Looking Upwards
Apr. 17th, 2005 10:35 amYesterday was this year's BSFA/SFF AGM/event day, Looking Upwards. It was a very good day; I managed to catch up, at least briefly, with almost all the people I wanted to catch up with, and the talks and panels were largely good. Some brief notes:
So yes, good day. Thanks to all those who organised it.
- Ian McDonald gave a brief history of the life cycle of a movement in sf (which went something like, origins -> core text -> manifesto -> theme anthology -> wannabes -> poor imitations -> rediscovery fifteen years later as 'retro'), and then discussed some of his reservations about the Mundane SF manifesto. Fun talk.
- The SFF panel was on 'Is Science Writing the New SF?', with Francis Spufford, Oliver Morton,
fjm and
major_clanger chairing. This was a very interesting discussion, but wandered quite a long way off the original topic. Much of the time focused on what you might call the philosophy of science education; whether children are being taught to reason for themselves, whether that's sufficient, that sort of thing. I'm glad that
pmcmurray took up the issue of children doing or not doing 'hands-on' science in the home these days (growing crystals, dismantling wirelesses, generally messing about in the kitchen, that sort of thing) and pointed out that if they're not doing that, they are playing with computers and computer software. I think this is an obvious parallel, and it's been going on for a while, to the point where in terms of childhood experiences directing adult interests, I think the infotech-heavy sf of, say, Charles Stross is the present-day equivalent of the rocket- and space-adventure-heavy sf of the golden age.
karen_traviss gave an enjoyable talk on approaching writing as a business, rather than (or at least as much) as an art form. Very entertaining, and at times mind-bogglingly practical and pragmatic; and I really must get around to reading City of Pearl at some point.- The last panel of the day was the BSFA panel 'Best of British', with hh
fishlifter, Steve Jeffries, Ian McDonald, myself, and Paul Billinger chairing. I was nervous about this beforehand (having agreed to be on it, I realised that I don't actually think myself knowledgeable enough about British sf to be confident picking potential Bests; The Affirmation and Stand on Zanzibar have gone on my list of Things I Should Try To Read Before Worldcon) but it seemed to go well enough in the end (pace the usual disclaimer about my public speaking abilities). I think if there was a problem with it, it's perhaps that it didn't offer much scope for debate; the trouble with discussing The Best is that you're going to nod along with most people's choices and think that yeah, actually, they've got a point.
So yes, good day. Thanks to all those who organised it.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 10:01 am (UTC)Like you, I must try to read The Affirmation and Stand on Zanzibar before Worldcon; the former is already in my Fishlifteresque to-read pile and is fairly short - might get round to it whereas SoZ is 660 pages - virtually no chance at my reading speed.
Although it wasn't explicitly stated that we talking SF and excluding fantasy, I assume that as no one mentioned JRRT or Moorcock, that this is the case.
On a tangent, the BSFA really must decide whether it's ignoring fantasy or not; it's getting confusing. Susanna Clarke, after all, has written only fantasy AFAIK, and she's guest at the next BSFA meeting next week (27th, same day as the Observer HHGTTG previews [bah, will have to miss HHGTTG]). Here we have awards that seem to ignore fantasy. Hmm.
One last comment on the Best of British - the design of the leaflet is crap. By naming certain books/authors/films/TV programmes and not others and by putting a box next to their name, it is encouraging people to to vote for one of the named choices. I know there's a box for other, but it's not clear enough. It needs to be a simple 4 box sheet with a list of possibilities underneath if that is considered necessary.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 11:22 am (UTC)I'd say more about the book but that would give stuff away. It's basically about the feud between two magicians at the turn of the 20th century, and how it spills over into the present day.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 01:09 pm (UTC)I don't think all SF should be forced to fit into it, by any means, but I do occasionally get annoyed when I pick up some scientifiction and discover that it has ghosts, psychics and all sorts of other fluffiness in it. Not that I object to a good fantasy story - but when I'm expecting scientifiction it gets in the way.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 01:26 pm (UTC)Damn right you should...and you never even said hi!
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 02:22 pm (UTC)And I'm terrible at introducing myself to people--sorry!
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 02:25 pm (UTC)McDonald also argued that following the mundane manifesto would rob sf of its resonance, and ability to tell mythic-type stories; there's perhaps some truth to that, but I'm not sure I agree. Just look at Air, after all.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 02:58 pm (UTC)Give it up, son. No good comes of reading. Just keep buying the books...
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:05 pm (UTC)Bite your tongue! Reading is holy...Don't mak me send my minions after you...
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:21 pm (UTC)Now you sound like my husband....
I don't quite understand that stand but I can live with it. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:47 pm (UTC)And when has that ever stopped you before? ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:55 pm (UTC)I wasn't much taken with the bit where they declared that books which "tick all the boxes" on the manifesto but don't declare themselves to be mundane aren't mundane, because it seems a bit silly.
Anyway, the website seems a bit dead and hasn't been updated since 2003, and no one could come up with an author who has signed up to this manifesto other than Geoff Ryman. Although apparently Anton Chkhov would if he weren't dead.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 04:48 pm (UTC)Hmm, don't the peasants find their actions short-sighted and counter-productive? Or have you never stopped running long enough to chat? ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 04:51 pm (UTC)I tried a few times and it hurt. So now I just keep running.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 05:03 pm (UTC)I'm guessing the primary reason is just that standing up and talking about it is the best way to get other people talking about it. If you want to encourage other people to follow a particular approach, you have to point out that the approach exist.
Much of the manifesto seems pretty clearly tongue in cheek to me.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 05:07 pm (UTC)...and at remembering someone you have been introduced to ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 05:40 pm (UTC)The first one is my favourite SF book in a long while - full of both amazing ideas and character-driven plot. I seem to recall that you're not a big fan of violence, and this is actually almost entirely violence free, so that might be a boost for you.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 05:41 pm (UTC)If you were looking for hard SF then it might well attract you.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 08:11 pm (UTC)Is there a web presence for this? If not, can you remind me of the categories and the suggested suggestions?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 08:35 pm (UTC)- best novel
- best film
- best newcomer (since 2000)
- best tv
- order of merit
Pick one in each category. I'm not typing up all the possibles given in the flyer because (a) there are lots of them and (b) there are lots that aren't included.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-18 09:29 am (UTC)To clarify: this is first novel in 2000 or later, not first publication?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-18 09:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-18 10:19 am (UTC)best novel: Use Of Weapons by Iain M. Banks
best film: Brazil
best newcomer (since 2000): Alastair Reynolds
best tv: Red Dwarf
order of merit: JG Ballard
Very male and only slightly less white.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 07:30 am (UTC)