Whatever: SFWA President: I'm a Write-In Candidate

« Author Interview: Elizabeth Moon | Main | The Mockery! It's Begun! »

March 15, 2007

SFWA President: I'm a Write-In Candidate

I got a ballot from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America about a week ago; the ballot is for electing the officers of SFWA -- President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. As I read the ballot, I noticed two things. First, there was only one candidate on the ballot for each category, and no way to register a "none of the above" vote; two, the SFWA members standing for president and vice president are people who, for philosophical reasons only (having nothing to do with their respective personal characters), I would not vote for nor wish to be at the helm of the organization at this time.

While the ballot does not offer a "none of the above" option for voting, it does offer SFWA members the ability to offer a write-in candidate instead. This is me announcing, somewhat reluctantly, that I am now offering myself up as a write-in candidate for SFWA President. If you are a member of SFWA and you are dissatisfied with the presidential choice offered to you, you may write me in; if elected, I will serve.

Allow me to note that I am not particularly keen on serving in this position; I've been a SFWA member long enough to know that it's a fairly thankless position, with lots of herding cats and dealing with aggravating minutiae, and I have a career to look after at the moment. I'd just as soon not be president of SFWA, and if I am elected president, you should know now that I will view the position as something I am doing in addition to my writing career, not something of equal importance. I might as well be honest with you on that score.

If I don't really want to be president of SFWA, why am I offering myself as a write-in candidate?

1. Philosophically, I'm opposed to having only one candidate for a leadership position of any organization I am involved with. I don't think it speaks well for the organizational health of the body; it suggests an apathetic membership. One can debate whether the membership is apathetic because the organization is not useful enough to be engaged in, or whether the membership is simply apathetic in a general sense (or both). Whatever the cause, it's not an encouraging sign.

I have always been honest that I've pretty much viewed my membership in SFWA as an affectation; I've never expected SFWA to do anything for me because I require nothing from it. However, I have the luxury of regarding my membership as an affectation; other members of SFWA might actually want it to do something useful for them. I happen to think SFWA can be useful; I happen to think it doesn't do a particularly good job of being useful. I have opinions on the matter strong enough that I believe that I can be a reasonable candidate for the job of president. As there is only one other person running, I feel obliged to put my hat in the ring if only to offer a reasonable and notable choice for the position.

2. I don't believe that Michael Capobianco, the fellow running for SFWA President, is at all the right person for the job. Let me note again that this is not a reflection on his personal character; I've not met him outside the online SFWA newsgroups and a few other online venues, so I cannot speak as to whether he is a nice guy or whatever. I'm sure he is. Likewise, Mr. Capobianco is a past president of SFWA and has won the organization's service award, which suggests that in the past, at least, he has been viewed as a reasonable choice for leading the organization. The question in my mind is not his past service, of which I have no experience (it was before my time) but whether he's the right person to lead SFWA forward now.

I don't think he is for two reasons. First, he hasn't had a novel published in this century; his last published novel, White Light, which he co-wrote with William Barton, was published in hardcover in 1998. Essentially, he's a decade out of practice with the practical aspects of publishing science fiction. This matters if one believes, as I do, that SFWA should primarily be a professional service organization; it particularly matters if one believes, as I do, that the publishing world in the 21st century, even this early on, is manifestly different than it was in the 20th century. I have books professionally published in both centuries; I know how much it's changed, and I deal with the publishing world on a daily basis.

Second, I believe that based on what I've read from him Mr. Capobianco is fundamentally afraid of the changing publishing world, and the changes in the world of speculative fiction, and that this fundamental position will cause him to make his tenure as SFWA backward-facing and defensive, rather than forward-thinking and innovative. This will make SFWA even more irrelevant to working writers -- that is, the people who are shaping science fiction -- than it already is.

Simply put, the professional organization of speculative fiction should not be headed by people who believe their job is to hold back the future. I believe strongly that Michael Capobianco sees it as his role to hold back the future and to maintain the status quo in publishing and in speculative fiction. That battle has already been lost; the publishing world has already irrevocably changed from when Mr. Capobianco last published. It's time that SFWA moves forward with leadership who understands this.

