| From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Hugo Balloting details
Date: 13 Sep 89 21:55:06 GMT
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
For people who care about these things, here are the details on
the balloting and nominations for Hugos and Campbell for Noreascon 3.
I've only typed in the numbers for first place. Names are ranked
according to their final ranking -- note that you can place third in
the first place voting but not necessarily end up third in the final
rankings.
chuq
-----
Novel (851 ballots):
Cyteen: 199 202 217 277 376
Red Prophet: 165 169 190 233
Falling Free: 174 178 186
Islands in the Net: 171 173 209 250 326
Mona Lisa Overdrive: 92 95
No Award: 50
Nominations (485 ballots): Islands in the Net 73, Cyteen 67, Mona Lisa
Overdrive 66, Red Prophet 61, Falling Free 55; The Guardsman
(Beese&Hamilton) 55 [withdrawn]. Runners-Up: Allen:Orphans of Creations
51, Shiner:Deserted Cities of the Heart 50, Kube-McDowell:Alternities
49, McCaffref:Dragonsdawn 49, Robinson:The Gold Coast 42, Resnick:Ivory
41, Asimov:Prelude to Foundation 33, Kagan:Hellspark 24, Cherryh:The
Paladin 23.
Novella (699 ballots):
Last of the Winnebagos: 185 187 217 274 365
Scalehunters Daughter: 126 126 141
Journal Plague Years: 136 136 148 174 215
Calvin Coolidge Home: 125 126 142 169
Surfacing: 80 82
No Award: 47
Nominations (247 ballots): Last of the Winnebagos 74, Journal fo the
Plague years 62, The Scalehunter's Beautiful Daughter 58, Surfacing 56,
The Calvin Coolidge Home for Dead Comedians 53. Runners-Up: Tiptree:The
Color of Neanderthal Eyes 42, Silverberg:We are for the Dark 31,
Wilson:Wires 26, Pohl:Waiting for the Olympians 25, Martin:The Skin
Trade 23, Tiptree:Backward, Turn Backward 23, Vinge:The Blabber 20,
Turtledove:Trapping Run 19, Shepard:Nomans Land 17, Watson:The Flies of
Memory 15, Ashwell:Fatal Statistics 15, Yolen:The Devil's Arithmetic 13.
Novelette (724 ballots):
Schrodinger's: 245 245 262 308 388
Peaches for Mad Molly: 137 139 168
Do, Ya, Do Ya: 118 118 129
Function Dream Sleep: 127 128 135 171
Ginny Sweethips: 70 72
No Award 27
Nominations (260 ballots): Schrodinger's Kittne 47, The function of Dream
Sleep 42, Ginny Sweethips' Flying Circus 39, Do Ya, Do Ya Wanna Dance 38,
Peaches for Mad Molly 37. Runners-up: Robinson: Glacier 32, Tiptree:The
Earth Doth Like a Snake Renew 31, Moffett:The Hob 29, Cadigan:Two 21,
Robinson:The Lunatics 20, White:Sanctuary 20.
Short Story (698 ballots):
Kirinyaga: 132 132 152 175 213 282
Giving Plague: 134 137 159 181 204 268
Ripples: 117 120 136 152 183
Our Neural: 87 88 93
Stable Strategies: 102 103 110 133
Fort Moxie: 73 73
No Award: 53
Nominations (279 ballots): Kirinyaga 37, The Giving Plague 25, The Fort
Moxie Branch 25, Stable Strategies for Middle Management 24, Ripples in
the Dirac Sea 23, Our Neural Cherenobyl 23. Runners-up: Effinger:Slow,
Slow burn 22, Kessel: Mrs. Shummel Exits a Winner 22, Wu: On a Phantom
Tide 22, Ellison:Eidolons 20.
Non Fiction (598 ballots):
Motion of Light in Water: 172 177 179 184 240
First Maitz 161 167 170 190 226
New Encyclopedia 116 128 128 147
biographical: 56 63 64
SF, Fantasy: 34
No Award: 59 59
Nominations (250 ballots): First Maitz 55, The Motion of Light in Water 44,
The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction 33, A Brief History of Time 32
[ineligible], A Biographial Dictional of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists
31, SF, Fantasy and Horror 1987 24. Runners up: Anthony:Bio of an Ogre 21,
Cute:Strokes 17; Dixon:The New Dinosaurs 17, Dupont:Women of Vision 17,
Miller: Bare-Faced Messiah 17 [ineligible], Cherry:Imagination 16
[ineligible].
Dramatic Presentation (905 ballots):
Roger Rabbit 560
Beetlejuice 72
Big 73
Willow 94
Alien Nation 58
No Award 48
Nominations (331 ballots): Who Framed Roger Rabbit 209, Willow 75,
Beetlejuice 61, Alien Nation 60, Big 58. Runners-up: The Land Before Time
24, Lair of the White Worm 19, They Live 19, Elementary, My Dear Data
(ST:TNG) 15, Nolacon II Gripe Session 15 [ineligible], The Lady in White 12.
Editor (698 ballots):
Dozois: 266 267 293 319
Hartwell: 131 132 143 163
Ferman: 81 83 91
Schmidt: 111 111 124 144
Ryan: 75 75
No Award: 34
Nominations (349 ballots) Dozois 144, Ferman 87, Hartwell 85, Schmidt 74,
Ryan 59. Runners-up: Aronica 55, Meacham 47, Datlow 45, McCarthy 27, Martin
23, Baen 21, Thomsen 21, Price 18, Rusch 17, Mitchell 16.
Pro Artist (745 ballots)
Whelan: 241 242 260 286 326
Maitz: 171 172 191 237 320
Cherry: 116 118 132 150
Eggleton: 75 75
Canty: 107 107 110
No Award: 35
Nominations (357 ballots); Maitz 97, Whelan 90, Cherry 69, Eggleton 56
(includes 8 for fan artist), Hamilton 50 [withdrawn], Canty 43. Runners-up:
Gurney 37, Potter 35, Kidd 33, di Fate 30, Mattingly 25, foglio 24, Barlay
Shaw 20, Burns 19, Aulisio 18, Lundgren 18.
Semiprozine (712 ballots)
Locus: 243 248 250 286 344
SF Chronicle: 160 170 174 194 269
NY Review SF: 124 130 130 179
Interzone: 100 113 115
Thrust: 42
No Award: 43 44
Nominations (305 ballots): Locus 171, SF Chronicle 129, Thrust 57, Interzone
54, NY Review of SF 44 (includes 8 for fanzine), Aboriginal SF 37
[ineligible]. Runners-up: SF Eye 30, Weird Tales 19, Pulphouse 18
[ineligible], Ne Pathways 11, Horror Show 9, Argos 7 [ineligible], File 770
6 [see fanzine].
Fanzine (462 ballots):
File 770: 94 105 116 124 159
Lan's Lantern: 85 96 117 119 155
Niekas: 89 95 104 108
Fosfax: 63 64
OtherRealms: 57
No Award: 74 76 80
Nominations (243 ballots): Lan's Lantern 60, File 770 55 [includes 6 for
semipro], Fosfax 38, Niekas 24, OtherRealms 24. Runners-up: Pulp 15, Nova
Express 14, SF Randomly 14, Delineator 12, Trapdoor 11, Pirate Jenny 10
[ineligible], Pulsar! 10, Texas SF INquirer 10, Jane's Fighting SMOFs 9,
Yho 9.
Fan Writer (455 ballots):
Langford 97 101 111 140 141 173
Glyer 89 96 108 115 116 156
Hlavaty 78 83 85 94 94
Carol 52 55 57
Von Rospach 45 52
No Award 62 62 64 68
Lillian 32
Nominations: (191 ballots): Glyer 48, Hlavaty 30, Lillian 23, Langford
15, Carol 12, Von Rospach 12. Runners-up: Pat Mueller 11, Harry Warner,
Jr. 10, Gomoll 9, Turek 9 [ineligible], Whiteoak 9, Bohman 8, hooper 8,
Brandt 7, Landerman 7, Laskowski 7, Major 7.
Fan Artist (512 ballots):
Wu 153 161 172 172 182 201
Foster 89 103 107 107 139 201
Shiffman 60 69 86 86 106
Harvia 63 69 73 73
Taral 40
Insignia 51 52
No Award 53 56 59
Nominations (244 ballots): Harvia 53 (including 3 for David Thayer), Foster
43, Wu 43, Shifman 36, Taral 29, Insignia 27. Runners-Up: ATom 15, Gilliland
14, Neilson 13, Lang 11, Mayhew 11, Stein 11, Fox 10, Gomoll 9.
Campbell Award (558 ballots)
Roessner 90 91 94 119 139 143 182
Sherman 77 83 85 92 123 146 172
Hinz 72 75 76 83
Rusch 72 75 76
Rawn 84 85 85 89 100 116
Beese&hamilton 76 77 77 86 90
Sanders 17
No Award 70 70
Nominations (230 ballots); Beese*Hamilton 49 (+ 4 for Beese alone), Moon 23
[ineligible], Roessner 22, Rusch 18, Hinz 14, Moran 11 [ineligible], Rawn
11, Sanders 11, Sherman 11. Runners-up: kadrey 10 [ineligible], Ore 10
[ineligible], Stanton 10, Alton 9, McDonald 8 [inelible], McGregor 8, Ruff 8.
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> AppleLink: CHUQ
[This is myself speaking. No company can contr
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
|
| Included below is Evelyn C. Leeper's review of Worldcon. She has given
me permission to post it here. It is lengthy - 31 pages.
Chris
From: DECWRL::"att!mtgzy!ecl" 19-SEP-1989 23:38:45.33
To: att!decwrl!sagan2.enet!lowe (Chris Lowe - KITS - DTN: 237-3007)
CC:
Subj: RE: Noreascon 3 Con Report
Yes, you can repost it.
===================================cut here to print===========================
Noreascon 3 '89
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Evelyn C. Leeper
Noreascon 3, the 1989 World Science Fiction Convention was held
August 31 through September 4 in Boston. The attendance was
approximately 7200.
