAMP
CONCENTRATION, STAND ON ZANZIBAR, NOVA, A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, THE LAST
UNICORN, PAST MASTER, RITE OF PASSAGE, PAVANE, PICNIC ON PARADISE, THE
FINAL PROGRAMME, REPORT ON PROBABILITY A, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SYNTHAJOY
(D.G. Compton), THE LAST STARSHIP FROM EARTH (John Boyd), BLACK EASTER,
THE MASKS OF TIME, CITY OF ILLUSIONS, THE GOBLIN RESERVATION ... what
*was* going on? The glib answer, "the first year of the Ace Specials," is
clearly confusing cause and effect. What produced this fireball of talent
that Terry Carr noticed? Random chance? Some cycle of age and influence?
Or was the environment of the mid-sixties conducive to brilliant
speculation in a way that just hasn't happened since? If either of the
latter, when might we see another year like this one?
THE INEVITABLE(?) FAILURES OF EXPERIMENTERS. If you take chances in your
fiction, if you try new and wild things, some of the time, no matter how
good you are, you fall at least partly on your face. True? If true, does
the writer sense it happening at the time? Or only when it's all over?
Or never? What's it all feel like? Can a failed experiment be rescued
along the way, or by a rewrite?
THE REAL GUIDE TO TOLKIENESQUE FANTASY. Tolkien-like fantasy has gotten
such a bad rap that it's worth reminding ourselves of the other side of
Sturgeon's law: ten percent of everything *isn't* crap. Our panelists
will separate the good from the bad in this field, run down the strengths
and weaknesses of all the major players, and look at what the good stuff
has in common.
HYPE IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL/DAMAGING!!! One critic's "successful" book is
another's "secret reason for the invention of the English language." Does
foam-at-the-mouth enthusiasm inevitably overwhelm the reader, rendering
itself meaningless? Or, with so many bland reviews of so many books each
month, is it the only way to up the signal-to-noise ratio? In the same
way, is praising our heroes to the skies the best way to get mainstream
attention for them, or does it just end up damaging our credibility?
What are some of the techniques of hype? If you've made the mistake of
general overenthusiasm, how do you up the ante when something that really
destroys you comes along? Are there styles of hype less likely to
generate the backlash of skepticism?
PHILIP K. DICK--BEYOND THE FAMOUS NOVELS. Most of us know, or at least
know of, THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE, UBIK, DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC
SHEEP, and so on. But the wonders and delights of, say, GALACTIC POT-
HEALER or NOW WAIT FOR LAST YEAR are less loudly trumpeted. A guide to
the second tier of PKD's work, guaranteed to be good enough to be most
anybody else's first (and often containing some of the clearest statements
of his major themes). What made these novels runners-up, anyway? Some
major flaw, or just an overall lower level of coolness?
WHEN BAD ATTENTION HAPPENS TO GOOD WRITING: SF'S FAILED MAINSTREAM
BREAKTHROUGHS. Okay, so there are several other panels related to this
topic this year, just like last year and every year before. But hey, it's
not an obsession, it's a theme! Sf's history of mainstream acceptance has
been, to a large extent, one of single author breakthroughs-- Bradbury,
briefly Heinlein, Vonnegut, Le Guin, Gibson, Dick, probably Sterling
(though not yet for his fiction). Each time the sf community has dared to
hope that this narrow hole newly drilled through the walls of its literary
ghetto would start them inevitably crumbling, in the end bringing them
down entirely. Wrong.
What were the mechanisms of the literary establishment that effortlessly
replastered each fissure? Are there any signs that the ongoing cyberpunk
and Dick breakouts are different from their predecessors? Might this time
the walls really be coming down? Or are we, like a character in some
cosmic country and western song, just fools who'll never learn?