I'm not keen on being SFWA president. But I'm even less keen on Mr. Capobianco being SFWA president, enough so that I'm willing to offer myself for the position.

(I believe similar things about Andrew Burt, who is the fellow running for Vice-President; however, I'm not offering myself for that position, so I'll leave it at that for now.)

Now that you know why I am offering myself as a write-in candidate, it's time to hit you with my platform. It's a platform that is based on the idea that the primary goals of SFWA should be a) to advance the position of speculative fiction (and particularly written speculative fiction) in the mind of the public and b) to benefit and advance the active speculative fiction careers of its members.

Here's what's on the platform:

1. A rational view of copyright issues that while strongly affirmative of a creator's right to control his or her work also recognizes that the biggest problem facing creators is not piracy but obscurity. To that end I suggest re-evaluating the potential of online browsing initiatives in particular, to get samples of work to the largest possible audiences while still giving authors a say in how that work is viewed. That said, while this issue is "sexy," this is the issue out of all the ones I'm presenting here that SFWA should spend the least amount of time on. Other issues are more practical and more fundamental to the well-being of SFWA members' careers, and the health of the speculative fiction genre.

2. An understanding that the most critical segment of our audience is the youngest segment; to that end I will suggest SFWA undertake initiatives with publishers, libraries and educators to get speculative fiction in front of new readers and help create the next generation of speculative fiction writers. These initiatives will include mentoring aspiring science fiction writers and creating SFWA-branded anthologies of new, fun and age-appropriate anthologies that the organization will offer to schools, free in printable electronic form.

3. An expectation of service from all SFWA members in the organization's institutional and educational goals, including those noted in point two. Speaking as someone who has a membership primarily as an affectation, I can say that requiring active service will be beneficial in shaking out the hangers-on and giving those who remain the feeling that SFWA is doing something useful, because it requires something useful from them.

4. SFWA should be viewed as a first-stop resource for every literary event, SFF convention and speaker-seeking organization in the country for speakers and panelists. I suggest the hiring of a full-time and salaried Director of Speculative Fiction Evangelism. The director's job will be to identify, pursue and generate opportunities in organizations and communities where SFWA members can promote speculative fiction, the organization, and their own work.

5. SFWA's Web site sucks, with abominable aesthetics and clunky design and navigation. The official organization of the literature of the future should not have an online presence that looks like it came from 1997. I will suggest a massive revamp of the site to make it more attractive, easier to use and most importantly more relevant to speculative fiction readers and enthusiasts, including an initiative to create new content on the site on a regular basis, to attract readers and raise awareness of SFWA and its relevance to both speculative fiction readers and writers.

6. The Nebulas are one of the two major awards in literary science fiction, but their luster has dimmed over the last several years; they are no longer the equal to the Hugos in terms of relevance and timeliness, and their nomination process leaves them open to accusations of nomination via logrolling rather than literary quality. As a result they are less useful to SFWA members in promoting their own Nebula-nominated work, and they are less useful to SFWA as a publicity-generating tool. I will suggest a number of steps to bring the Nebulas back to their position of pre-eminence in the science fiction world, including a return to calendar year nominations, making the nomination process anonymous to eliminate the appearance of quid-pro-quo nominating, and presenting the Nebulas at major SFF conventions -- i.e., in front of fans, rather than away from fans at a private SFWA function.

7. Presenting the Nebulas at a major science fiction convention would necessarily eliminate the need for a Nebula Weekend, but it would still be useful and beneficial to have a SFWA-themed event, to handle face-to-face SFWA business and to let the members socialize, and also to get SFWA members in front of fans old and new. I will suggest the formation of a SFWA Jubilee Committee, whose task will be to run an annual convention complete with programming for fans and readers as well as for private SFWA business, and to have the Jubilee move its location annually and work with organizations in the communities in which it is held to raise interest in the event and to bring in both old-time fans and new potential readers (particularly from high school and middle school).

8. Two of SFWAs most useful initiatives are its Emergency Medical Fund and its Legal Fund, to help members who find themselves in tight spots. I will suggest active, aggressive and persistent fundraising initiatives to pile money into both of these funds to assure they are always ready when members have need.