Hotels
The convention was in two hotels and the Hynes Convention Center.
The Dealers' Room, the Con Suite (more on that later), and most
programming items (including the Hugo Award Ceremony and the Masquerade)
were in the Hynes; the Art Show and the film program was in the
Sheraton. Louis Wu's 200th Birthday Party was in the Hilton, across the
street from the Sheraton.
Registration
Registration opened on time, had no lines, and ran very smoothly.
The souvenir sales table was in the registration area rather than the
Dealers' Room, which meant people could get the T-shirts immediately,
though no con since LACon has had a real sell-out problem on T-shirts.
The propeller beanies sold out in less than an hour, though.
There is no longer a pocket program. Instead there was a 64-page
program book. This is not to be confused with what is usually called
the program book, namely the convention souvenir book. This is turn is
different from the convention book, in this case a Norton bibliography
for sale in the Dealers' Room. Got that? The program book was indexed
by program participant, by track, and chronologically. It had all the
hotel maps, and was basically the only item you needed to carry with
you. There were daily updates of the schedule (one or two sheets) which
listed the *entire* day's program and flagged the changes, so you could
even forgo the program book if you knew your way around.
We got registered and picked up the usual freebies (NEW DESTINIES
and some bookmarks). This was a little odd--there were freebies in both
the registration area and in the message area of the Con Suite. Books I
can understand not leaving lying around unwatched, but the flyers could
have been consolidated. We also picked up our program materials,
including a sticker for the back of our badges listing our program items
with time and place--very handy! The badges were the usual Boston
"readable-from-across-the-room" type which almost everyone seems to
prefer. You also had a choice of pins or clips for the badges--MCFI
thinks of everything!
Because we didn't arrive until about 1 PM, we missed the opening
ceremonies, but other than that, programming started slow and built up
gradually--a wise decision since the attendance does the same.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 2
Dealers' Room
The Dealers' Room (a.k.a., the Hucksters' Room) was smaller than I
expected, certainly smaller than some previous Worldcons. (It was
probably comparable to Nolacon 2--it will be hard to beat the one at
Conspiracy though.) As usual, books probably represented less than half
of the room and there were used book dealers as well as antiquarian-type
book dealers (and of course, new book dealers). I had a very short list
of books I was looking for, but still managed to find a half dozen books
I was looking for, as well as William Contento's INDEX TO SCIENCE
FICTION ANTHOLOGIES 1977-1983, our big splurge (but worth it!). Kate
finally managed to find SIX SCIENCE FICTION PLAYS edited by Roger
Elwood, but it cost her a bundle.
My major complaint about the dealers is that so many of them don't
alphabetize their books. My want list is such that I don't feel it is
worth my time to browse through hundreds of randomly-ordered books,
though I will go through the entire alphabet of the same number of
sorted books. The two best dealers (largest stock, best organized) were
Dick Spelman for new books and Southworth Books for used books.
(Shameless plug for them here--I have no financial interest in either of
them, but think they do a lot to raise the quality of any Dealers' Room
they're in.)
Art Show
I got to look at the Art Show only once (Sunday morning). It was
well-lit and moderately well-arranged, though the three-dimensional
pieces were somewhat cramped (probably the artists' decisions not to buy
extra table space more than anything the con could control. We bought a
couple of prints in the Print Shop--it was quick to do, since they were
all numbered and filed. I got a bidding number and bid on one piece of
art ("The Hound of the Baskervilles"). The only problem was that they
wanted a photo id and New Jersey drivers' licenses have no photos. So
after producing almost a dozen non-photo pieces, I remembered that I had
my AT&T badge, with my picture on it. Note to con goers: bring a
picture id. (Not a problem for me next year--I will have my passport
with me in Holland. Of course, transporting the art will be the major
problem!)
The quality was high overall, higher than in some previous years,
though the best pieces are either marked "Not for Sale" or priced such
that they may as well be marked "Not for Sale." I noticed one artist
had marked minimum bids of $1 on all his pieces, trusting the crowd to
bid them up. They did, though I'm not sure if he got as much as he had
hoped. Still, it shows he has confidence in his work speaking for
itself. The amount of media art was down--thank goodness!
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 3
Con Suite
Rather than a traditional con suite, Noreascon 3 had the Concourse,
a large exhibit hall with areas set aside for various exhibits (History
of Worldcons, History of Fanzines, Costuming), freebie tables, message
board, food service (fast food catered by ARA), and a lot of sitting
areas where you could sit down and talk or read. (They also had a
separate reading room, to which Mark and I donated a couple dozen books.
We also lent our Constellation crab mallet and bib to the Worldcon
exhibit.) While there were complaints about having to pay for the food
(usually there are some free munchies in the Con Suite), I think the
Concourse was a better idea, particularly as it was in the Hynes near
the programming, rather than a long walk away in the Sheraton or the
Hilton.
Programming
As I have said in previous con reports, it's impossible to see
everything at a Worldcon, and this was no exception. (The Program Book
lists 833 programming items!) I will therefore cover just the
programming I attended. It's by no means complete, but it should give
you some idea of what went on.
Panel: Computer Networking
Thursday, 2 PM
Saul Jaffe, Chuq von Rospach, Ben Yalow (mod)
This began with a summary of the existing networks (UUCP, Arpanet,
Fidonet, etc.). The best summary available is probably John
Quarterman's article of a few years ago (in the ACM?). Quarterman was
at Noreascon 3; one wonders why they didn't invite him. Or maybe they
did but he declined.
The largest and best known "electronic fanzine" is SF-LOVERS'
DIGEST (of which Saul is the current moderator). It began as a research
project to see if it could work. It could, and currently has thousands
of readers. No one really knows how many; the arbitron statistics
published monthly on Usenet don't take into account machines that
gateway the Digest to internal networks (IBM is using BITNET gateways
for a beta-test of TCP, and that is a huge hidden readership. The best
guess the panel would make for its range is more than 100,000 machines
(from PCs up to mainframe computers), and several million readers.
This success has not been without its drawbacks. It is generally
agreed (by the panelists, and just about anyone else you ask) that the
volume has increased faster than the content. "Flame wars" abound
(several academic studies have been done on "electronic flaming," or
insulting via electronic bulletins boards and/or mail. As Chuq said,
"The computer flame war is a fine art. I have been practicing it for
many years.... The best way to react is silence." Or to quote from
WARGAMES, "The only way to win is not to play."
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 4
The proposal was made that electronic bulletin boards in general
and Usenet in particular need a "farm team" structure to solve the
problem of uneducated users swamping the system with such postings as,
"Has anyone ever read any Heinlein?" or "What time does the SF Bookstore
close today?" As Chuq put it, "Usenet is 100,000 people running an
apa." The results are what you would expect. Chuq's response, of
course, was to go off and found OTHERREALMS, which started as a strictly
electronic fanzine, and later switched to producing hard-copy as well.
Since he (and it) were nominated for Hugos this year, one can't say
nothing good has come out of the system.
Another solution is mailing lists rather than newsgroups (bulletin
boards), since mailing lists are much more limited in scope and the
members generally more sophisticated. Several people proposed
intelligent newsreading programs (for example, a program that could
identify articles on topics you were interested in or by people whose
opinions you valued) to filter news. But of course that would mean that
the garbage is still being transmitted, and that's not cheap.
As one audience member put it, the user education/sophistication
level is a people problem and one shouldn't try to apply technological
solutions to it, even though that seems to be the standard approach to
any problem.
[The nice thing about computer panels is that the panelists are
rarely pushing their own books while they're on the panel.]
Panel: The Writers Strike Back--Writers Review Critics
Thursday, 4 PM
George Alec Effinger, Kathe Koja, Sandra Miesel,
Lewis Shiner, Susan Shwartz (mod)
Are reviews valuable? The panelists agreed that a good review may
help get your next book published even if the current book doesn't sell
especially well. And if your current book *does* sell well, a bad review
probably won't affect getting your next book published. And a good
review means respect and "ego-boo" and everyone enjoys that. (A bad
review means you tell yourself the reviewer just didn't understand the
book.)
The panelists were less agreed on whether a reviewer needs a
science fiction background to review a science fiction book. Some
claimed yes, and asked if Beowulf could be judged fairly by contemporary
standards. Miesel said no and Shiner said yes, almost at the same
instant. This may be more a reflection of their writing styles--
Shiner's work (especially DESERTED CITIES OF THE HEART) is much more
based in mainstream tradition and doesn't have a lot of science fiction
trappings.
Effinger finds science fiction criticism apologetic: reviewers want
to get science fiction "accepted" and at the same time impress the
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 5
reader with their own erudition rather than review the book. He says
that authors should never try to refute a reviewer, especially in
public, though he concedes that if a reviewer makes some obvious error
of fact, a letter to the reviewer pointing this out is not out of order.
But a lengthy diatribe about how the reviewer was too blind to see the
point the author was trying to make merely makes the author look
foolish. Effinger claims he would rather have a well-thought-out bad
review than a shallow good one, but also said he had never seen one such
of his works (such chuckles here).
A member of the audience asked if an academic critic wasn't needed
to put science fiction criticism at a literary level because s/he has
the tools? Thomas Clareson (from the audience) responded that, "Some
science magazines are for the general public, others for specialists.
Literary critics are talking to themselves in ever-narrowing circles,"
and expressed the opinion that criticism should be accessible to all.
Miesel recommended (and I second) C. S. Lewis's EXPERIMENT IN CRITICISM.
(Note that this is much more readable than Ezra Pound's ABC OF READING
or Thomas Eagleton's LITERARY THEORY, both of which were heavily
recommended at Readercon. My opinion is that this is typical of the
differences between Readercon and a Worldcon--without criticizing
either.)
As far as actually reviewing the critics, there wasn't very much.