HOT SPURTS OF SUBTEXT: LITERATURE VS. EROTICISM. Does getting turned on
while reading a book interfere with appreciating it as art? Literature
and eroticism (or pornography, in Samuel R. Delany's definition: a text
which induces sexual arousal), if not necessarily opposed, are
uncomfortable bedfellows. What does it take to write such stuff? How do
we deal with the huge differences in human erotic tastes? Is it possible,
by skillful writing, to create an illusory erotic absolute, a passage that
each reader brings their own obsessions to, and therefore turns on as many
readers as possible? Panelists and attendees are urged to bring to the
convention copies of passages they feel qualify as erotic literature, for
reading aloud and discussion (our dispassionate professionals will do the
reading for any attendees too embarrassed to read their own).
FOOLING THE WATCHER. Many authors believe that their mental process of
creation involves a dialog between two internal voices: a pandemonic
creator and an editor or watcher who selects, criticizes, and improves.
But the watcher also inhibits, sometimes so much that nothing comes out--
writer's block. How do authors cope with this dichotomy? What tricks
have they learned? How do they integrate the differences? War stories
from the word processor screen.
SLIPSTREAM FOR BEGINNERS. We love to talk about obscure books that are
sort of like sf but published as mainstream (Jay Cantor's KRAZY KAT,
Thomas Palmer's DREAM SCIENCE, Jeremy Leven's SATAN, Lawrence Shainberg's
MEMORIES OF AMNESIA, etc.). In doing so, we've taken for granted the
famous books and authors of the (usually) non-mimetic post-modern
avant-garde. So, for fans of literate and experimental sf, an overview of
the best-known good stuff to be discovered across the bookstore: Barth,
Barthelme, Borges, Burroughs, Calvino, Carter, Coover, Gaddis, Garcia
Marquez, Golding, Nabokov, Pynchon, Vonnegut (but him you should know,
right?), and others. If you like Phil Dick or Gene Wolfe . . .
THE BOOK(S) OF MINE YOU MISSED. Everybody knows these author's "big"
books, but they're each particularly fond of one or two that no one pays
much attention to at all. After each gets in the requisite plug, we hope
they'll schmooze, trading notes and observations in an effort to find out
just why the world sometimes deigns to ignore a book an author likes so
well.
MARS NEEDS AN AGENT! Suddenly the red planet is all the rage. Is it
simply because it looks like we'll be there soon, or is something else
going on? How does it affect the fiction when the mid-future becomes the
near? What have the strengths and weaknesses of the recent Mars books
been?
SKEPTICISM, THE PARANORMAL, AND IMAGINATIVE LITERATURE. SCIENCE FICTION
AGE has a science column--yet the back of the magazine is full of UFO
cultist ads. It's one thing to write about phenomena most people regard
as imaginary, another thing entirely when belief enters. How skeptical or
credulous are fans as a group, anyway? Are the sf readers the skeptics
and the fantasy readers the believers? How about the *writers*? We'll be
taking a poll at registration--of tastes in literature, and belief in
various paranormal phenomena. Does it change the reading experience when
you believe magic, or vampires, or ESP, or UFOs, or whatever the subject
matter is, are real? What are the relative merits and drawbacks of these
two worldviews? (If it sounds like we're intentionally underplaying a
potentially volatile issue here, you bet we are).
THE WORK OF BRIAN W. ALDISS. Our traditional look at the opus of a GoH.
SF VS. THE MAINSTREAM: THE KESSEL REPORT. More of this year's
o/b/s/e/s/s/i/o/n/ theme. In THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION #55,
John Kessel reported the results of a comparison between the contents of
sf and mainstream Best-of-the-Year anthologies. They were fascinating,
and the following issue featured a page-and-a half of thoughtful
responses. Among other differences, the sf stories were much longer, and,
when in first person, almost exclusively in the past tense where the
mainstream stories were frequently in the present.
The implications of these and other stylistic differences are manifold.
For starters, does it behoove sf writers to write more like the mainstream
in order to gain wider acceptance and/or follow its cutting edge? Or are
we the last bastion of the true way, holding course while the mainstream
wanders into self-indulgence? Could there be truth in both views?