9. Any professional organization lives and innovates by attracting new members. I will suggest initiatives to assure that every SFWA-eligible writer who is not a member knows he or she is eligible to join -- and that we want them in our ranks.

That's enough for one one-year term, I think.

Now, you may ask, do I honestly think all of these things can be accomplished over the course of one term? I do not; there's no assurance that any of these initiatives will make it out of the gate, and remember, in all of this I'll also be having a career, writing my own books and taking care of my own business. Be that as it may, these are the things SFWA should be tackling, whether I am the one at the helm or not. Please consider this an open-source platform; if you want to be a write-in candidate, or be a candidate next year, please take as many of these ideas as you want. I don't mind getting off the hook for this gig.

If I am to be the one at the helm, it would be helpful to have a SFWA executive committee that is both philosophically aligned with these goals and willing to do the work to implement them; I suspect I would be particularly in need of an uber-competent VP who would have a passion for organization and a gift for details, because God knows I'm deficient in both. I hope someone will step forward and offer themselves as a write-in candidate for VP, and please please please be competent.

I will say this: If you're a SFWA member, don't vote for me if you're not willing to have me come in and stomp around and try to get these things done, and not necessarily be the most politic guy when I do; likewise don't vote for me if you are not willing to pitch in when I come asking for your help, which I will. I'm not going to try to get this done on my own; if I look out among SFWA members and I don't see people willing to step forward and make the organization useful and relevant to their careers and the careers of other science fiction writers, I'm out of there. I want to be very clear about the fact I have no compunction against saying "see ya" if I don't think SFWA's membership is serious about SFWA. I'll resign the post and go back to my plow. So make no mistake that a vote for me is a vote for an obligation to SFWA by you. If I have to stop thinking about my membership as an affectation, I think you should have to, too.

There it is. Thanks for reading.

Update, 1:17 am 3/16: Derryl Murphy has announced a write-in run for SFWA VP.

Posted by john at March 15, 2007 10:14 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.scalzi.com/mt2/mt-tb.cgi/4540

Comments

Dean | March 15, 2007 10:24 PM

Wow. I'm impressed. Seriously.

If I were a member of SFWA (and if I were eligible, I'd be a member) I'd probably vote for you just on the strength of what I see here. Because if you are reluctant to serve, you sure don't show it. I don't see a bit of reluctance here. I see passion and rational thinking, which is usually a damned effective combination.

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 10:28 PM

Dean:

"Because if you are reluctant to serve, you sure don't show it."

Heh. What part of "I'd rather not" is not coming through?

Really, I don't want the gig. It's a headache, as far as I can see. But I don't think the alternative is acceptable.

Justine Larbalestier | March 15, 2007 10:34 PM

You're mad. But if I were a member I'd write you in.

Though I really don't think no. 2 is that urgent. Science fiction is positively thriving in it's young adult, manga, graphic novel and anime forms. It's only the grown-up published-as-sf form that seems to be moribund. And even then there are lots of exceptions.

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 10:39 PM

Justine Larbalestier:

"Though I really don't think no. 2 is that urgent. Science fiction is positively thriving in it's young adult, manga, graphic novel and anime forms. It's only the grown-up published-as-sf form that seems to be moribund. And even then there are lots of exceptions."

I think its urgent to SFWA; it needs to be part of that territory and it needs to be relevant to those writers and readers. Right now I don't think it is. Make no mistake number 2 is as much for the benefit of the organization as for the kids (if not more so).

Patrick | March 15, 2007 10:45 PM

How do you feel about making it more inclusive, such as a limited membership for writers who have not published yet?

Right now, I'm told that I'm not able to join because I haven't risen to such high ranks. Well, if you don't help me get there, why would I want to be there?

Leah Bobet | March 15, 2007 10:49 PM

I may have actually found a reason to join SFWA.

Never thought I'd say that. *g*

Patrick | March 15, 2007 10:49 PM

I really should read everything before I comment... I would assume that "These initiatives will include mentoring aspiring science fiction writers " would mean that you are in favor of such a move.

