| Reprinted with permission of Evelyn C. Leeper
Boskone 26
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Evelyn C. Leeper
Again Boskone ran from late Friday afternoon through late Sunday
afternoon (with Punday Sunday evening, making it very sparsely attended).
Since I was scheduled to appear on a Friday 7 PM panel, we left work about 2
PM and headed up to Springfield. Other than a fifteen-minute blizzard west
of Hartford and perfectly wretched traffic in Hartford (we hit it just about
5 PM), we had little trouble, but those were enough to make it hectic. We
arrived at Springfield about 6:20, parked the car, and then discovered I had
left my sheet telling where the Green Room was in New Jersey. Mark
suggested going direct to the panel, since I had that written in my
appointment book, but I decided to go to regular registration first to find
the Green Room and then to the Green Room. Registration was in the Sheraton
Tara; the Green Room was in the Marriott. Because of the construction being
done on the Marriott's lobby, there was a circuitous route required to get
from one hotel to the other which took ten minutes each time. This led to a
lot of difficulties in getting between programming items later. Although
this was billing as being a completely indoor path, it included a stretch
through an unheated, open-sided parking garage--not my idea of the Great
Indoors.
Upon arriving at the Green Room, I discovered they had moved the panel,
so it's a good thing I didn't go directly to the room I had listed. I spent
about fifteen minutes unwinding and talking to Saul Jaffe and Laurie Mann,
then proceeded to my panel (which will be described in the panel section).
Hotels
The hotel was spread between two hotels, the Marriott and the Sheraton
Tara. The two are across the street from each other, but because of the
renovations, this path was unusable. The only route (mentioned earlier)
took ten minutes and made access for the handicapped a real problem. Each
hotel again had a snack bar set up near the programming areas, with quite
reasonable prices, and lots of seating space for discussions and just plain
resting.
We, of course, stayed with our friend in nearby South Hadley and
thereby did not exacerbate the already overflowing hotel problem. While
NESFA could handle a Boskone of up to 1800, the hotel situation is such that
realistically not more than about 1400 could be accommodated.
Dealers' Rooms
Just as last year, there was dealers' rooms in each hotel. So, yes,
there was always a dealers' room nearby, but it was difficult (even more
than last year) to get to the "other" room. The Marriott was the primary
programming hotel, so I wonder if the dealers in the Tara felt short-
changed. On the other hand, the Art Show was in the Tara, so most people
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 2
got there at least once. The problem is there just isn't a room large
enough to hold all the dealers that isn't already allocated.
The dealers' rooms dealt mostly in books, and a very good assortment it
was. Again, sales were not up to what dealers had hoped for--it's not clear
why.
Art Show
I got to the Art Show only briefly, and was not greatly thrilled by it.
Maybe I'm losing my interest in them or something, but they seem to have
turned into a combination of bad art for sale and good art marked NFS ("Not
For Sale"). For an art exhibit, the conditions are less than ideal for
viewing the pieces. They did have a very large track of artists'
programming, which I had suggested last year, so maybe they actually read
these reports!
Film Program
The film program consisted of several George Pal films, but through
some mixup they got the television film THE TIME MACHINE rather than the Pal
version. Blecchh! I didn't see any of them. Some people complained about
the scant film program--given what they choose, I would be just as happy if
they didn't have any. I had suggested last year they get something like
Lem's SOLARIS and in this year's "Gripe Session" they specifically mentioned
that as one they've been trying to find, but cannot.
Programming
There was an art track, but no science track (apparently no working
scientists wanted to come out to Springfield on the weekend--I wonder why?).
THE PANEL PANEL
Friday, 7 PM
Josepha Sherman, Michael Jan Friedman,
Mark Keller, Evelyn Leeper, Eric Van
(This was the first panel that I was ever on, so I'm not sure how good
a summary of the panel I can give, being as my effort was spent in paneling
rather than note-taking.)