THE NATURE OF EVIL IN HORROR FICTION. Evil comes directly from Satan.
No, it's just the randomness of human nature, throwing snake-eyes. No,
it's something else entirely, something we barely know, Cthulhu, something
nameless, disgruntled postal workers. Nothing influences a work of
fiction more than the author's concept of the nature of evil. We'll trace
how this has developed through the history of the genre. Does a given
period's most prevalent conception of evil merely reflect that time? Or
does it ever presage the mood of tomorrow? What happens to fiction that
runs against the grain--is it overlooked, or misunderstood?
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE: THE CONCEPTUAL BREAKTHROUGH NOVEL. Most of
us know and love this classic sf story structure: the world is not as it
seems, it's a mystery to be solved, it turns out that / the universe is a
starship--and the starship is . . . where? / the Second Foundation is
here--no, actually it's *here* / you're dead--no, we're dead--actually,
*everybody's* dead / etc. Reality as onion; each time we peel a layer our
perception of everything changes. These books can be difficult to talk
about, of course, since doing so invariably gives them away--some of them
are so subtle (like the novel that inspired this panel, Damien Broderick's
THE DREAMING DRAGONS) they're difficult to even recommend without
spoiling.
Nevertheless, we'll try. Why does this story structure have such a
basic appeal? Is it just a metaphor for scientific paradigm shifts, or
does it echo something deeper within us? What makes one trick ending a
work of art and another just a trick? What are the fair and unfair ways
of withholding information from the reader? How is it different when the
reader follows the protagonist on their quest to solve the world, as
opposed to slowly figuring out a world the characters already know? What
are the classic works of this sort, and what are the great neglected ones?
HYPERTEXT FICTION. Hypertext fiction sure seems like a new art form
aborning--and how often does *that* happen? Here's a brand of fiction
where, even when the content itself is "mundane," the form is pure sf.
Some of the leading practitioners in the field give us a comprehensive
overview of where we are and where we're going. Complete, we hope, with
hands-on demonstrations.
IS THE STURGEON REVIVAL AT HAND? At long last Theodore Sturgeon's
complete stories will be appearing (in at least eight volumes, last we
heard). Is it reasonable or just naive to think that this event might
rekindle interest in this most overlooked of sf giants (and the writer for
whom Readercon invented the post of Past Master / Memorial GoH)? How
popular was Sturgeon in his time? What causes the ebbs and flows of
writers' popularity, anyway? How do economic and aesthetic factors
trigger boomlets of interest and lulls of obscurity?
THE SHOCK OF THE FAMILIAR: ESCAPISM VS. RELEVANCE IN FANTASY. Imagine
you're lost in the latest big fantasy trilogy, lost in its world . . .
and in the middle of volume 2 the characters discover a deadly and
mysterious new epidemic, clearly modelled after AIDS, among the elves. Is
the spell broken? Is lack of relevance what people mean when they say
fantasy is escapist, lack of relevance to our society and its specific
conditions? Are escapism and relevance the opposite ends of the same
scale? Or can a work be both relevant and escapist, alternatively or
simultaneously? Can a great work of fantasy be neither?
FRANKENSTEIN VS. THE READERS. The first sf novel is either FRANKENSTEIN
or something else. In other words, FRANKENSTEIN feels like sf to some
modern sf readers, but to others, it simply doesn't. Why?
Now, in the usual approach to this question, each panelist would attempt
to justify their opinion in terms of at least a vague definition of sf.
They would then argue their point rationally. And we would end up trying
to define sf again, with poor Mary Shelley off in the corner feeling
neglected.
Therefore, due to the nature of this panel, NO DEFINITIONS OF SF WILL BE
ALLOWED IN THE ROOM DURING THE FIRST 40 MINUTES. We will approach this
from the opposite direction entirely. We will talk about *the book*, how
it made us feel or didn't, what novels it did or didn't remind us of. We
will quiz each other in an attempt to discover how the same text can make
us react so differently. We will be unabashedly subjective and emotional.