Effinger and Shiner both said (in response to a question from the
audience) that THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION had fallen flat on
its face, printing two kinds of articles. One was the very esoteric
literary analysis that didn't make any sense, and the other was the
shallow sort of review one finds everywhere else ("I really enjoyed this
book because it had good characterization and a believable plot.")
As with most panels, the questioners from the audience tended to
ramble on and on before getting to their question (if they ever did). A
detailed review of critics will have to wait for another con and another
panel.
Panel: Literary Incest--Are You Reading Fourth Generation Novels?
Thursday, 5 PM
John J. Kessel, Kathe Koja, Claudia O'Keefe, James Patrick Kelly (mod)
While the panelists agreed on the type of novel they were
discussing (derivative works), they weren't sure which of the following
four categories in specific was the topic:
- Theft (e.g., [possibly] RED ALERT and FAIL-SAFE, which case was
settled out of court)
- Imitation (e.g., Terry Brooks's SWORD OF SHANNARA imitates Tolkien)
- Share-cropper (e.g., "Robot City" farmed out to various authors by
Isaac Asimov)
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 6
- Homage (e.g., Solar Pons books as a homage to the Sherlock Holmes
books)
Sometimes imitations or homages are an example of an author "trying
to get it right" (or at least claiming that). The example one panelist
mentioned was Alexei Panshin's RITE OF PASSAGE, written as a response to
Heinlein's juveniles, which Panshin felt didn't handle female characters
very well.
O'Keefe claimed one reason old ideas get reworked is that
publishers don't like new ideas. (Neither do moviemakers--consider
FRIDAY THE 13TH PART WHATEVER-IT-IS). Kelly said it was "okay to borrow
the furniture" but out and out theft is not permissible. I was all set
to ask about shared universes (such as "Heroes in Hell") when the
panelists mentioned Darkover, which has all sorts of people writing in
that universe. And it sells. I would also suggest that repetitive
series are nothing new--what about Tarzan? And Nancy Drew and Tom Swift
still sell (though it is true that their audiences "turn over" more
quickly than the audiences for adult novels).
Quest fantasies are overworked, according to some (which is not to
say that there can't be good new quest fantasies). Willis pointed out
that even fourth-generation novels descended from original ideas. JANE
EYRE was original; Harlequin novels are not. Sometimes the story
changes a bit. Yes, "Star Trek" took Fredric Brown's "Arena" and
changed it. And Eando Binder's "I, Robot" begat Isaac Asimov's
"Bicentennial Man." And Isaac Asimov's "Bicentennial Man" begat Star
Trek's "Measure of a Man." And, verily, we will see this story even
unto the fourth generation.
Readers prefer the familiar and identify with it, according to
O'Keefe. And as Kelly said, "There's a lot of competence out there, but
not a lot of originality." Kessel said this is because originality
means challenging basic assumptions, and people have difficulty with
that. On this subject of challenging basic assumptions and looking at
things differently, Russell Hoban said in PILGERMANN, "We are, for
example, clever enough to know that a year is a measure of passage, not
permanence; we call the seasons spring, summer, autumn, and winter,
knowing that they are continually passing one into the other. We are
not surprised at this but when we give to seasons of another sort the
names Rome, Byzantium, Islam, or Mongol Empire we are astonished to see
that each one refuses to remain what it is."
[This panel ties in with the SEVEN SAMURAI described later.]
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 7
Panel: Computer Networks and Viruses: How Close Are
NEUROMANCER and SHOCKWAVE RIDER?
Thursday, 6 PM
Richard Stallman, Chuq von Rospach, Ben Yalow, Saul Jaffe (mod)
First the panelists' credentials: Stallman is developing a free
operating system (and seems to be a bit of an anarchist), von Rospach
works for Apple, Yalow works for City University of New York, and Jaffe
works for Rutgers University, all in the fields of computers and
networking. Though the title was "viruses," one of the major topics was
the "Internet worm." When someone described that worm as benign and
harmless, it was pointed out that the time spent tracking it down,
combined with the time spent by engineers and others who sat idle while
their computers were inaccessible, amounted to a considerable financial
damage. Eventually, even those audience members who started out saying
"Well, it was only the big companies who were hurt and it felt good to
see them suffer" had to admit that a lot of other people were hurt as
well. IBM, for example, cut themselves off from the Internet and this
meant that the usual electronic means of communication customers could
use to get questions answered or problems resolved were not functioning.
Some basic principles were stated. More security in operating
systems leads to less functionality in information exchange by making it
more difficult. Mac viruses tend to be more benign than PC ones. (No
one gave any reason or justification for this.)
Several non-standard examples of disasters were given.
Accidentally deleting your own files is the most common example of
destruction and, all things considered, may cost the most in terms of
person-hours. Then there is the migrating head-crash. The technicians
put the diagnostic pack in a drive that has had a head-crash and damaged
it, but not realizing this, proceeded to put this pack in several other
drives and destroyed them all as well. The example the panelists gave
was of a PDP-11, so must be several years old, but I know of at least
one recent instance with Vaxes. And Stallman observed that the
"adventure" program was a virus--it merely used a human vector to
transmit it from machine to machine. People *wanted* to put it on their
machine!
The panelists also agreed that backups are vital, but.... How do
you know your backups are good? The most dangerous virus, they felt,
would be a "time bomb" that did nothing but randomly scramble the data
on backups for a year or two, then deleting everything on the system.
This suggests that having different types of backups would help, unless
the perpetrator was an insider who knew of all the types. This also
works only if no one reads the backups in the interim and discovers
what's going on. So having users who regularly need files restored from
backup may be a blessing in disguise!
Why do people write worms and viruses? Many reasons were given:
ego-boo, social malcontents, "see what I can do," and even industrial
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 8
espionage. Stallman saw viruses and worms as an almost political
protest, people fighting against a repressive system. He claimed that
the more restrictive the operating system, the more likely people were
to attempt to sabotage it. However, the statistics presented by other
panelists seem to indicate that it is the most open systems which are
attacked, and that familiarity has more to do with it than
repressiveness. (UNIX* systems are attacked far more frequently than
MVS systems, even though the latter are much more restrictive.)
One of the major dangers is that systems will become too top-heavy
with virus protections. And as Yalow summed up, "What you can build you
can break."
This panel was very well-attended. In spite of the subtitle,
neither NEUROMANCER and SHOCKWAVE RIDER were mentioned at all.
After this panel, Kate, Mark, and I went out and had dinner nearby
at a restaurant whose name escapes me (two initials and a last name).
Very good, and luckily not extremely crowded.
Party: Meet the Pros
Thursday, 8:30 PM
As program participants, Mark and I actually each got a free drink
at this. Therefore we felt obliged to mingle with the rabble.... But
seriously, this gave us a chance to see a bunch of people that we
probably wouldn't have run into otherwise, including a whole bunch of
Midwestern fans that Dale had been telling us about (and telling them
about us). Now we all got to attach faces to names. We also spent some
time talking to the people who ran Contraption and Mark got an update on
how the fantasy origami book was coming from David Stein.
Panel: Creationism, Educationalism, & the End of the U. S. Space Program
Friday, 10 AM
Arthur Hlavaty, Charles R. Pellegrino, Milton A. Rothman, Hal Clement (mod)
The panelists started by saying that while there was a lot of talk
about creationism in schools, there wasn't actually very much of it in
the public schools. There isn't much evolution either, at least in the
textbooks, but this is changing, according to Rothman. As for the
situation in private (religious) schools, it was pointed out that not
many physicists were coming out of Catholic schools fifty years ago, but
now they are producing their share.
__________
* UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 9
A connection with science does not preclude religious belief: one
astronaut did ESP experiments while orbiting the moon and another went
searching for Noah's Ark when he got back from the moon. As to whether
there was any correlation (either positive or negative) between
religious belief and scientific belief, no one provided any answers.
One problem in the schools is the teacher (usually a science
teacher) who says, "Question everyone, but not me." This inconsistency
is almost guaranteed to convince students that all the talk of science
being open is bunk. Of course, science has a negative image in
general--everyone blames it for society's ills and no one thinks about
how life would be without science ("nasty, brutish, and short" is the
operative description here).
Science looks for the causes of events. Creationism attributes
everything inexplicable to God. For example, the latest creationism
argument against carbon dating of fossils is that there were massive
changes in decay rates about 10,000 years ago (or perhaps it's that
there was a single massive decay event at that time). The fact that
such an event (or the rates necessary before the slow-down) would have
created temperatures so high that the earth would have melted is
apparently not addressed. (One is reminded of Clarence Darrow's
description, during the Scopes Trial, of what would *really* have happened
if Joshua made the sun stand still.)
Pellegrino summed up the dichotomy as, "Science is based on doubt;
creationism is based on faith." But as Hlavaty said, "Objectivity is an
idea which we prize more as an ideal than as a way of life."
Panel: Alternate History Stories
Friday, 12 noon
Victor Raymond, Melissa Scott, S. M. Stirling, Stu Shiffman (mod)
First the authors promoted their alternate history books. Stirling
will be coming out with UNDER THE YOKE, a sequel to MARCHING THROUGH
GEORGIA. Scott cited her A CHOICE OF DESTINIES and ARMOR OF LIGHT.
Shiffman is doing a graphic novel, CAPTAIN CONFEDERACY (which I think is
coming out as a book under the title THE CONFEDERATES).
They then broke alternate histories into two types: those about the
alternatives (the change-points), or those set in the societies after
the change has occurred. The most important thing for an author to do
in either type is to separate the improbable from the impossible.
Fantasy IS allowed, if that is part of your premise, but having Viking
invaders in South America meet dinosaurs is definitely out. One book
cited as not supporting the society derived from the change is Terry
Bisson's FIRE ON THE MOUNTAIN, described as a Marxist alternate history
in which a slave uprising in the mid-19th Century results in a utopian
society, apparently devoid of most government, with no explanation of
how this came about. OPERATION CHAOS was cited as a science fantasy
which (I think) they agreed was not alternate history. There has to be
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 10
a common history up to a certain point, not just the idea that "magic
has always worked." Esther Friesner's DRUID'S BLOOD has magic, yes, but
there is also a definite split point at the Roman invasion of Britain.