A good panel should be entertaining, informative, or both. Informative
is better during the day; entertaining is better right after meal break and
in the evenings when everyone is starting to run down. To have a good
panel, you need good panelists, not ones who monopolize the panel or drift
off the subject. You also need a good subject. Some of my examples of
overdone panels were "Word to Screen," "Screen to Word," "Book Collecting,"
"Feminism/Fat/Fandom" (or any two of those), "World Building" (which is
almost always "World Building 101"--don't they ever offer an advanced
course?), and "Arthurian Fantasy." People in the audience offered the
opinion that "put-down" panels were also a bad thing. On the positive side,
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 3
someone suggested a panel on "Political Heroic Fantasy"; many thought this
was an oxymoron. Panels on lesser-known authors was another suggestion.
And people seem to like the "Tips for Writers" type panels.
Someone asked if there was a "one-fan-per-panel" rule. No one was
sure, but I think people agreed that five people was about the maximum
desirable panel size. I said (and I think many agreed) that panelists
should not attempt to panel with under the influence of any controlled
substance (including alcohol).
(Sorry if this isn't too coherent. I was distracted by the need to
said witty and profound things, or at least fake it.)
MEET THE VIPS PARTY
Friday, 8:30 PM
I was a guest at this (because I was on two panels). However, I
discovered the difference between VIPs and just IPs--VIPs (professionals)
got a place to sit with a namecard; IPs (non-professionals) got to wander
around. I didn't stay very long, because we had arranged to meet some
friends for dinner at 9 PM to discuss the plans for the 25th anniversary
party for UMassSFS (a.k.a. UMSFS) to be held at Noreascon III. I did get to
see Laurie Mann in her third change of clothers for the day (anyone who has
time to change clothes that often at a convention isn't working hard
enough!).
Dinner: The Student Prince
However, several of our friends had gone early to dinner and we met
them returning as we were going there. This was annoying, since I had
basically skipped out of the VIPs party because this was the only time to
meet these friends, and now I missed that also. Still, there were some of
us left and it might had been difficult getting a table for all of us--the
place was, as usual, packed.
CONVENTIONOLICS ANONYMOUS
Friday, 11 PM
This panel showed no signs of starting at 11 PM since the VIPs Party
was still going in the same room, so we went to the Hobokon party instead.
Someone said this eventually did take place. The Hobokon party was serving
alcohol, which was supposedly a non-no for an "open" party, but no one
seemed to be enforcing those rules this year. They were serving Jersey beer
and Blatz beer, which some may claim aren't real drinks anyway.
WHY NOT CHARLEMAGNE?
Saturday, 11 AM
Elise Krueger, Ellen Asher, Michael Jan Friedman, Shariann Lewitt
This was instead of the "obligatory" Arthur panel, so what did they
spend most of the time talking about? You guessed it: Arthur. They kept
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 4
explaining why people wrote about Arthur (more readers know about Arthur
than Charlemagne). Of course, more readers know about Arthur than
Charlemagne because more authors write about him. Arthur is easier to write
about; he is basically fictional and Charlemagne is real. Arthur is a hero;
Charlemagne is an administrator, and an epic requires an heroic flaw. Over
and over they kept returning to Arthur--the next panel on this topic should
be forbidden to mention him (though then they'll start talking about "the
'A' person").
Of course, one reason that Arthur is better known and more written
about is that we (don't ask me who the "we" they kept talking about are)
come from an English heritage, not a French one. Someone suggested a story
of Charlemagne returning as a liberator of Quebec, which led to the question
(unanswered) of whether Charlemagne was more popular in French Canadian
literature than in United Statesian ("American" just doesn't seem the right
word here).
It was claimed that there were some interesting aspects to the
Charlemagne story. For example, because the French threw out the Moors,
"we" (there's that "we" again!) can drink wine and eat pork. Alternate
history was certainly one of the ways discussed to bring the Charlemagne
story to the speculative fiction field. Again, Arthur was fantasy,
Charlemagne was real. It was eventually concluded that what Charlemagne
needed now was not so much a Malory or T. H. White, but a John Boorman.