TCO | March 15, 2007 10:52 PM

bleh. post too long.

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 10:53 PM

Patrick:

"How do you feel about making it more inclusive, such as a limited membership for writers who have not published yet?"

There are already associate memberships, which I think are adequate.

I think SFWA should be a primarily a professional organization, so professional credits should be relevant.

TCO:

It's not relevant to you anyway.

Steve Brady | March 15, 2007 10:55 PM

John, haven't you been paying attention for the last decade? Writing a mile-long substantive policy post is no way to get elected in this country. Maybe they do that sort of thing in the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of France, but not here.

Just post a funny picture or something.

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 10:58 PM

Steve Brady:

I don't mind if I don't get elected; I just want people to know they have a choice.

Bryan Taylor | March 15, 2007 11:01 PM

Didn't Douglas Adams say that the person most suited for office is the one who doesn't want the job?

Naomi | March 15, 2007 11:03 PM

I may have already tossed my ballot -- having determined that there were no contested races, I saw no particular reason to waste a stamp.

Are you going to run next year, when you could actually put your name on the ballot, and include your manifesto with the mailing?

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 11:05 PM

Naomi:

"Are you going to run next year, when you could actually put your name on the ballot, and include your manifesto with the mailing?"

Hopefully next year someone will run I will be comfortable voting for, and I won't have to put my hat in the ring.

Patrick | March 15, 2007 11:07 PM

Think about this.

https://www.rwanational.org/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?webcode=AboutUsGeneralMem

I'm just saying. Want to know something -- ask a romance writer.

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 11:13 PM

Patrick:

RWA is not SFWA. I don't think offering membership to people who have no actual publishing credits is useful. There are of course lots of ways to engage people who are not members, and they should be done. But the membership criteria for a professional writing organization should be professional writing credits, in my opinion.

Kristine Smith | March 15, 2007 11:22 PM

FWIW, PAN spun off of RWA when published writers felt that their needs were being overwhelmed by those of the prepubs. The needs are different, and it's difficult for a single organization to be all things to both sides.

diana pharaoh francis | March 15, 2007 11:28 PM

So, if you don't win, will you run officially next year? I have to go digging for my ballot . . .

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 11:31 PM

Di:

As I noted to Naomi, hopefully next year someone will run I will be comfortable voting for, and I won't have to put my hat in the ring.

Jenny Rae Rappaport | March 15, 2007 11:31 PM

See my e-mail to you, John.

But what I want, besides all the things that you've listed, is some acknowledgement in the organization that Affiliate Members matter. I'm an affiliate member. I'm one of the people who damn well goes out there and sells your books. And I have almost no rights, no input, no anything.

diana pharaoh francis | March 15, 2007 11:34 PM

And then I read Naomi's post . . . duh. But seriously, I'd like to see you in the post. I admit I'm more a lurker in SFWA than not, but that's partly because there's a lot of what seems to be random pecking at one another (and I work at a college, I get enough of that) and I'll confess to not having a great sense of what the organization can do or should do. So I'd like to see your leadership and get behind it.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden | March 15, 2007 11:54 PM

AAAAAAAAAARGH!

Your platform is so compelling, rational, and reasonable that I have a terrible suspicion that you'll win.

[gnashes teeth, rends tunic]

John Scalzi | March 15, 2007 11:58 PM

PNH:

I suspect Mr. Capobianco has lots of friends who will vote for him.

Jacob | March 16, 2007 12:09 AM

Well looks you tubed Michael Capobianco's website. So in terms of the internets it's Scalzi: 1, Capobianco: 0. (BTW has anyone ever noted the awesome use of "tubed" in TAD)?

B. B. Kristopher | March 16, 2007 12:11 AM

You know what would go a long way towards making SFWA relevant to new writers? Getting off their duff and getting a health insurance plan set up like the National Writers Union and the Authors Guild, only not buggering it up and only offering it in four or five states, but offering it in the whole bleeding country. That's something that would definitely get me interested in joining SFWA. Another might be a program similar to the "Back in Print" program the Authors Guild runs with iUniverse.