Part of the trick is to try to get into the minds of people raised
in different environments with different assumptions. Harry
Turtledove's "Counting the Potsherds" does this, examining a world in
which democracy never developed and people could understand only rule by
a single individual.
Other books mentioned were John Brunner's TIMES WITHOUT NUMBER,
Mack Reynold's OTHER TIME, and Robert Sobel's FOR WANT OF A NAIL (a
wonderful alternate history in which the British win at Saratoga,
written as a history book, complete with footnotes and bibliography!
Some libraries have even unknowingly filed it in the history section!).
When asked for change-points so far overlooked, the Russian Revolution
and the rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate were mentioned. (What if the
Japanese *hadn't* decided that guns were dishonorable?) I would note that
Allen Appel's TIME AFTER TIME does deal with the Russian Revolution, but
no others come to mind.
I asked if "Wild Cards" was alternate history or whether it was too
impossible. Stirling's response was that it was since it was
scientifically presented and "if aliens had released gene-tailored
viruses over New York in 1946 things would be very different." No one
disagreed with this statement.
This panel also featured the first of many broken chairs. It seems
that the backs of the audience's chairs were attached to the uprights
with very short screws, so that if a large person leaned back, spreading
the uprights apart, the back fell out. Just thought you'd want to know.
Panel: The Envelope Please--What Films Were Nominated and Why
Friday, 3 PM
Edward Bryant, Terry Erdmann, Craig Miller, Lee Orlando (mod)
(Kate began this panel by whispering to me, "Don't buy Canadian
gummi fish--they're awful." I thought I'd share that with you.)
The panelists began by listing (with some difficulty) the nominees:
ALIEN NATION, BEETLEJUICE, BIG, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and WILLOW.
Rather than go through why they were nominated (fairly obvious, one
supposes), they said a little bit about each one. BIG, for example,
though it is often lumped in with the many "body-swap" films of last
year, was *not* a body-swap film. ALIEN NATION, on the other hand, *is*
a police buddy picture (and apparently has spawned a television series!).
Erdmann expressed surprise at its nomination.
BEETLEJUICE is a typical Tim Burton movie: it has no plot.
(Burton's other films include PEE WEE BIG ADVENTURE and BATMAN.)
According to Erdmann, Burton doesn't work well with people, so when he
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 11
was chosen to direct BATMAN, he asked for Keaton as Batman since he had
worked with him before (in BEETLEJUICE) and wouldn't have to learn to
deal with someone new.
Erdmann related what happened during last year's Hugo ceremonies.
Apparently Orion was so sure they would win for ROBOCOP that they sent a
crew to videotape the award ceremony, thinking they could use it for
publicity. Of course, THE PRINCESS BRIDE won instead and that was what
the crew taped. When Erdmann returned to his seat after getting the
award, one of the crew members leaned over and said, "Do you want this
tape? We don't have any use for it." (This sounds odd; in effect,
Orion would have been financing someone else's film--they paid the crew.
But, hey, in Hollywood anything's possible.)
Films from 1988 overlooked in the Hugo process but still
recommended included BURNING LOVE, HALF OF HEAVEN, THE MILAGRO BEANFIELD
WAR, MONKEYSHINES, THEY LIVE, and WINGS OF DESIRE.
Films mentioned for consideration for 1989 included THE ABYSS;
FIELD OF DREAMS; HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS; MIRACLE MILE; THE NAVIGATOR;
PAPER HOUSE; and VAMPIRE'S KISS. I would add to that list INDIANA JONES
AND THE LAST CRUSADE. And I'm sure STAR TREK V will be on the list.
The consensus was that WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT would win. (It
did.)
Panel: Build an Alternate History
Friday, 4 PM
Mark Keller, Sandra Miesel, Stu Shiffman, Harry Turtledove (mod)
When building an alternate history, one must pick a change-point.
The panelists said it was easy to pick a military change-point, but
difficult to pick an economic one. They talked about the "Paren Thesis"
(I'm guessing on the spelling; it looks like a bad pun!), which claimed
that Mohammed made the Middle Ages. They also talked about Hagarism,
which postulates a Jewish empire instead of a Islamic one.
In building alternate histories, "one has to fudge a bit." So if
things seem to work out too neatly in the next one you read, keep that
in mind.
One scenario that was discussed at length was, "What if Lincoln
died in 1864, the radical Republicans got into the White House, and at
the end of the Civil War, the South was treated as conquered provinces?"
Some suggested continuations included Texas joining Mexico instead of
the United States, a slower Western expansion, a clamp-down on
immigration in 1880 (instead of 1920) to keep potential Democrats out,
and so on.
Examples of well-researched alternate histories were L. Sprague de
Camp's LEST DARKNESS FALL and Sobel's FOR WANT OF A NAIL (again!).
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 12
Examples of badly researched alternate histories were John Jakes's BLACK
IN TIME and Kirk Mitchell's PROCURATOR (I'm glad I'm not the only one
who disliked this, though I wouldn't be quite this harsh on it). It's
interesting that one of the best and one of the worst each deal with
"What if Rome never fell?" One symptom of a bad alternate history is to
postulate one change and then no change after that. The example given
was a hypothetical novel in which Carthage wins the Punic Wars and we
(in 1989 A.D.) are living under a Carthegenian Empire. Since we're not
living under a Roman Empire now, this seems unlikely.
Miesel mentioned that she has a book coming our soon which has
multiple alternate histories on the first page, but I didn't catch the
title (SHAWMUT?). She also has another which lists seven different
things that could have happened to Abraham Lincoln. (Neither are listed
in BOOKS IN PRINT or FORTHCOMING BOOKS.)
Panel: SEVEN SAMURAI, MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, and BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS--
What Makes Them the Same?
Friday, 5 PM
Mark Leeper, Jim Mann, Darrell Schweitzer, Edward Bryant (mod)
To the films listed in the title of this panel, Mark added a
fourth, WORLD GONE WILD, which he described as being done on such low a
budget that they had only six gunfighters.
There seemed to be a lot of interaction among these films. Though
the samurai film preceded the Western, Kurosawa was obviously much
influenced by Westerns in general. And in BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS, the
planet is Akir and the people the Akira, an obvious tribute to Kurosawa.
As to why Hollywood felt it necessary to remake SEVEN SAMURAI, Mark
said it reminded him of a cartoon of a board room meeting at which the
chairman says, "Ms Preeble's idea has merit; would one of you gentlemen
like to suggest it?" In other words, Hollywood recognizes only
Hollywood products as valid. A look at the Oscars supports this idea,
and in fact, a great deal of discussion about the Oscars ensued. People
didn't seem to realize that the films in the "Best Foreign-Language
Film" (*not* "Foreign Film") are nominated by their respective countries;
the Academy merely picks five from the list of one from each country
they are given. The category "Best Foreign-Language Film" would seem to
include films made in the United States in a foreign language. Would a
bilingual film (such as CHAN IS MISSING) count? But I digress.
The love of retellings was expressed by Schweitzer as "producers
try to be the first one to be second." The linkage between Japanese and
Western films goes beyond this one instance and goes in both directions.
There is, for example, THRONE OF BLOOD, which is a retelling of MACBETH.
In the other direction we have YOJIMBO (which was retold as A FISTFUL OF
DOLLARS), RASHOMON (which was retold as THE OUTRAGE), and THE HIDDEN
FORTRESS (although I don't think of STAR WARS as being a very close
retelling of it).
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 13
My feeling on listening to this panel was that people would enjoy a
panel on Japanese films in general, though how they could tie it into
science fiction I'm not sure. ("Japanese Fantasy Films," perhaps?)
After this panel we went to the hotel lobby where we met Manavendra
Thakur, a contributor to rrrreeeecccc....aaaarrrrttttssss....mmmmoooovvvviiiieeeessss....rrrreeeevvvviiiieeeewwwwssss on Usenet. We had
arranged (somewhat ineptly on my part) to have dinner with him. I say
ineptly because had originally planned to meet at the Mandalay
Restaurant in Boston with him and Jerry Boyajian, but when we arrived we
discovered that there was no longer a Mandalay Restaurant in Boston. We
managed to call Manavendra and change the plans, but couldn't get in
touch with Jerry. (I still don't know what happened with him.)
We went to a Chinese restaurant nearby and spent a couple of hours
talking about film. This was made somewhat difficult by the fact that
we were joined by someone who wanted to talk about SPACEBALLS when
Manavendra wanted to talk about Tarkovsky, but eventually it sorted
itself out (the fourth person had to return for another event) and we
had a good time.
Party: UMSFS
Friday, 7 PM
Well, the party started at 7 PM, but we didn't arrive until about
9. The biggest surprise was finding John MacLeod there. John was
Mark's roommate in college twenty years ago, and we're seen him twice
since graduation: once at a 15-year party for UMSFS, and now at the 25-
year party. (I should explain that UMSFS is the University of
Massachusetts Science Fiction Society, which when we were there was
called UMassSFS.) John hadn't really changed in all this time and
seeing him and Mark talking was like going back in time to college. I
heard from Chrissy that she received "Gidget Goes to Gar" (a.k.a.
"Gidget Goes Gorean") from me, and we may actually see something
produced by Boskone. I tried Razcal (raspberry/lime soda); it was good.
Because of the corkage fees, there was no alcohol, though the UMSFS
bunch usually has home-brewed beer. We also saw other people we hadn't
seen for years, and I got to return to Matt the cassettes we had
borrowed from him 2-1/2 years ago!
We looked out the window at one point to discover that the line for
the Boxboro Party ("Louis Wu's 200th Birthday") was wrapped around the
block. I had planned to drop by, but changed my mind and hung around
with old friends instead. It was great, and we made sure to get
addresses for people we had lost touch with. (Later on we ran into some
other people from college as well who weren't at the party. Of course,
having the convention in Boston made this particularly likely.)
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 14
Panel: Back to Byzantium--Eastern Influences Are Here!