A few Charlemagne-based works were mentioned: THE SONG OF ROLAND,
Ludovico Arisota's ORLANDO FURIOSO, L. Sprague De Camp's CASTLE OF IRON,
Poul Anderson's THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS Penguin Books' LIVES OF
CHARLEMAGNE by Einhard & Notker. There was also something that sounded like
"William Curtnose epics," but many of the people there seemed more intent on
showing off their French accents than on communicating to the majority of
the audience, so I'm not really sure what it was. A reference work on the
Merovingians versus the Carolingians, HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL (Michael
Baigent et al), was also cited.
(I had planned to go to the "Mac and Me: Electronic Publishing for
Fans" panel, but 1) I forgot, and 2) it was in the Tara and that made it a
nuisance to get to. But before this panel I was in the Green Room where
Laurie was in outfit #4 and decided to go back to her room for outfit #5.
Of course, that was because she discovered her daughter had thrown up on
outfit #4....)
BOOKS INTO MOVIES
Saturday, Noon
Barry B. Longyear, Scott Ciencin, Gary K. Wolf
I only caught the end of this. When asked what books the panelists
wanted to see made into movies, Wolf answered, "DUNE." Longyear mentioned
two or three of his books (he seems to be one of the leaders in the new
trend of plugging one's own books on every panel, and it's getting downright
embarrassing). This attitude was particularly strange since he claimed he
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 5
had gotten a better deal from Moscow on ENEMY MINE than from Hollywood.
MAGIC AND HISTORY
Saturday, 1 PM
Susan Shwartz, Bill Forstchen, Esther Friesner, Tim Powers,
Melissa Scott, Judith Tarr
This started with the panelists pushing their latest books--one of them
(I forget which) claimed to be a member of the "Book of the Month Club" for
having a new book almost every month this year. In fact, that was a large
part of the panel--when asked about anything, panelists tended to respond
with, "Well, in my book REVENGE OF THE SORCERERS I tried just that
approach...." The first question was whether panelists use existing magical
systems or make them up. Powers claims that they're all made up anyway, so
changing the rules of voodoun slightly to make the story better is
acceptable, for example. Tarr prefers the "magic as science" approach,
which is also what Scott used in ARMOR OF LIGHT. Unfortunately, most of the
rest of the panel was promotional rather than informational.
SHORT FICTION: THE CUTTING EDGE
Saturday, 2 PM
James Patrick Kelly, John Betancourt,
Anne Jordan, Charles Ryan, Sheila Williams
Little was said about short fiction; the topic was really what was the
cutting edge of speculative fiction. Science fiction is seen as the
battleground of the war between the English majors and the science majors.
Cross-over authors have a hard time of it. Several people (included Kelly)
claimed Margaret Atwood's HANDMAID'S TALE was not realistically extrapolated
and hence not really science fiction, but everyone seemed willing to accept
Suzette Haden Elgin's NATIVE TONGUE, even though it was much less
believable. But NATIVE TONGUE was published by DAW Books and was by a
"science fiction" author. Another type of cross-over mentioned was the
techno-thriller. And then there was cyberpunk, splatterpunk, steampunk,
Blaupunkt.... Steampunk (discussed later) was described as "bringing a
modern sensibility to historic events." With steampunk and other trends, it
was claimed that science fiction seems to be turning backward to the past
rather than forward to the future. Everyone is doing alternate history, for
example. (I can't really keep up any more.) But though readers talk about
cyberpunk, what editors are getting is contemporary fantasy.
This panel (and others in this room) were marred by noise from the next
room--the audio system was much stronger than the partitions.