Might we discover (ten minutes from the end, mind you) our own secret
definitions of sf, ones we ourselves were unaware of?
IS SF REJECTING TRANSCENDENCE? Once upon a time, the transcendent was a
major motif in sf. It seems less so with each passing year. Are today's
writers and readers afraid of it? Are they confusing it with religiosity
and thus unfairly wary of it? Is the transcendent possible within a
rigorously logical framework--can it coexist with skepticism? Is it
unique to stories of man's greater, outward, destiny, or can we wring it
from the mean streets of post-cyberpunk?
HER BOSOM TREMBLING, Madeline wished again, briefly, that someday,
somehow, she might see the gleam of intelligence in those perfect deep
blue eyes. And as she dismissed this impossible thought, he spoke the
longest sentence she had ever heard him utter. "CAN WRITERS OF
IMAGINATIVE LITERATURE LEARN ANYTHING FROM ROMANCE FICTION?" She stared
in amazement, and he laughed. "I've been thinking about this as I plot my
trilogy. The romance novel has a very, very rigid structure, and writers
are always praising rigid structures for the discipline they impose--look
at the villanelle!--yet the romance novel gets nothing but scorn." His
strong hands, not just the hands of a gardener, she saw now suddenly, for
the first time, but the hands of a typist, twisted impatiently on the
handle of his shovel. "People are writing them, and reading them, and no
ones dies of boredom, so something must be going on amidst all that
formula. Do you think so? And if you do, where do you start? Whom do
you read?" The trembling continued, and she had a sudden intuition that
it would not soon cease.
THE CAREER OF JUDITH MERRIL. The impact of our GoH on sf, as editor,
critic, and writer.
MULTICULTURALISM AND READER IDENTIFICATION. The conventional wisdom says
that a book's protagonist must be someone with whom the reader can
identify. Until fairly recently, therefore, all the important people in
the future were white American-style males (and we can remember all the
exceptions vividly).
Eventually we realized this was pretty stupid; our *own* planet has
alien cultures, after all. We started using those cultures and cultures
modelled on them as our protagonists'. But doesn't this jeopardize reader
identification? Just how does reader identification work, after all? Is
it possible to live without it? What can we do to maintain it?
In the extreme cases, isn't comprehension itself jeopardized? Sf
readers, by now, are used to getting their futuristic elements straight
up, without intrusive exposition. What happens when *every* element is
unfamiliar?
WRITERS AND THEIR CRITICS. The writers on this panel have received mixed
or negative reviews from the critics on the panel and lived to be (at the
least) civil to one another. The questions here, we think, are obvious
enough that you can think of them too.
THE FICTION OF H. G. WELLS. A look at the work of our Past Master
(Memorial GoH).
WHAT PRACTICAL THINGS CAN WE DO TO GET MAINSTREAM ATTENTION FOR SF? The
great theme continues. Now that we've seen what went wrong, now that
we've bitched and moaned, we'll brainstorm some solutions. (For one idea
of ours, keep reading.)
THE (ABSOLUTELY UNOFFICIAL) RETROACTIVE TIPTREE AWARDS. The James
Tiptree, Jr. Memorial Award is given annually to the novel or story which
best explores and expands gender roles in sf and fantasy. In 1992 and
1993 the award was given at its home convention, Wiscon, but for 1994 the
award administrators have chosen Readercon as host. We are of course
thrilled. It got us thinking: if the Tiptree Award had existed since the
start of the genre, which works would have won it each year?
If this sounds like a nifty excuse to review the history of such works
within the field--all the while providing a structure that will prevent us
from overlooking anything obvious and help us dig up the obscure--well,
that's exactly what it is.