Saturday, 10 AM
Lillian Stewart Carl, Brenda Clough, Susan Shwartz,
Judith Tarr, Harry Turtledove (mod)
This panel began with long (and to me, boring) descriptions of how
each of the panelists got interested in Byzantine history. To all of
them, the Germanic and Celtic cultures lack subtlety; Turtledove
described this as the Germanic wolves versus the Byzantine snakes. The
only other interesting item was that Turtledove wrote under the name
Eric Iverson (WEREBLOOD and WERENIGHT). Mark and I both left early.
Panel: The New Classics
Saturday, 12 noon
Robert Colby, Alexis Gilliland, Brad Linaweaver,
Lewis Shiner, David Hartwell (mod)
They began by observing that at Conspiracy the classics that people
discussed were from the 1960s, not the 1940s. When a poll was taken of
how many audience members had read BEYOND THIS HORIZON or SLAN, the
result was about 50%, the highest percentage Gilliland had seen in
several conventions. It's true, though, that when people discuss the
"classics of science fiction" they seem stuck forty years ago. One can
of course argue that it takes that long to decide what's a classic, but
then it's probably true that little is, because how much is it read
today by the younger fans? Shiner claims that much of 1940s fiction is
no longer relevant, with the role of women (and just about anyone else
who wasn't white, male, and educated) being as ignored as it was.
Perhaps the cyberpunk trend toward focusing on the less well-off members
of society is a rebellion against this. Shiner in general is very
articulate and literate on panels, much more so that many of the authors
one sees, who know science fiction, but nothing outside the field (this
is not meant to single out the other panelists on this panel, but is a
general observation). Linaweaver felt that classics must have audacity;
Hartwell said they needed originality.
Asked to name recent classics, they mentioned Ursula K. Leguin's
LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, Samuel R. Delany's NOVA, and Robert Silverberg's
DYING INSIDE. Apparently a recent LAN'S LANTERN did a correlation about
the various "100 Best Novels" lists and the results of that matched the
panelists' feelings pretty closely. Hartwell recommended ARSLAN by M.
S. Engh. Gilliland named Tom Clancy's HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, the novels
of Stephen King, and Edgar Rice Burroughs's THUVIA, MAID OF MARS. (I
have to disagree on the last one--I don't think anyone still reads it
today.) Colby suggested Gene Wolfe's BOOK OF THE NEW SUN, Keith
Roberts's PAVANE, Barry Malzberg's HEROVIT'S WORLD, and Scott Bradfield.
Bradfield is a new author that Colby claims will have a cult following
in five years. If he doesn't, Colby says you should remind him of this
at a convention and he will buy you lunch. (He will probably never
forgive me for printing this!) Shiner named LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS,
William Gibson's NEUROMANCER, DYING INSIDE, David Brin's STARTIDE RISING
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 15
(Shiner says he does not consider this a classic, but suspects other
people will), and BOOK OF THE NEW SUN. Linaweaver mentioned Michael
Shaara's HERALD. And Eric Van (from the audience) suggested Shirley
Jackson's HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE.
I also found out at this panel that Brad Linaweaver won the
Prometheus Award for Best Libertarian SF Novel (for MOON OF ICE) and L.
Neil Schulman the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award (for ALONGSIDE NIGHT).
It wasn't announced here, but Victor Koman was sitting in front me and
had the plaques in his bag. At one point he took them out to get
something else out and I could read them. I also saw that he had a copy
of his novel THE JEHOVAH CONTRACT which I was looking for, but which one
dealer said wouldn't be out for a couple of months. So after the panel
I asked him when it would be available. He said it was out now. I said
I had looked everywhere in the Dealers' Room but couldn't find it. His
friend suggested, "Why not sell her this copy?" which he did and even
autographed it. I mentioned the plaques and he asked me not to say
anything to Linaweaver since the awards hadn't been announced yet.
Since by now they have been announced, I can include them here.
Panel: What Would Fandom Be Like Today with No Computers?
Saturday, 1 PM
Teddy Harvia, Saul Jaffe, David Dyer-Bennet (mod)
Well, no one actually tried to answer the question. Instead, they
discussed how fandom uses computers. There was the usual (desktop
publishing, networking) and the frequently overlooked (mailing list
management, program books). The panelists agreed that there would be no
way to do a program book of 833 items, indexed, without computers. Some
use computers heavily for correspondence, allowing them to send the same
comments, slightly revised perhaps, to different people. One formats on
the computer, then prints the output such that it will fit on a
postcard, cuts it, and glues it onto one. One person mentioned
publishing as shareware, but I don't think it's been done yet.
One hint of where fandom might have been is that apas are on the
decline as networking becomes more widespread. Unfortunately, the
computer graphics are not up to the level needed for fanzine art, even
though some editors try to pretend they are. What the graphics do allow
is their misuse; everyone is now a graphics designer, but not everyone
is a *good* graphics designer. We've all seen the convention flyers with
eight different fonts (eight being the standard number provided with
most graphics packages). The panelists recommend using two fonts in
different point sizes to provide variation instead. They also said that
while it used to be true that just producing a fanzine was considered
praise-worthy, now that it's so much easier to do the mechanics, the
content of fanzines has become more important.
Having authors on networks allows an interaction between fans and
authors that didn't exist before. (As Timothy Zahn said at the @ party,
though, it can also tie up a lot of an author's time, and he avoids it
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 16
for that reason.)
There is still a lack of knowledge about computers, and a certain
amount of fear (I note that the Confiction sign-up forms require that
you sign a statement saying that you realize this information will be
stored on a computer, and think this is the result of stricter
information control laws in Europe).
Fax was mentioned, but people agreed that fax was for pictures; e-
mail was for words.
Presentation: 20th Century Fox Films
Saturday, 2 PM
The first film presented was Clive Barker's NIGHTBREED (based on
his novel CABAL). It's about Midian, where the monsters, and has lots
of shape-shifters and special effects, and is due out February 9, 1990.
Terry Erdmann's description of MILLENNIUM gets some of the details
wrong: It's the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), not the
NAB (National Aeronautics Board), and the watches run backward rather
than being set 45 minutes into the future. (I wonder if the script was
changed during filming, or if it was re-edited after he saw it.)
Then was the documentary short on THE ABYSS (a.k.a. HEAVEN'S TANK).
Most of what was talked about here has been discussed at great length
already so I won't re-iterate it all. Erdmann did say that Biehn's
psychological transformation was mostly cut, making him somewhat two-
dimensional. A scene of a giant tsunami wave hanging over a city was
also cut, but the footage may show up in the version that makes it to
cassette or television.
EXORCIST 1990 is due out next June, and Roger Corman's FRANKENSTEIN
UNBOUND in September. An ALIENS videodisk is due out, and plans are in
the works for ALIEN 3 and ALIEN 4. ALIEN 3 will not have the William
Gibson script; he wrote it with Ridley Scott in mind as the director and
when Scott pulled out, the script would have needed rewriting that
Gibson didn't want to do.
For some reason William Shatner's TEKWAR was mentioned at the
beginning of this presentation (though it's actually by Ron Goulart
rather than Shatner). Maybe it's published by a subsidiary or
something.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 17
Panel: Things You Should Have Read
Saturday, 4 PM
Steven Gould, Karen Haber, Fred Lerner, Arthur Hlavaty (mod)
For this panel it's probably best just to give you the list:
Bayley, Barrington J. (Hlavaty)
Bester, Alfred, THE STARS MY DESTINATION (Gould)
Coover, Robert, PUBLIC BURNING (Hlavaty)
Coover, Robert, UNIVERSAL BASEBALL ASSOCIATION, INC.,
J. HENRY WAUGH, PROP. (Lerner)
Hesse, Herman, THE GLASS BEAD GAME
(a.k.a. MAGISTER LUDI) (Hlavaty)
Kinsella, W. P., SHOELESS JOE (Gould)
Langguth, A. J., JESUS CHRISTS (Hlavaty)
Myers, John Myers, SILVERLOCK (Lerner)
Panshin, Alexei, Anthony Villiers novels (THE STAR WELL,
MASQUE WORLD, and THE THURB REVOLUTION) (Hlavaty)
Silverberg, Robert, DYING INSIDE (Lerner)
Williams, Walter Jon, THE CROWN JEWELS (Gould)
Williams, Walter Jon, HOUSE OF SHARDS (Gould)
Wright, Austin Tappan, ISLANDIA (Lerner)
Yates, Alan, CORIOLANUS THE CHARIOT! (Hlavaty)
Panel: Sherlock Holmes and SF
Saturday, 5 PM
Thorarinn Gunnarsson, Evelyn Leeper, Tony Lewis,
Stu Shiffman, Joe Siclari (mod)
Various books were mentioned. I noted only the ones new to me:
Poul Anderson's MIDSUMMER TEMPEST (cameo at the end)
something by Daniel Pinkwater (title not mentioned)
CTHULHU BY GASLIGHT (I'n not sure if this is a graphic novel
or not; it sounds like a sequel to SCARLET BY
GASLIGHT, which is)
A CASE OF BLIND FEAR (graphic novel)
THE RAINBOW AFFAIR (in the "Man from U.N.C.L.E." series)
Much of the hour was devoted to listing books (with all the panels
scribbling down titles frantically), but some topics were raised. What
people liked or disliked in Holmes pastiches was discussed (I said they
should take place in Victorian times--Holmes does not translate well to
other times). Lewis claimed that Holmes was popular with adolescents
because Holmes gets to eat when he wants, sleep when he wants, do what
he wants, and be rude to grown-ups.
Gunnarsson has acted in some Holmes plays in Iceland, so some
discussion was made of the "visual Holmes." Brett was obviously the
favorite actor, and I can't recall any runners-up.
(Since I was on this panel, my notes are spotty, so please forgive
the short synopsis. There really was not a lot new added to the opus of
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 18
Sherlockian scholarship.)