ALTERNATE SEXUALITY IN SCIENCE FICTION
Saturday, 3 PM
Joan D. Vinge, John Dumas, Delia Sherman, Gina Villa
Vinge started by asking what "alternate sexuality" is. The panelists
agreed it included redefining gender roles and redefining the family and
encompassed gay and lesbian sex, inter-(sapient)-species sex, and
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 6
transexualism (transexuality?). As an example of redefining the family, one
panelist mentioned Anne Rice's vampires, who form a family though not
related in the traditional sense. (However, as someone said, they are
related by blood!)
Sherman offered the opinion that sadists were reprehensible (I forget
in what context this remark was generated), which triggered a discussion of
voluntary versus involuntary "victims," and led one panelist to suggest the
idea of "American Gothic" in black leather and garters. Further additions
to the list of alternatives were solo sex and appliance sex ("The Brave
Little Toaster gets pregnant"). Though there was some of the same tendency
to equate "alternative sexual lifestyles" with "homosexuality" as at the
Readercon panel, I though this panel managed to avoid sliding into that
trap; whenever someone drifted that way, someone else would bring up other
variations (e.g., appliance sex).
The discussion drifted into a debate on whether future societies should
always be portrayed as accepting toward alternative sexualities, or at least
if not accepting, then wrong in this refusal. All this smacks of putting a
requirement of political correctness on authors' writings which I would
think science fiction fans would be among the first to object to. Somewhere
in all this discussion the question of religious attitudes toward
alternative sexualities was raised and someone started talking about how if
there were an Islamic future how intolerant society would be, because after
all, in the past Islam was strong on forced conversions and such. I pointed
out that when it came to intolerance and forced conversions, Christianity
didn't have a pristine record either. Frankly I'm getting a little tired of
how many people feel entitled to attack an entire religion because of the
actions of some of its followers. But if you identify *their* religion with
some of the more outrageous promoters of it, they get all upset. It is
unfortunate that the normally tolerant science fiction community feels that
Islam-bashing is quite all right. It isn't.
(As an aside, is it possible that many religions go through a "holy
war" phase about 1100 to 1300 years after their inception?)
(Samuel R. Delany was scheduled to be on this panel but could not
attend.)
HOW TO BE A BETTER READER
Saturday, 4 PM Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Jim
Frenkel, Evelyn Leeper, James Mann, James Morrow
By the time this panel rolled around, I was a little more calm about
it, plus I had a little more time to prepare. Neilsen Hayden introduced Jim
Frenkel and James Morrow, giving a couple of sentences about each of them,
then turned to me and said, "I really don't know too much about you; why
don't you introduce yourself?" Not cool. I probably should have mentioned
that I write book reviews for LAN'S LANTERN, but being new to this I hadn't
prepared a stock self-introduction. (Take this as a hint to new panelists.)
When we were asked for some beginning comments on how to be a better reader,
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 7
I responded that at first I was going to say one should get a strong enough
lightbulb, a comfortable chair, ... but then realized that wasn't what was
meant. I said what seemed the best way to be a better reader was to read
better books--if you read Steven Brust's TO REIGN IN HELL without having
read Milton's PARADISE LOST, it won't be nearly as meaningful. If you've
never read Dickens' OLIVER TWIST, you won't see the similarities between
that and H. Beam Piper's OTHER HUMAN RACE. Another panelist mentioned the
alarming number of fantasy "fans" who love the "Shannara" series but have
never read Tolkien. Of course, there were some who felt this was too much
like insisting on "culture bites" a la "Cultural Literacy," which they
seemed to scorn. While I don't think the items chosen for "Cultural
Literacy" are the best possible set, I do think there is some validity to
the concept. I just finished reading an article by Timothy Leary in
MISSISSIPPI REVIEW in which he feels obliged to add a footnote explaining
who the Axis was in World War II and who the Allies were. Such a footnote
would make me worry about the author, the audience, or both. But back to
the issue at hand.