Also, SFWA's positions on electronic rights are so vague and paranoid as to be useless to someone who's going to be looking at their first novel contract in the near future. The model contracts could also use some updating.

But darn, I'm glad to see this post. This actually gives me the hope that SFWA might get turned around.

I guess it's probably to late to join so I can vote in the election.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden | March 16, 2007 12:12 AM

[breathing exercises]

You're right. Increasingly, the people who actually have a clue about the real challenges facing print SF as a business aren't members of SFWA any more.

Whew!

(Seriously? Joking aside, and speaking as an evil editor/publisher type, I think there should be an organization devoted to standing up for writers' interests and kicking our asses. Unfortunately, SFWA isn't that organization. )

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 12:12 AM

Jacob:

"Well looks you tubed Michael Capobianco's website."

I should have known that might happen; it was a geocities site, after all.

I'll swap out the link to his Wikipedia entry.

(Update: swapped)

Diatryma | March 16, 2007 12:14 AM

I'm pretty sure I'm not eligible for SFWA, but I'd vote for you because of Point 2. I'm not so far removed from young-writerhood myself.

Dr. Phil | March 16, 2007 12:16 AM

My hat -- and I always wear one -- is off to you, sir. Having been drafted twice by organizations I've belonged to, by members unhappy with "the usual" candidates going through the motions, I both sympathize and wish you good luck. Sorry I can't vote for you -- not enough pro paying credits yet -- but I can say I've heard lots of rumblings from younger writers questioning SFWA's relevance to them. Which is, I think, a great shame.

At least your great platform has a chance for good visibility amongst the writers who are most likely to be the first to write your name in -- you're taking the toughest road to election, after all.

Dr. Phil

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 12:19 AM

BB Kristopher:

"You know what would go a long way towards making SFWA relevant to new writers? Getting off their duff and getting a health insurance plan set up like the National Writers Union and the Authors Guild, only not buggering it up and only offering it in four or five states, but offering it in the whole bleeding country."

Mmmm... crazy logistical nightmare, that is. I would like to see it happen too, although I suspect that SWFA's relatively small size makes it all but impossible. I'd have to look into it.

PNH:

"Joking aside, and speaking as an evil editor/publisher type, I think there should be an organization devoted to standing up for writers' interests and kicking our asses. Unfortunately, SFWA isn't that organization."

Yup, and yup. You know I love ya, PNH, but when it comes to business, you and I aren't always on the same side, and that's true of any writer and editor/publisher relationship. I'd be nice for most writers to have backup.

Dr. Phil:

"At least your great platform has a chance for good visibility amongst the writers who are most likely to be the first to write your name in -- you're taking the toughest road to election, after all."

Considering that I'm not all that keen on having the job, to me this is a feature, not a bug. It also would suggest that if I do, people really wanted me in there.

I do hope my platform gets out there among the writers. Like I said in the entry, it's an open source platform; I hope people take it for their own. Save me the problems of actually being president. I'm happy just to be the idea guy.

JonathanMoeller | March 16, 2007 12:22 AM

Meh. Getting elected SFWA president in 2007 is a bit like getting elected Holy Roman Emperor in 2007. You might get a nice hat, but the world's moved on.

Writer Beware does good stuff, though.

Dean | March 16, 2007 12:22 AM

John:
Heh. What part of "I'd rather not" is not coming through?

Well, it reads not as 'I really don't want to do this' but rather as 'I think this stuff needs to be done and damn it, if nobody else is going to do it I will'. So I'd say it's a guarded 'I'd rather not'.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 12:25 AM

Dean:

"Well, it reads not as 'I really don't want to do this' but rather as 'I think this stuff needs to be done and damn it, if nobody else is going to do it I will'."

More like: "Don't make me do this."

Ellen | March 16, 2007 12:33 AM

I'm not an SFWA member (though I suspect I'll become one when I'm eligible), but if I were I'd vote for you. And I kind of hope you're forced into serving sometime when I am a member.