Panel: The Closing of the American Mind
Saturday, 6 PM
Gregory Benford, David Brin, Hal Clement, Joyce Scrivner (mod)
The ironic note of this panel was that Clement talked about how we
need to teach more science, but Allan Bloom in his book THE CLOSING OF
THE AMERICAN MIND called for more "education" in the liberal arts and
less "training" in science and technology. (At least that's how I read
it.) It's possible, of course, that the title of the panel was not
supposed to refer to Bloom's book, but it is still ironic that the
panelists emphasized the engineering that Bloom had such distaste for.
One person claimed that the book ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I
LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN (by Robert Fulghum) was fairly insightful. The
room was packed, but it was once again an example of preaching to the
choir. We had to leave this early so Mark could go to the Green Room
for his next panel, but it didn't seem like much of a loss.
Panel: Arthurian Movie Reviews
Saturday, 7 PM
Darrell Schweitzer, Mark Leeper (mod)
The panel was somewhat smaller than useful. Luckily Darrell was
able to take up the slack and talk for two, throwing out comments such
as "Wearing armor at a banquet in peacetime is like coming to dinner in
a welding mask."
For this panel, Mark and I had prepared a handout (Attachment 1)
which summarizes a lot of what was said. Several other items were
mentioned: a television show called "Sir Lancelot," a Richard Basehart
television version of A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT (for
which I have searched in vain for references to), THE COURT JESTER
(which is not Arthurian but is always mentioned at Arthurian panels
anyway) and a 16th Century play called THE BIRTH OF MERLIN.
The background of the Arthurian legends is Geoffrey of Monmouth,
who wrote about 6th Century events as if they were taking place in the
11th Century (when he lived). There are some interesting attempts to
Christianize the legend--the Green Knight of the legend is merely a
version of the Druidic "Green Man," and the whole search for the Grail
is added to bring a Christian overtone to the story. Certainly if one
looks at how marriage (and sex) was viewed in the legend it is a more
pagan view than a Christian one.
Not all the films were commented on. , but I made the following
notes. BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH and FEUER UND SCHWERT got very poor
reviews. KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE was an excuse for a spectacle film
CAMELOT was considered grossly inaccurate and almost not even Arthurian;
EXCALIBUR was visually interesting but also grossly inaccurate. KING
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 19
ARTHUR, THE YOUNG WARLORD tries to remove all the fantasy elements.
KNIGHTRIDERS is much better than people expect. without being very
good. LEGEND OF KING ARTHUR is perhaps the most accurate, but a bit dry
for some tastes. Everyone likes MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL.
Hugo Awards
Saturday, 8:30 PM
First the awards:
Novel: CYTEEN, by C.J. Cherryh (Warner; Popular Library/Questar)
Novella: "The Last of the Winnebagos," by Connie Willis
(IASFM, Jul 88)
Novelette: "Schrodinger's Kitten," by George Alec Effinger
(OMNI, Sep 88)
Short Story: "Kirinyaga," by Mike Resnick (F&SF, Nov 88)
Non-Fiction: THE MOTION OF LIGHT IN WATER, by Samuel R. Delany
(Morrow)
Dramatic Pres.: WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT
Pro Editor: Gardner Dozois, IASFM
Pro Artist: Michael Whelan
Semi-Prozine: LOCUS (ed. Charles N. Brown)
Fanzine: FILE 770 (ed. Mike Glyer)
Fan Writer: Dave Langford
Fan Artist: Brad W. Foster and Diana Gallagher Wu (tie)
John W. Campbell Award: Michaela Roessner
Seiun ("Japanese Hugo") for Best Novel in Translation:
FOOTFALL by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Seiun for Best Short Story in Translation:
"Eye for Eye" by Orson Scott Card
Gryphon Award: Elizabeth Waters
Lee Barwick (Honor Book)
First Fandom Award: L. Sprague de Camp
Donald Grant
Frederik Pohl
Big Heart Award: Arthur L. Widner, Jr.
Special Awards: Alex Schomburg
SF-LOVERS' DIGEST
Now the comments: The most comment (*all* negative) was for the
Gryphon Award, given by Andre Norton for the "Best Unpublished Fantasy
Manuscript by a Woman"! Her rationale for this was that "the woman"
don't win as many awards, so this is needed. Did she ask for Cherryh's
or Willis's opinions, I wonder. (Both were too polite to say "So
there!" in accepting their awards.) The Con Committee found itself
between a rock and a hard place on this one--Norton was a Guest of
Honor, and apparently made a fuss when this award was originally
scheduled to be presented at one of her panels or talks. It is expected
(and hoped) that Confiction will feel no obligation to have it presented
at the Hugo ceremony.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 20
The prizes for the Seiun were saki sets; I commented to Mark that I
wasn't sure what Card (a Mormon) was going to do with his. When he
accepted, he said that he couldn't use it for tea (!) but would find
some use for it. As someone pointed out, he also talked about how nice
it was that cultural barriers are being broken down and people were
learning about other cultures. Open mouth, insert foot.
As with last year, I got the definite impression that First Fandom
has embarked on a "let's award everyone before they die" campaign--they
gave out four awards last year and three this year.
There were twelve Hugos presented in eleven categories, and eleven
non-Hugos. While some of these non-Hugos have traditionally been
awarded at the Hugo ceremony, I think the Seiun and the Gryphon (and
other awards such as the Prometheus Award) should be awarded at a
separate ceremony--perhaps during the Masquerade intermission?.
Pohl's stories were enjoyable. He told how the Fantasy APA was
founded in the Parker House Hotel Bar. He also told about the time in
Cleveland in 1966 when the Worldcon shared the hotel with a group of
World War II veterans. When some of both groups got stuck in an
elevator, he said the veterans were sobbing and clawing the walls and
crying, "For the love of God, Montressor!" and the fans were saying,
"Oh, good, let's filk!" (I claimed that the veterans starting sobbing
et al *after* the filking started.)
Effinger, in reference to his past medical and personal troubles,
said, "Some people may say I got a bad break. But today I feel like the
luckiest man on earth." (For those who don't recognize it, this is from
Lou Gehrig's farewell speech.) In her acceptance speech, Connie Willis
said, "After I saw my picture on the cover of LOCUS after I won the
Nebula, I vowed if I won this tonight I would not grin from ear to ear
and look like a deranged chipmunk again. But, aw, what the heck!"
The crowd control was excellent--there were no lines! The decision
was made to open the auditorium well in advance of the starting time, so
no lines built up. (This was possible because the decision was also
made that there would be one setup for everything--they would not try to
rearrange the chairs between the film presentations and the Hugos, etc.
Wise decision!) Everyone could see; everyone could hear. It was great.
The program ran on time, in part because there was a schedule--to
the second--of how long was allowed for each step. I can't recall it
exactly, but it had entries such as "Hand over Hugo, not blocking view
with podium--10 seconds" and "Winner mounts stage--20 seconds." Each
Hugo was scheduled to take 300 seconds (5 minutes) and they kept to this
schedule pretty well.
The processional (in which all the nominees marched in, complete
with banners and Hugos leading the parade, was to the music from BEN
HUR. (Mark wants me to point out that I couldn't identify it and had to
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 21
ask him.)
Panel: Media SF for the Literary Fan
Sunday, 1 PM
George R. R. Martin, Bill Rotsler, Melinda Snodgrass (mod)
At starting time, only Snodgrass was present. Martin came in about
half-way through (his wife's purse had been snatched in Au Bon Pain and
they had been filling out a police report), and Rotsler showed up even
later (he had found himself next to the Guests of Honor at the Brunch
and didn't feel it proper to just walk out in the middle).
I had hoped that this would discuss some of the more literate
fantasy and science fiction films, such as FIELD OF DREAMS and BRAZIL,
but instead the hour consisted mostly of people discussing the "Star
Trek" and "Beauty and the Beast" television shows and why the scripts
aren't better and whether writing to the producers would help. "Max
Headroom" was mentioned briefly, but the audience seemed firmly fixed in
those other two shows (probably because they came knowing that Snodgrass
works on "Star Trek" and Martin on "Beauty and the Beast," facts that
probably would have steered me away had I known them ahead of time.
My feeling is that literary television doesn't work because
literary people don't watch television; people expect something else
from television. And since the major market for films these days is the
under-21 crowd, literary films must appeal to all those over 21 to make
money, and science fiction and fantasy may have a difficult time doing
that.
The panelists claimed that television series also have the problem
that characters can't change radically, but I would note that series
other than theirs have change. I agree, though, that multi-episode
stories or radical changes destroy the interchangeability almost
required for syndication.
The panelists finally ended up listing ideas they never wanted to
see again: evil twins, shape-shifters (Clive Barker should hear this!),
GLAs (god-like aliens), the Enterprise meets God, and computer viruses.
(Well, the last is probably topical now, but I suspect the flood of
virus stories will pass.)
On the whole, I found this a very disappointing panel, in large
part because the description was misleading.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 22
Panel: Historical Fantasy
Sunday, 2 PM
Lisa Barnett, Kim Stanley Robinson, Delia Sherman, John M. Ford
After the usual credentials listing (in this case the panelists
seemed more concerned with establishing their experience with the
subject than in selling their books, a delightful change), the panel
tried to define historical fantasy, and in particular to distinguish it
from alternate history. They described historical fantasy as the
underlying story to match the surface story one gets in history class.
In other words, historical fantasy does not contradict any known events,
while alternate history does. It is for this reason that Barnett
classifies her ARMOR OF LIGHT (co-authored with Melissa Scott) as
historical fantasy rather than alternate history--all the events are
true, just the motivation and background is based in magic.
Another example is the Lord D'Arcy series of Randall Garrett (and
now Michael Kurland). Lord D'Arcy uses magic in the forensic parts, but
the murders that he solves are *not* done by magic but by ordinary means.
While this series is obviously alternate history as well (given a real
divergence with actual events) the handling of magic as limited in how
it is used in the novel was a factor in causing the panelists to rate
this book highly. (It also makes them better mystery stories, since the
reader has a chance of figuring out the solution, where if magic were
used, it would be much more difficult.