I got some debate when I said that if people don't start becoming
better readers when they are young, they'll have great difficulty doing it
later, by which I meant that if when you're in college you're still moving
your lips when you read and reading very slowly, you will have a lot of
trouble reading enough to read widely. Other people were promoting reading
other forms of literature to learn to read better: drama, essays, poetry.
Especially poetry. I'm not sure why the promotion of poetry has suddenly
become a big thing at science fiction conventions. Someone mentioned
Chaucer and Nielsen Hayden said that Chaucer was definitely fannish--I
wonder what he means? One thing noted was that you can read for different
things, e.g., you can read for ideas, you can read for writing style, you
can read for story, ... and all of them require a different style of
reading.
Two books were recommended: John Ciardi's HOW DOES A POEM MEAN? and
Ezra Pound's ABCS OF READING. (These were also recommended at Readercon,
but then many of the same people were on both panels, so that isn't
surprising.)
TRUE COVERS: TRUTH IN PACKAGING FOR BOOKS AND MAGAZINES
Saturday, 6 PM
Ginjer Buchanan, Beth Fleisher, James Gurney, James Warhola
Buchanan started by explaining that books are scheduled two years in
advance of publication. Cover conferences occur about thirteen months
before publication and involve the editor who chose the book, the art
editor, and marketing people. The author is not involved. The art director
then talks to the artist, who draws some preliminary sketches, perhaps based
on his or her own ideas, perhaps based on the art director's suggestions.
S/he may or may not get a complete copy of the book. It is possible that
the art director will reject all the ideas, but usually the choice of artist
and job specification avoids this. Then there is the blurb and the back-
cover commentary (no one seemed to want to take responsibility for these).
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 8
The panel ended up with a spirited exchange between them (the editors
mostly) and the audience regarding the current practice of having books by
minor-author written in the universe of MAJOR-AUTHOR. Many audience members
felt that the comparative type sizes used on such covers tricked many buyers
into purchasing books that they thought were by MAJOR-AUTHOR rather than
minor-author. Buchanan denied this and pointed to continuing strong sales
for the "Robot City" series, claiming that such deception would be noted
after the first book or two and if buyers/readers objected, sales would have
dropped off.
Dinner: Peking Duck House
We had quite a long wait for dinner and had to rush somewhat so that
some people could get back in time for the Guest of Honor speech--which ran
all of about eight minutes! This restaurant is very popular with the
Boskone crowd, but someone should warn the management ahead of time--they
could have used some more servers (and kitchen staff, I'm sure).
WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO BE AN SF WRITER
Sunday, Noon
James Morrow, James Patrick Kelly, Shariann Lewitt, Tim Powers, Cat Pryde
Most of the panelists began by explaining that either they weren't
full-time writers or they were incredibly poor or they had someone else
supporting them. Lewitt does "work for hire" (e.g., writing books in series
under a house name--you didn't really think there was someone named Kenneth
Robeson who wrote all those "Doc Savage" novels, did you?) Morrow depends
somewhat on his wife's job. Powers took ten years to get to the stage where
his writing would support him. Pryde made only $6927.13 on writing last
year.
Powers thinks books are evidence of his existence, but he likes to have
written, not to write. Someone quoted Hemingway that writing is not a
full-time job. They all bemoaned the fact that being a writer means they
have to promote their books on all their panels (I wonder if they saw my
notes?!). Kelly and others said they did enjoy the feedback on their
writing they get from people at conventions. But several felt that Boskone
was all politics and back-stabbing; this was clarified later to mean that
the authors and editors were doing the back-stabbing, not the convention
organizers. The need to work at conventions (by meeting with editors and
such) took away a lot of the pleasure authors might have attending them.
Powers in particular avoids working at conventions and self-promotion in
general. He explained that if by holding a book-signing in a local store he
managed to sell fifty more hard-cover books than he would otherwise, he was
still only getting $50 for having to dress up and spend an afternoon sitting
around in a store. If he sells fifty more paperbacks, he doesn't even make
back bus fare.