Paula Helm Murray | March 16, 2007 12:39 AM

too bad I already turned in my ballot, I'm likely to get busy with my day job and forget it/

Run again. Early enough to get on the ballot.

will shetterly | March 16, 2007 12:50 AM

Huh. I'm tempted to upgrade Emma's membership to "family" so I can vote for you. I'm certainly going to help her look for the ballot so she can vote for you. If it's already been trashed, I'll see if it's possible to get another.

Emma or I will always be a SFWA member because the Emergency Medical Fund was there when she needed it. Writer Beware is a wonderful service. The rest of SFWA has just seemed irrelevant for ages. I've long wished someone would simply kill the Nebulas, but I don't know if you could get the members to agree.

May the election give what you need!

Evan Goer | March 16, 2007 12:58 AM

"Well looks you tubed Michael Capobianco's website."

I should have known that might happen; it was a geocities site, after all.

That's a pretty telling detail right there.

Derryl Murphy | March 16, 2007 01:11 AM

Announcement here:

http://derrylmurphy.blogspot.com/2007/03/stepping-back-up-to-plate-well-john.html

Don't know if you'd agree with me being your running mate, John, but you've guilted me into doing the same. I worry that we're too late, but I also know that it'll only be one year, so it can't be an unmitigated disaster.

Can it?

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 01:19 AM

Derryl:

Noted your hat-thowing in an update to the main post.

Tim Pratt | March 16, 2007 01:37 AM

Geez, John, now I have to go and dig my ballot out of the recycling bin, where I tossed it earlier in disgust at the pointlessness of voting in uncontested races (and my unwillingness to write in the names of unsuspecting victims).

You have a good platform.

Tom Nixon | March 16, 2007 01:38 AM

But the membership criteria for a professional writing organization should be professional writing credits, in my opinion.

Yup. As it happens, I'm a member of the Authors Guild and it also requires publications. That doesn't seem an unreasonable sort of requirement for a professional writers organization.

Nick Stump | March 16, 2007 01:51 AM

What does the SFWA do for members? I'm assuming it's not like the Writer's Guild which forces studios to pay us a minimum and has health insurance as soon as we sell our first script and a retirement plan after you're vested which takes 5 years of earning a certain amount.

I don't think people who aren't published should be full members of a professional organization or writer's union. These are professional organizations and to let anyone join would uncut the whole professional status of the organization and turn it into a large fan club.

The Writer's Guild provides a lot of services for non-professionals, tutorials, script registration. We want people to become members, but they have to sell a script first, and the Guild will be right there as soon as you make a deal, with protection, health insurance, etc. I know it sounds like Catch 22, but most of these unions don't help with sales anyway. That's always up to the writer and/or the writer's agent.

Good for you, John. I think you have the energy and attitude for such a job and if you win, so will the SF Community. Write a screenplay and then I can vote for you. We could sure use some fresh ideas in the Writer Guild for sure.

Michael M Jones | March 16, 2007 02:27 AM

John, I actually regret not being able to vote, not being an Active (and why the heck can't Affiliates and Associates have any say in who runs things? Dammit, now I'm kind of annoyed. Unless you've sold a certain amount of fiction, you're just not as important, regardless of whatever else you've done in the field. I know it's SF and Fantasy -Writers-, but you'd think the organization would respect editors, agents, publishers, reviewers and so forth just as much... I think that should be addressed as well. Why is it some guy who sold a book or three stories back in the '80s and has done nothing but keep up his membership since has more of a say than the people active in the field today in all categories? Er, anyway...)

John, based on what you've said, I'd either vote for you, or at the very least insist that future Presidents look to this platform for ideas on where to go.

Mary Robinette Kowal | March 16, 2007 02:38 AM

Heck, I should be an SFWA member, but their website won't complete my registration, nor will anyone answer my email queries. So, I can't vote for you but I can sure as heck see the need for you.

(Yes, I'm sending off a paper registration.)

Jenny Rae Rappaport | March 16, 2007 03:07 AM

Michael M. Jones:

I am in total and complete agreement with you. Been bugging poor John about it all night in e-mails, too. =)

Rachel | March 16, 2007 04:25 AM

"There are of course lots of ways to engage people who are not members, and they should be done. But the membership criteria for a professional writing organization should be professional writing credits, in my opinion."