The discussion seemed to lead to the conclusion that historical
fantasy and alternate history were orthogonal: Ford's DRAGON WAITING is
both, Keith Roberts's PAVANE is alternate history without being
historical fantasy, and ARMOR OF LIGHT is historical fantasy without
being alternate history (at least according to the panel). Other
historical fantasies mentioned were Robinson's "Black Air," Mary
Renault's works, and Gene Wolfe's SOLDIER OF THE MIST. The last, like
MacAvoy's "Damiano" trilogy is unusual in that it contains no famous
people; most historical fantasies center around famous people and
events.
One thing that makes writing historical fantasies both easier and
harder is that there were no real historians between the Roman Empire
and the French Revolution. Oh, people noted down events, but not really
with an eye to recording history for the future. As someone pointed
out, this means a lot of things were never written down (floor plans for
houses, for example). So on the one hand an author can make up a fair
amount without contradicting any known facts. On the other hand, it's
almost impossible to find out some things that you may need for your
story. (One suggestion was to read fiction of the period for some
details, but this is really only applicable after about 1500. Another
suggestion was to use children's books, which state the "obvious" a lot
more often than adult books do.) All this led Ford to note that
"history is not the lie agreed upon because it isn't even agreed upon."
And Sherman added (either footnoting or quoting Ford; I'm not sure
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 23
which), "Research is like foreplay: it's a lot of fun but you have to
get on to the next step if you're going to produce something."
Reading: Lewis Shiner
Sunday, 3 PM
I don't usually go to readings, but on the basis of Shiner's
"performance" on his panels, I decided to go to his reading. He read
the beginning of his next novel SLAM (due out May 1990). It is a
mainstream novel about a man who gets out of prison (where he did time
for tax evasion) and who gets a job taking care of the dozens of cats a
rich old lady left her fortune to. (It is *not* a comedy.) The line that
stuck me the most was, "The city [Galveston] was like a blonde with dark
roots, sitting on a barstool with a line of empty glasses in front of
her and an afternoon to kill."
Shiner will also be editing an issue of Pulphouse's AUTHOR'S CHOICE
MONTHLY and a Greenpeace anthology (for which I didn't catch the name),
and may be writing for DC's HACKER FILES.
Panel: Phantom of the Opera
Sunday, 4 PM
John Flynn, Heather Nachman, Lynne Stephens
I had hoped this panel would discuss all versions and
interpretations of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, but instead it was meant to
cover only the musical version. I like the musical, but long
discussions of which actor makes the best Phantom in the musical left me
somewhat bored. When the panelists asked why people had come to a panel
about the musical, I commented that I had expected a somewhat wider
scope, and after that other people talked about different versions,
including the most accurate film one, the animated special on HBO!
There was also some discussion of Erik as someone who was ugly on the
outside and beautiful on the inside; Mark drew the parallel to John
Merrick (the "Elephant Man").
We did get a chance to buy some nice hand-colored buttons of the
Phantom "logo" (the mask and the rose) from one of the artists in the
audience.
Dinner was supposed to be at Legal Seafood (about a mile down the
road) but someone warned us that it was really crowded, and since we
wanted to be back for the masquerade, we opted for The Atlantic Fish
Company instead (we being Mark, Kate, Barbara, Dave, Dale, Jo, John, and
I--John's friend Marjorie joined us later). The food was very good,
though our table seemed to be in the line of traffic, which made for
sporadic disturbances. Since this restaurant was right across the
street, we had no problem eating a leisurely meal, complete with dessert
and coffee, and still being back in time for the masquerade.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 24
Masquerade
Sunday, 8:30 PM
We got our seats (in the balcony rather than on the floor). We
ended up sitting almost even with the stage, which pointed up one
problem. Many of the costumes, or the skits that went with them,
didn't take into account the 180-degree audience. So there were
examples of costumed people who were supposed to be hidden behind other
people, but were clearly visible to us. There were other instances of
costumes where we never saw parts of them because the wearers didn't
turn in our direction. Someone pointed out that the costumers are
playing to the judges rather than the audience but I suspect that's not
entirely true--if there were no audience I don't think the costumers
would be as enthusiastic about doing the costumes.
It was in this area that the Con committee made its two "fluffs"--
they almost lost the tape to accompany one of the costumes (but did
locate it just in time), and they never got the newsletter out
announcing the winners. So I can't tell you which costumes won. I can
say that there were about fifty costumes, varying in quality from the
very good to the really bad ("Merlin" waving a scarf to Kermit the Frog
singing the "Rainbow" song).
After the first run-through we left for a couple of parties. (I
suspect if the committee scheduled and announced some real entertainment
during the judging break, more people would stay around.)
Parties
Sunday, 10:30 PM
First, we dropped by Lan and Maia's room, consoling him on his
runner-up status for the Fanzine Hugo (he missed by 4 votes--amazingly
close, though the tie for Fan Artist this year indicated just how close
it can get. Ties in Australian ballots are nearly impossible.) We got
to see a few people whom we hadn't seen since Contraption, and it was a
very low-key sort of get-together.
I was a bit disturbed by something at this party. The Gaylaxians
(a gay SF fan group) had an ad in the Souvenir Book listing their
various chapters and mentioning at what conventions they had parties.
In particular, they mentioned several conventions in the Detroit area
(such as Contraption) and one person present pointed this out to
everyone, with comments such as "Who would have expected that this is
how Contraption would be advertised?" and much laughter. When I asked
(disingenously) what was so funny, I got a little whispered comment
about how the Gaylaxians are a gay group and they were saying they were
present at these conventions. (I'm reminded--unpleasantly--of how
people used to whisper that someone was a Jew, as if saying it aloud
were shocking.) Why is it that I don't think the reaction would have
been the same for Christian Fandom (another organized group)? On the
whole, I've come to expect science fiction fans to be more mature and
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 25
tolerant/accepting than the population at large, and it always comes as
a surprise when I find the same reactions there that I find in the
"real" world.
The @ party was held once again in Nick Simicich's room (thanks,
Nick!). It was loud, often too much so. After a couple of visits from
the hotel security people, we took to shushing everyone on general
principles every five minutes or so, just to get the noise level down.
The usual one-shot was put together (with emacs, an editor I don't know
any better than the IBM thing Nick had last year). We arrived late and
missed a lot of the people I had hoped to see, but did have a chance to
talk to Tim Maroney, who seems very different in person than
electronically. (See, Tim, I didn't say you look different!) Mark
spent a fair amount of time talking to a couple of people including
someone who works for AT&T in another location about 3 miles from ours.
(For this we went to Boston?) The conversation included libertarian
science fiction, and since I recently panned a couple of libertarian
science fiction books because of gratuitous rape scenes, one of the
people was wondering if I was just down on the Libertarians or what. At
least he will be relieved to hear than I will not be making the same
criticism of Koman's JEHOVAH CONTRACT.)
Panel: Editing Reviews
Monday, 12 noon
Donald D'Ammassa, George "Lan" Laskowski, Charles N. Bown (mod)
I probably took the most notes for this panel as for any panel,
since I am on both the giving and the receiving end of this. The
panelists also covered the spectrum: D'Ammassa writes reviews for
SCIENCE FICTION CHRONICLE, Brown edits LOCUS, and Lan writes reviews and
edits LAN'S LANTERN.
D'Ammassa specializes in 100-word reviews. He likes to be edited
for factual errors, the use of "the almost right word," grammar, and
spelling. He does not want to be edited for substantive change in his
review. I asked about a middle case: what about if something he feels
is important is edited out of a review? He said this was usually a
matter of negotiation. (This works if there is an easy communication
path between editor and writer. In the case of long-distance editing
without benefit of electronic mail, this is harder to accomplish.) His
basic philosophy is that the review is not as high a form as the work
being reviewed, and so shouldn't be considered as sacrosanct.
Brown edits at several levels. First, he chooses who will review
which book, usually on the basis of background or knowledge. (When I
reviewed for DELAP'S F&SF REVIEW he asked each reviewer for a list of
authors s/he felt most knowledgeable about. So when the Olaf Stapledon
collection came along, he sent it to me, as the only [I'm sure] person
to list Stapledon.) Then he avoids strongly critical reviews (as he
said, he basically runs only recommendations, on the theory that there
are enough good books that people will miss otherwise to avoid using up
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 26
that space for bad books). And finally, he edits for terseness. He
wants to run as many reviews as possible, so he doesn't want his
reviewers rambling on.
Lan doesn't edit except for obvious errors and typos. Actually,
that's not quite true. He once moved a closing parenthetical paragraph
from the end of one of my reviews to the beginning. Unfortunately, I
made an error in that paragraph which he didn't catch, but several
readers did.
As far as reviewing short fiction, some do it by reviewing
individual pieces, others by reviewing the collection or magazine as a
whole. Lan also includes reviews of music and other related forms that
the professional (and semi-professional) zines tend to bypass.
Brown said he will review small press or books outside the field
without being sent review copies, but won't give ordering information
for them. He gave some reasons for this, but it still sounds a bit
petty. After all, the cost of a single volume sent out as a review copy
can put a substantial dent in a small press's profits on a given volume.
He also insists on bound books (not stapled)--he finds that a book often
changes considerably between advance proofs and the actual text
published. And he avoids running multiple reviews of the same book; he
can run only about 480 reviews a year and there are about 1200 books
published.
While he tries to avoid reviews of fiction that discuss the book as
an artifact, the physical book itself is considered if the book is an
art book. Similarly, the accuracy and scope of a reference work is what
is important in a review of that category. Spoilers are not a major
consideration to Brown; since LOCUS reviews are often what sell the
overseas rights to a work, if the reviewer includes the denouement of
the plot, that's acceptable.
For most reviews, the panelists seemed to agree that having the
reviewer state a clear opinion is important. Is this book the greatest
thing since sliced bread or is it just rancid butter? In this regard,
Lan likes the capsules that some reviewers put at the beginning--two or
three sentences and a rating.