As for the adulation of their fans, those who are pursued by fans hate
it and those who are not pursued by fans hate that. James Patrick Kelly
made a point of saying that he has never had sex at a convention (I think
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 9
several audience members wondered if that was a challenge). There was a lot
of discussion about the wearing of a ribbon--people look at the ribbon, then
peer at the badge. If you're lucky they then say something to you
(preferably not "Are you anybody?"); if you're not, they give you this look
like, "I've never heard of you," and walk away.
STEAM PUNK AND POST STEAM PUNK
Sunday, 1 PM
Ginjer Buchanan, Esther Friesner, Tim Powers, Brian Thomsen
"Steampunk" was apparently a term coined to cover K. W. Jeter's
INFERNAL DEVICES, Tim Powers' ANUBIS GATES, and James Blaylock's HOMUNCULUS.
Three novels do not, however, a genre make. Even with the expected addition
of William Gibson and Bruce Sterling's DIFFERENCE ENGINE, this seems like a
skimpy category.
The characteristics given (none seems precise enough to be called a
definition) include "a throwback to science fiction's origins," pseudo-
science with no explanation (as in Shelley or Verne), Victorian settings
with people "with modern sensibilities," and so forth. Jeter's MORLOCK
NIGHT was also mentioned, as was THE WILD WILD WEST. I would suggest such
works as DR. WHO & THE TALONS OF WENG-CHIANG and some of the Sherlock Holmes
pastiches which had him defeating mad scientists with "earthquake machines"
and the like. Kipling's "The Eye of Allah" was cited as perhaps the
earliest example of this sort of work, though certainly not "steampunk."
Is steampunk science fiction or fantasy? I suggested it was science
fantasy, which seemed to satisfy most of the panel.
Powers talked about the need to research this sort of work thoroughly.
If he has Byron saying something, he doesn't need to prove that Byron said
it, but he'd better be sure no one could prove Byron *didn't* say it. He also
feels that people become harder to understand the further back in history
you go and claimed that people before 1500 are totally alien to us. Hence
when authors write about them they tend to adapt them to modern audiences
much as Mexican food is adapted to United Statesian tastes in "Mexican"
restaurants in this country. As an example of how alien these people were,
he told of an instrument he found described in an account of the time, said
instrument being used to push the hands of people who were being boiled in
oil away from the edge of the pot. I pointed out that this was not so
alien, since if one went back only 45 years, one could find similar items in
the death camps of Europe. (For that matter, one can probably find them in
the offices of the secret police in many countries today.) If you think all
this sort of thing went out hundreds of years ago, it's too easy to say,
"Look at how inhuman they were and how much better we are," instead of
looking at how inhuman we *still* are.
This being at the end of the panel, there wasn't any time to follow up
on it. I suspect that cyberpunk, splatterpunk, steampunk, and all the other
punks will eventually merge into their parent genres: science fiction,
horror, science fantasy. These days movements are in, and anyone who finds
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 10
similarities in two novels declares a movement. I'm surprised there isn't
"space-elevator-punk" based on Arthur C. Clarke's FOUNTAINS OF PARADISE and
Charles W. Sheffield's WEB BETWEEN THE WORLDS.
I finally figured out what it is about Friesner on a panel that annoys
me. She has this way of talking in which at the end of a sentence she drops
her voice and starts ... talking ... very ... slowly ... as ... if ...
revealing ... a panelists have these days if that they seem to go into these
"wouldn't it be neat if..." modes which would be great were it not for the
fact that the answer is often, "No.")
SF MYSTERIES
Sunday, 2 PM
Rich Bowker, Scott Ciencin, Beth Meacham, Andi Shechter
The panelists began by stating what has been observed before: that it
is difficult to write a traditional "puzzle" mystery in the science fiction
genre. It a traditional mystery, the reader must have all the clues
necessary to solve the mystery, yet in a science fiction milieu there is
often unexpected technology, different mores, etc. I mean, if it turns out
that the butler did it by teleporting in from Venus and the detective solves
this because the butler left because epsilon traces in the teleportation
chamber and these epilson traces could only have originated on Venus....