Sure. I wonder whether people aren't asking whether the requirements for what constitutes a professional market might not be changed at some point. Subterranean, for instance, is not on the SFWA list, or at least it wasn't last time I looked. Most anthologies coming out from small presses also don't seem to qualify (if I'm reading correctly), even if they pay and distribute well. (Selfishly, I'm thinking of _Glorifying Terrorism_ here.)

I have a few semi-pro credits, but no pro credits. Consequently, I'll be watching this from the sidelines, but with interest.

Diatryma,

If you're still watching this conversation, your RoF sale qualifies you to be an associate member. And I want to still be a young writer, so therefore I dub you one, too. :-P

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 06:40 AM

PNH - I'd happily kick your ass if you gave me a reason, but you Tor folks are so damn reasonable. There's another toy company pretending to be a publisher that has my attention at the moment.

SFWA actually can do quite a lot for its members. It's not always flashy, headline-making news, though. In the past two years, we've helped the Dell magazines folks rewrite portions of their contracts to make them more friendly to writers. We've also seen at least three magazines raise their word-rates to meet our new standards, and I count that a good thing for writers. We're currently financing an audit of Wizards of the Coast on behalf of two SFWA members that may - or may not- have ramifications for many more members. I count these as good things. And our Grievance Committee has helped settle a goodly number of matters for our members.

Health Insurance is not going to be something we can offer at reasonable cost. We've checked and checked, and every five or six years, we check again. The membership is too small, and the rates we can get are no better than the rates you could get for yourselves. At one time, we were able to offer a policy in conjunction with the National Writers' Union, but the rates on that policy went up and up until it became next to useless for most of our members. I'm not sure that NWU even offers it now.

John, officially, I think it's my place to remain neutral in the election, but I think this is a good thing you're doing. I, too, was disappointed that more members weren't willing to stand for office. If you win, move your desk close to a sturdy wall - you're going to be banging your head against it. A lot. Yet, if you can cut through the noise of 1,500 egos and not lose yourself in navel-gazing, you can accomplish something meaningful.

Welcome to the deep end of the pool. And good luck.

Robin Bailey,
SFWA President

kriz1818 | March 16, 2007 07:28 AM

On the Insurance topic:

Oddly enough, a couple days ago Laura Ann Gilman posted a link to The Freelancers Union, which is currently offering reasonable-looking health insurance to NYC-area freelance workers ... and is looking to expand. Could SFWA affiliate with this organization in some way?

Best,

Kriz Who Will Someday Be An SFWA Member, Really and Truly

Patrick | March 16, 2007 07:50 AM

RWA is not SFWA.

Can you enlighten me to the difference? What does SFWA do or provide that RWA doesn't?

Patrick Nielsen Hayden | March 16, 2007 08:11 AM

Robin Bailey: "If you can cut through the noise of 1,500 egos and not lose yourself in navel-gazing, you can accomplish something meaningful."

And there's a big part of the problem. There aren't 1,500 actual professional SF writers. Not by an order of magnitude.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 08:21 AM

Patrick:

"What does SFWA do or provide that RWA doesn't?"

Not offer memberships to people who are not published writers appears to be one.*

Patrick, the answer to whether I support membership in SFWA for people who are not published writers is no.* That's not going to change. I don't think it's useful and I don't think it's needed. SFWA should certainly make itself useful in helping aspiring SFWAns make the transition into published status, and to a good extent, it does that now. But at the end of the day it's an organization for professional writers, and needs to be composed of professional writers.

If you want to be in SFWA, great: Earn it. If RWA doesn't make you earn it, that's its business.

(* SFWA does offer affiliate memberships for professionals in related fields, like editors and agents. I think this is fine.)

Ilona | March 16, 2007 08:45 AM

The problems which you address in your platform are the reasons why I am not a member of SFWA.

The image of SFWA - from the outside - makes it seem like I would be a poor fit. I know a number of members who have serious doubts about staying a member and that certainly doesn't help.