Miscellaneous
The hotel problems with the Sheraton seemed to have been worked
out. Some functions were there, some parties were there, and the staff
was polite and friendly. There was no evidence of a feared hostility if
they were forced to keep their contract. There was a direct connection
from the Sheraton to the Hynes (actually two, one into the Concourse and
one into the Dealers' Room), or one could walk outside past the Au Bon
Pain, which did a very brisk business.
Noreascon 3 September 5, 1989 Page 27
The elevator situation was no worse than usual, though one elevator
in the South Tower of the Sheraton was out the entire weekend and other
times it seemed as if only one of the four was running. During the
parties, elevator patrols helped keep the elevators from getting jammed
up and express elevators to the party floor sped things up considerably.
We found ourselves recognized by many people, both because of SF-
LOVERS' DIGEST and because of LAN'S LANTERN. We were even asked
permission by the folks who run GEnie* to download our writings to there!
There were plenty of eating places nearby, both cheap and
expensive, and I was very pleased with all the meals I had time for.
My only major complaint was that the beanie propeller hats sold out
in under an hour and I couldn't get one.
As usual, I'll list the Worldcons I've attended and rank them, best
to worst (the middle four are pretty close together):
Noreascon II
Noreascon III
Noreascon I (my first Worldcon)
Midamericon (on the basis of the film program, perhaps)
LACon (I don't fault them just because they avoided bankruptcy!)
Discon II
Seacon
Confederation
Chicon IV
Conspiracy (mostly due to hotel problems)
Iguanacon (partially done in, in my opinion, by politics)
Suncon (the location change from Orlando to Miami didn't help)
Nolacon II (see this report for details!)
Constellation (they over-extended themselves)
Orlando won the bid for 1992. This was no surprise; since DC had
to withdraw, Orlando was unopposed. Jack Vance and Vincent DiFate are
the Pro Guests of Honor, Walter A. Willis is the Fan Guest of Honor, and
Spider Robinson is the Toastmaster. Next year's contest is a three-way
race for 1993: Phoenix, San Francisco, and Zagreb.
Next year in Holland!
__________
* GEnie is a trademark of General Electric.
September 1, 1989 Attachment 1--Arthurian Films Noreascon 3
A Brief Filmography of Arthurian Films
Compiled by Mark R. Leeper & Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper & Evelyn C. Leeper
- ADVENTURES OF SIR GALAHAD (1949): Directed by Spencer G. Bennet.
Starring George Reeves and Lois Hall. Serial.
- ARTHUR THE KING (1985): Directed by Clive Donner. Starring Malcolm
McDowell (King Arthur), Candice Bergen (Morgan Le Fay), Edward
Woodward, Dyan Cannon, Lucy Gutteridge, Joseph Blatchely, Rupert
Everett. Made for CBS television. Cannon falls down a rabbit hole
in Stonehenge to get to Camelot.
- BLACK KNIGHT (1954): Directed by Tay Garnett. Starring Alan Ladd,
Patricia Medina, Peter Cushing, Andre Morell, Anthony Bushell (King
Arthur), and Jean Lodge (Guinevere). A blacksmith's son becomes a
mysterious knight.
- BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH (1954): Directed by Rudolph Mat'.
Starring Tony Curtis, Janet Leigh, and David Farrar. Based on
Howard Pyle's MEN OF IRON. ("Yonda lies da castle of my fodda.")
- CAMELOT (1967): Directed by Joshua Logan. Starring Richard Harris
(King Arthur), Vanessa Redgrave (Guenevere), Franco Nero (Sir
Lancelot), Laurence Naismith (Merlyn), David Hemmings (Mordred).
Musical by Lerner and Lowe, based on the T. H. White novel THE ONCE
AND FUTURE KING.
- CAMELOT (1982): Filmed version of the stage play, shown on HBO.
Starring Richard Burton (King Arthur).
- A CONNECTICUT YANKEE (1931): Directed by David Butler. Starring
Will Rogers (Hank/Sir Boss), William Farnum (King Arthur), Myrna
Loy (Queen Morgan Le Fay), Mitchell Harris (Merlin). Based on the
Mark Twain novel.
- A CONNECTICUT YANKEE AT KING ARTHUR'S COURT (1920): Directed by
Emmett J. Flynn. Starring Harry C. Myers (the Yankee), Charles
Clary (King Arthur), Rosemary Theby (Queen Morgan La Fay), Wilfred
McDonald (Lancelot), William V. Wong (Merlin). Based on the Mark
Twain novel.
- A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT (1949): Directed by Tay
Garnett. Starring Bing Crosby (Hank Martin), Sir Cedric Hardwicke
(King Arthur), Virginia Field (Morgan LeFay), Murvyn Vye (Merlin).
Musical version based on the Mark Twain novel.
- L'ETERNEL RETOUR (1943): Directed by Jean Delannoy. Starring Jean
Marais and Madeleine Sologne. Screenplay by Jean Cocteau. The
September 1, 1989 Attachment 1--Arthurian Films Noreascon 3
story of Tristan and Isolde in a modern setting. Also known as THE
ETERNAL RETURN and LOVE ETERNAL.
- EXCALIBUR (1981): Directed by John Boorman. Starring Nigel Terry
(Arthur Pendragon), Cherie Lunghi (Guenevere), Nicholas Clay
(Lancelot), Robert Addie (Mordred), Helen Mirren (Morgana), Nicol
Williamson (Merlin). A very Germanic interpretation of Arthur with
a little Siegfried mixed in.
- FEUER UND SCHWERT (1981): Directed by Veith von Furstenberg. The
story of Tristan and Isolde.
- KING ARTHUR, THE YOUNG WARLORD (1975): Directed by Sidney Hayers,
Patrick Jackson, and Peter Sasdy. Starring Oliver Tobias (King
Arthur). Series made for HTV Ltd. and later condensed to feature-
film length.
- KNIGHTRIDERS (1981): Directed by George Romero. Starring Ed Harris
(Billy/Arthur), Amy Ingersoll (Linet/Guenevere), Gary Lahti
(Alan/Lancelot), Tom Savini (Morgan), Brother Blue (Merlin).
Arthur story retold set in a sort of SCA-on-motorcycles traveling
fair.
- KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE (1953): Directed by Richard Thorpe.
Starring Mel Ferrer (King Arthur), Ava Gardner (Guinevere), Robert
Taylor (Lancelot), Stanley Baker (Mordred). Anne Crawford (Morgan
LeFay), Felix Aylmer (Merlin). MGM's first Cinemascope film.
- LANCELOT AND ELAINE (1910):
- LANCELOT DU LAC (1974): Directed by Robert Bresson. Starring
Vladimir Antolek-ORESEK (King Arthur), Laura Duke Condominas
(Guinevere), and Luc Simon (Lancelot). Winner of the International
Critics Prize at Cannes.
- LEGEND OF KING ARTHUR (1974): Directed by Rodney Bennett. Starring
Andrew Burt (King Arthur), Felicity Dean (Guinevere), David Robb
(Lancelot), Maureen O'Brien (Morgan Le Fay), and Robert Eddison
(Merlin). Made for BBC television and shown in the United States
on PBS.
- "LAST DEFENDER OF CAMELOT" (1986): Episode of the new "Twilight
Zone." Based on the Roger Zelazny short story.
- LOVESPELL (1979): Directed by Tom Donovan. Starring Richard
Burton, Kate Mulgrew, Nicholas Clay, Cyril Cusack. Also known as
TRISTAN AND ISOLDE.
September 1, 1989 Attachment 1--Arthurian Films Noreascon 3
- MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975): Directed by Terry Gilliam
and Terry Jones. Starring Graham Chapman (King Arthur), John
Cleese (Lancelot), Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Terry
Jones.
- PARSIFAL (1904): Directed by Edwin S. Porter. Edison production.
- PARSIFAL (1912): Italian.
- PARSIFAL (1951): Directed by Daniel Mangran' and Carlos Serrano de
Osma. Starring Ludmilla Tcherina and Gustavo Rojo. Based on the
opera by Richard Wagner which was based on the epic PARZIFAL by
Wolfram Von Eschenbach. Also known as THE EVIL FOREST.
- PARSIFAL (1981): Directed by Hans Jurgen Syberberg.
- PERCEVAL LE GALLOIS (1978): Directed by Eric Rohmer. Starring
Fabrice Luchini (Perceval), Marc Eyraud (King Arthur), and Marie
Christine Barrault (Guinevere). Based on Chretien de Troyes's
poem.
- PRINCE VALIANT (1954): Directed by Henry Hathaway. Starring Brian
Aherne (King Arthur), Jarma Lewis (Guinevere), and Don Megowan
(Lancelot).
- THE SIEGE OF THE SAXONS (1954): Directed by Nathan Juran. Starring
Mark Dignam (King Arthur), John Laurie (Merlin), and Janette Scott.
- THE SWORD IN THE STONE (1963): Directed by Wolfgang Reithermann.
Animated; voices by Ricky Sorensen (Wart), Karl Swenson (Merlin),
Sebastian Cabot (Sir Ector). Based on the T. H. White novel.
- SWORD OF LANCELOT (1963): Directed by Cornel Wilde. Starring Brian
Aherne (King Arthur), Jean Wallace (Guinevere), Cornel Wilde
(Lancelot). Also known as LANCELOT AND GUINEVERE.
- SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1982): Directed by Stephen Weeks. Starring
Miles O'Keeffe and Sean Connery. The story of Gawain and the Green
Knight.
- TRISTAN ET ISEAULT (1972): Directed by Jean Lagrange.
- UNIDENTIFIED FLYING ODDBALL (1979): Directed by Russ Mayberry.
Starring Dennis Dugan (Tom Trimble), Kenneth More (King Arthur),
Jim Dale (Sir Mordred), Ron Moody (Merlin). Also known as THE
SPACEMAN AND KING ARTHUR.
% ==== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC)
% Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA25612; Tue, 19 Sep 89 14:11:27 -0700
|