Last year at this time we asked our guests for nominations. We've
compiled a list (organized, for the time being, by author rather than
chronologically), which you'll find enclosed. We think it's a decent list
of key works for people to (re)read before coming to the con, and we hope
that some of you will be able to do just that!
In the meantime, we'll be adding to this list, right up until the
Program Guide goes to press around July 1. We strongly urge you to think
of novels and stories not yet included. The easiest way to tell us about
them is to join the discussion we hope to start on GEnie and
rec.arts.sf.written in a few days; or send e-mail to Eric Van at
72717.3247@Compuserve.com. Note that you needn't determine the year of
publication; we'll do that research ourselves. Just send us the titles
and authors.
At the convention itself, our five panelists will proceed
chronologically, discussing the works of each year. They'll then also
serve as "judges," "voting" for the year's most gender role-illuminating
work. Should they fail to reach a consensus (defined as a two-vote
margin), we'll ask for a show of hands among those audience members who
have read all the final choices.
Our results will be clearly advertised as being *for entertainment
purposes only*; they will have *no* official cachet. Indeed, when we
advertise our results we will encourage other conventions to expand on
them by continuing the discussion of key texts, and especially by
proposing overlooked ones.
In other words, voting on the best work of each year is an admitted
*gimmick*--one we hope will encourage everyone to (re)read the texts, to
form their own opinions, and--dare we say it?--perhaps to have their
consciousnesses raised.
IDEAS FROM THE DAILY PAPER. Five writers explore the story ideas they've
found in this morning's Boston Globe, and from science and other future-
oriented stories we've clipped over the last few weeks.
THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ON FICTION--HORROR VS. F&SF. Everyone knows that
the sf cinema lags twenty years or more behind sf literature. On the
other hand, horror films, with their explicit gore, have been a major
influence on recent horror fiction. Why is one genre's cause another's
effect? Or is this a gross simplification, with sf film the true source
of the military sf subgenre? Is there horror fiction too sophisticated
for Hollywood to touch, as most cutting-edge sf is? If so, what is it,
and if not, why not?
OUT OF THE BOMB SHELTER, INTO THE GREENHOUSE: WRITING ABOUT THE COMING
ECOLOGICAL CRISIS. We've made a lot of progress in the last few years--it
now seems certain that we'll turn the earth into a sterile wasteland
without having to resort to nuclear weapons after all. Just how bad will
things be? What's the current public perception of the problem? How do
the mass media help shape it? What's the best way to approach this as
writers of fiction? Directly, in a near-future novel, or indirectly, on
another planet or reality?
PHILIP K. DICK: THE BIO-MOVIE. Wouldn't a movie on the life of Philip K.
Dick be great? Wouldn't the script be a huge challenge to write? Assume
we don't have the luxury of waiting 20 or 50 more years till everyone
knows how good he was . . . how do you establish, now, that this seemingly
marginal figure was perhaps the major American fictive voice of his
lifetime? AMADEUS worked because the opera is inherently cinematic. But
books? Hah! And which parts of his life do you play up, and which down?
It's not going to fit in 90 minutes otherwise. And, oh yeah . . who
directs? Who acts? Who writes the title song (sung by Linda Ronstadt)?
(We'll try to keep the strictly Hollywood end of it to a reasonable level,
out of respect for those ignorant of todays' cinema.)
A BOOK TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS: IMAGINING AN ANTHOLOGY. Elsewhere in this
program we ask "what can we do to gain mainstream acceptance for f&sf?"
Well, how about an anthology of short fiction designed expressly for that
purpose? Not sf for people who hate sf, but sf for open-minded people who
are willing to be convinced that sf can be great--*if we prove it*. An
anthology designed not so much to sell, but to be read by the right people
(book reviewers, editors, book review editors). It must thus feature our
best talents in stories that play by mainstream rules, that live up to
*their* standards of prose style and characterization (or circumvent them
in a powerful postmodern way)--while of course doing much more. (That
f&sf can play hard by its *own* rules is something we can demonstrate
later.) It should be dazzlingly good.