Well, you get the idea. The easiest way to combine the two genres is with a
minimal science fiction background and a mystery plot (hardly anyone does a
minimal mystery background with a science fiction plot--Sam Spade meets
alien invaders).
And then followed the usual complaints about publishing/marketing.
Where should such cross-over novels be shelved? Apparently you can't
convince chains to shelve them in BOTH "Mysteries" and "Science
Fiction/Fantasy." Of the books listed below, most were filed in the
"Science Fiction/Fantasy"; but the John Dickson Carr, Dickinson's KING &
JOKER, the Hjortsberg, the Leonard, and the MacLeod were in "Mysteries"; and
the Deighton was in "Fiction." Go figure.
There was then the obligatory listing of books and authors:
Isaac Asimov's robot mysteries; Alfred Bester's THE DEMOLISHED MAN; George
Chesbro's THE BEASTS OF VALHALLA and Mongo mysteries; Bowker's DOVER BEACH
(post-holocaust) and MARLBORO STREET; various works by John Dickson Carr;
Glen Cook's SWEET SILVER BLUES, BITTER GOLD HEARTS, and COLD COPPER TEARS;
Len Deighton's SS-GB (alternate history); Philip K. Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM
OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? (hard-boiled detective); Peter Dickinson's GREEN GENE and
KING & JOKER (the latter alternate history); George Alec Effinger's WHEN
GRAVITY FAILS (cyberpunk); Randall Garrett's Lord D'Arcy stories (science
fantasy/alternate history); Joe Haldeman's TOOL OF THE TRADE; various works
by Barbara Hambly; William Hjortsberg's FALLING ANGEL; Lee Killough's DEADLY
SILENTS and other police procedurals; Elmore Leonard's THE TOUCH; Richard
Lupoff's COMIC BOOK KILLER; Charlotte MacLeod's CURSE OF THE GIANT HOGWEED;
Larry Niven's "The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton," various works by Mike Resnick;
Wilson Tucker's THE LINCOLN HUNTERS; Andrew Vachss' FLOOD, STREGA, and BLUE
Boskone 26 Feburary 12, 1989 Page 11
BELLE (mainstream but listed as being of interest to science fiction fans);
Jack Vance's "Demon Princes" series; Kate Wilhelm's THE DARK DOOR and SAFE
HOUSE (or possible SUPER HOUSE--the panelist wasn't too sure of the title and
it isn't listed in BOOKS IN PRINT); and Gary L. Wolf's WHO CENSORED ROGER
RABBIT?.
GRIPE SESSION
Sunday, 4 PM
The gripe session was very low-key, with most of the gripes being of
the administrative level (opening registration before the dealers needed to
set up, providing microphones, etc.). There was little opposition to the
"scale-down" policy that caused such an uproar last year. One fan who
objected to it said he wasn't coming back next year, which just about
everyone applauded.
Miscellaneous
The various upcoming worldcons had tables, so I could sign up for
Confiction without having to send my check registered mail. (Yes,
apparently you can send checks to the American agent--this was never made
clear. Also apparently you can send United States checks to Holland.)
Summary
As I have said, it wasn't perfect. But it was good enough that we'll
be back next year for Boskone 27 (February 16-18, 1990; Guest of Honor Glen
Cook). Given that it's back on President's Day weekend opposite the new
Boston convention Arisia, and the Boskone after a Boston worldcon, I expect
it will be smaller still, perhaps under 1000. It will be interesting to see
how that works out.
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA23423; Wed, 22 Feb 89 08:35:59 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for sagan2::lowe; id AA23423; Wed, 22 Feb 89 08:35:59 PST
Received: by att.ATT.COM (smail2.6 att-mt)
id AA06433; 22 Feb 89 10:28:59 EST (Wed)
|