Which authors should be included? Which story by each would be best?
Would anyone actually publish such a book and give it the highly targeted
marketing push it would need to do its job?
LOSING THE HABIT OF FICTION. Sometimes writers fall silent, or nearly
silent, for years. Why? What does it feel like? How does it shape later
work? Are there universal elements to this experience, or is it different
for every writer? A personal look back (or sideways).
NEGLECTED MASTERS OF FANTASY, ROUND 3: JAMES BRANCH CABELL. The literary
reputation of this year's overlooked fantasy great (we've previously done
Eddison and Peake) has had more ups and downs than all the early U.S.
satellite attempts combined. Can we alter the trajectory once more?
JUDGING A BOOK BY PAGE 117. A repeat of a wonderful panel from Readercon
3 (and subsequently seen elsewhere, we might add). Our panelists have
each, after much thought, selected two or three books, and have brought to
the panel photocopies of page 117. They will take turns reading them
aloud, without identifying them, and then we'll all discuss them. We'll
discover (hey, we know; we did this already!) that we can learn a whole
lot about the book and the author from this single random page--that, in
fact, judging a book by opening it at random and reading is a skill that
can be learned (although you will not, at your local bookstore, have five
science fiction pros helping you by asking thought-provoking questions).
MAN AND MACHINE: THE EDGE CUTS HERE. In the sf of the sixties,
man/machine interaction pretty much meant talking to HAL or Shalmaneser.
(Witness just how much of a fresh jolt NOVA was). The reality of the
nineties, though, is full of myriad ways, many of them unforeseen, from
virtual reality to hyperinstruments. What's the state of the art this
very minute? Can we do a better job of looking ahead? What will be the
social impact of these various new technologies? Will they be humanizing
or dehumanizing?
FIFTY-FIVE PANELS IN FIVE-SIXTHS OF AN HOUR. This end-of-the-con panel
(we try to invent a new tradition each year) was a great success at
Readercon 5, but ended up being completely different from what we
expected! We presented our panelists with ideas that ordinary, lesser
cons spend entire hours b/e/a/t/i/n/g/ t/o/ d/e/a/t/h/ puzzling over, with
the thought that they'd spend sixty seconds or so in dialogue, dismissing
them in a way that would poke fun at the field and at fandom. Instead, we
got a competition to see who could get off the best one-liner as an
answer--wordplay, free association, and not a whole lot to do with sf at
all! Who knows what will happen this time? Will we tell the panelists
the topics in advance? How about the moderator? Ask us ten minutes
beforehand.
Writers' Mini-track:
BUILD A WORLD. What goes into world-building? How do authors use ideas
to create a coherent world and the species that live on it? This panel
will not only answer the question but also create a world on the spot,
using audience participation.
PLOT A NOVEL. Immediately following Build a World. How do authors create
stories to put in their worlds? The same crew of authors (and audience
members) will structure and block out the important actions of a story set
in the world they have just created. The panel will create characters,
set them in conflict, and develop the story's action line.
SUB-CREATORS ANONYMOUS. The pleasures and perils of creating entire
histories, planets, civilizations, galaxies. Sometimes even a book, too.
A year after Tolkien's centenerary, we ask the hard questions: is there
such a thing as too much background? At what point should you just say
no? Are there clever and viable ways of squeezing the unused background
into the text of your book (while they waited by the campfire he told them
a tale of long ago . . .), or should that be resisted?
FUTURE BOSTON: SOX WIN SIXTH STRAIGHT WORLD SERIES--FINALLY! FUTURE
BOSTON, a mosaic novel telling the history of Boston from now through
2100, will be published by Tor as a September hardcover. Its authors
describe what a mosaic novel is, how they created the world, how they
worked together, and whether they would do it again. (This panel is a
reprise from Readercon 1, when the project was just getting started . . .
otherwise, we would not have been quite as optimistic with the title!)
FROM BEING FUNNY TO WRITING FUNNY FICTION IN 3 EASY STEPS. Well, maybe
not 3. And maybe not easy. Otherwise, every funny person in the world
could do what our panelists can, right? Nevertheless, they'll attempt to
teach you how to be their competition . . .
And a series of "HOW I WROTE [MY BOOK]" . . . presentations to be
announced soon.
Events:
MEET THE PROS(E) PARTY. Each pro writer at this party has selected a
short, favorite quotation from his or her own writing. Each is armed with
a strip of 2-line mailing labels. The quotation is on the labels; as you
meet each pro, you can obtain a label from them. What do you do with them?
Atheists, agnostics, and the lazy can trust strictly to chance, and paste
them into the inside back cover of their Souvenir Book in the order they
obtain them. Those who believe in the reversal of entropy can stick them
temporarily on the wax paper we'll provide and then assemble them to make
a Statement. Those who believe in lack of respect to living authors can
take scissors to all the quotes, combining one writer's subject with
another's verb predicate. The possibilities, while not strictly endless,
do exceed the number of molecules in the universe. And it's a great excuse
to meet and talk with Readercon's guests!
STUPID WRITER TRICKS. At the party Friday, after it's been underway for a
while. Yes, Letterman auditions come to Readercon. Watch your favorite
writers compete for the rare opportunity to make fools of themselves on
national TV. They juggle! They're double-jointed! Curl their tongues!
Play the sackbut and bazouki! Sing "Teen Angel" for no apparent reason!
Who will earn this somewhat coveted honor?
THE BRIAN ALDISS HOUR. Saturday, before dinner. A speech, and a Q & A
session from index cards (available to attendees at the con).
THE READERCON SMALL PRESS AWARDS CEREMONY. Saturday, at dinner (or
immediately before). This year, we'll be notifying and announcing the
winners in advance of the convention (as well as notifying the runner-ups
that they had been short-listed), *a la* the Tiptree and other awards.
The ceremony will thus consist of the presentation of the awards rather
than their announcement.
"KINDRED BLOOD IN KENSINGTON GORE." Saturday, immediately after dinner.
The fourth ever performance of Brian Aldiss's playlet, starring Aldiss as
Philip K. Dick in the afterlife and Colleen Ferro as his nemesis.
Produced by Shira Daemon.
AN INTERVIEW WITH JUDITH MERRIL. Immediately following the play.
THE EIGHTH KIRK POLAND MEMORIAL BAD PROSE COMPETITION. Terrible, terrible,
awful, awful prose is read aloud, and abruptly interrupted, followed by
the reading of pretenders to the real ending by our distinguished panel as
well as the original; the audience votes as to their guesses of the
claimants' authenticity. Six-time and reigning Trashmaster Geary Gravel
will defend his title against Rosemary Kirstein, the only person to defeat
him, Rachel Pollack, and seven-time challenger Craig Shaw Gardner! Serious
warning: this event is medically inadvisable for those recovering from
fractured ribs, pulled stomach muscles, or the like who are not also
masochists (i.e., if it hurts to laugh, you're in trouble). Serious plug:
we believe this is the best attended regular event, measured
proportionally, at any sf convention.
Discussion Groups:
IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN TO ONE OF THESE. We may offer a discussion group for
neophytes Friday evening, Saturday morning, or both. Notice how the title
begs the question as to what we are (sf convention or literary
conference)!
OWNERS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL BOOK COLLECTIONS: BOOKAHOLICS ANONYMOUS ANNUAL
MEETING. Allegations continue about this most controversial of all
12-step groups. It has been suggested by some that despite the appearance
of self-approbation, despite the formal public proclamations by members
that they find their behavior humiliating and intend to change it, this
group in fact secretly encourages its members to succumb to their
addiction. The shame, in other words, is a sham. Within the subtext of
the members' pathetic testimony, it is claimed, all the worst vices are
covertly endorsed: book- buying, book-hoarding, book-stacking,
book-smelling, book-loving, even book-reading.
Could this be true? Come and testify yourself. Then you tell us.
MEMETICS. What if ideas were viruses? An idea invades your mind and
alters your behavior. It cannot replicate itself, but you, the host, tell
your friends all about it . . . and the idea spreads. An idea that
behaves this way is called a meme. A meme, in fact, is any pattern of
information which has evolved a form which induces people to repeat that
pattern. Slogans, catch-phrases, melodies, fashions, and inventions can
qualify, too.
Are memes true life forms? It's an irrelevant question. They behave in
a way similar to life forms, allowing us to combine techniques from
epidemiology, evolutionary science, immunology, linguistics and semiotics
into an effective system known as memetics. Memetics is vital to the
understanding of cults, ideologies, and marketing campaigns and can help
provide immunity from dangerous information-contagions. Glenn Grant leads
us on a tour of this remarkable way of looking at information.
By the way, you have just been exposed, of course, to the Meta-meme, the
meme about memes.
JURASSIC PARK: THE SF AUTHOR PROJECT. With John Redford. Here at
Jurassic Park Research we're able to reconstruct dead sf, fantasy, and
horror authors from samples of their DNA. We sequence their genomes,
re-grow them in tanks, and fill their brains with all the memories they
had at the time of their deaths. They come back with all the skill they
had when they died, but only that skill.
We were preparing to reconstruct a great many authors en masse, but
after our, um, setback at Isle Nublar, funding has been tight and the
authorities nervous. Our new plan is to do one author at a time--we'll
start with someone guaranteed to produce impressive results, and then work
our way down to the less interesting candidates, author-by-author.
This just in. Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and
Resurrecting Dead People have surrounded our complex. They have given us
one hour to demonstrate we have such a viable plan, or else they break
down the walls and inject the building with Danielle Steele novels--in the
weighty new Easton Press editions. Can we come up with our prioritized
list in time?
THE GOOD OLD STUFF TODAY. Warrren Lapine and the staff of HARSH MISTRESS
SCIENCE FICTION ADVENTURES lead a discussion on the state of pulp-style
action/adventure stories. Have readers lost the sense of wonder, or have
science fiction editors become too cynical?
HELP CREATE THE READING PREFERENCE AND PERCEPTION SURVEY! We've been
cooking this one up since Readercon 1, until it's grown into an idea much
bigger than the convention itself. It's no longer a thing we can do
ourselves, but rather something we can inspire, sponsor, and direct. Most
of the expertise and work must come from you.
In a nutshell, Readercon proposes to do for pleasure reading what Kinsey
did for sex. That's right, what we have in mind is nothing less than the
most comprehensive study of American tastes and perceptions (prejudices?)
in fiction reading ever undertaken. Obviously we have an agenda, and a
result we hope to come up with (that people aren't giving sf its due), but
this is often the case in science. Therefore we need to proceed with
complete scientific rigor, so if we do get the results we're hoping for,
they'll be unassailable.
A complete explanation of the proposed methodology of this study will
appear in this year's Program Guide (it's long). Suffice it to say for
now that we should be able to learn everything we want to know--and much,
much, more; properly executed, this could be an absolutely landmark study.
We need people to join this project and make it all happen--designing
the survey materials, organizing the study, enlisting volunteers,
obtaining grant money to fund it, and so on. And though all that really
matters to the study is your knowledge and competence, the real world will
demand that at least some of our team members have serious academic
credentials, so if you've got 'em, you'll help us two ways (we start with
Eric Van's A.B. in English from Harvard and Robert Ingria's Ph.D. in
linguistics from MIT). Fame and glory await us . . . perhaps even a talk
show appearance (albeit probably on cable). Who's game?
And others TBA (with sf art, comics, and gay/lesbian issues the likely
candidates).
|