Jim C. Hines | March 16, 2007 08:46 AM

Add me to the list of folks who now has to go dig up that no-longer-irrelevant ballot.

You also prompted me to go look up Michael Capobianco's platform, for comparison. (Posted in the private SFWA newsgroups at http://webnews.sff.net/read?cmd=read&group=sff.private.sfwa.electiondebate&artnum=6149 for anyone else who might be interested.)

For whatever my opinion is worth, you're doing a Good Thing here -- thank you for that.

And good luck! (Whether luck means winning or losing is another question entirely :-)

Paul | March 16, 2007 09:09 AM

Excellent platform. I'd vote you in if I could. Still waiting for my affiliate membership to be processed...

Patrick | March 16, 2007 09:10 AM

Your current presidential candidate hasn't published in 9 years, by your statements. That makes him professional? Is he even writing still? From PNH's comments, I get the impression that this is what your "professionals" look like on average.

I can understand your stance. I'm not necessarily trying to change it. As an outsider, I see RWA as a very successful organization and SFWA as not. RWA is supported by their top genre writers. Is SFWA?

I'd like to see SFWA be successful and become an organization that I'd want to join. I see this exclusivity as part of the problem. If it is exclusivity you are seeking, why wouldn't there be a clause stating that your publications need to be with in x amount of years?

Either way. I applaud your efforts and wish you the best of luck.

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 09:12 AM

Mary Robinette Kowal --

If you've applied for SFWA membership and not gotten a response, send your questions to me. I'll try to answer your questions or expedite your application.

Robin Wayne Bailey
SFWA Prez

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 09:28 AM

Patrick:

"Your current presidential candidate hasn't published in 9 years, by your statements. That makes him professional? Is he even writing still?"

That's an excellent question. I do think Mr. Capobianco's lack of recent publication is relevant to whether he is the best candidate.

There is some discussion within SFWA about whether there needs to be some sort of criteria for maintaining an active status (one publication every three years or whatever). Theoretically I think that might be useful but as a practical matter it seems unlikely to go anywhere, as this would need to be something passed by the SWFA votership, and people are usually very reluctant to vote themselves fewer benefits. I wouldn't waste any time on it. However I do think there something to be said for making sure the organization's focus is on the needs of active writers.

Having said that, even if one admits to SFWA having a certain amount of dead weight in the form of writers who qualified for publication and then haven't published seriously since, and that this is something SFWA is just going to have to live with, I don't believe a solution will come in the form of allowing more people who are not publishing to enter its ranks.

"I see this exclusivity as part of the problem."

Anyone who writes three short stories or one novel and is paid SFWA-qualifying rates can join. This is not exclusive; it is an acknowledgment SFWA is an organization of professional writers. And this is not a problem.

G. Jules | March 16, 2007 09:36 AM

Patrick: RWA's open memberships are very useful from the perspective of an unpublished writer. RWA focuses on the pre-professional writer, who may never sell but who will keep paying membership dues. That's fine; but it means there's less of a focus on the needs of the professional writers (and note the emergence of PAN to provide for those needs, as Kristine Smith noted above).

I don't have survey data or anything, but what I've heard indicates that a fair number of the high-profile authors who are still involved with RWA are doing it because they remember how much RWA helped them when they were on the way up.

There are a lot of other organizations and resources within the SF field which help unpublished writers: the focused workshops (Odyssey, Viable Paradise, Clarion), the online workshops (Hatrack River, OWW, Critters), the market listings (Ralan, The Black Hole response time trackers), the bewares (Preditors & Editors, Writer Beware). And those are just the first few to leap to mind. You don't have to be a SFWA member to make use of any of these resources.

I'm also ineligible for SFWA membership, and frankly, I'm glad SFWA wouldn't take me as a member. Different groups of writers have different needs. If I make it as a professional writer, I want SFWA to be there as an organization for professional writers. Not an organization there for anyone with the money to join.

D Chunn | March 16, 2007 09:40 AM

I can't name any recent Nebula or Hugo winners. Somewhere along the way, I stopped caring. I can probably name a number of World Fantasy Awards, though I'm not sure why.

The website does suck, and 1997 is a rather generous estimate.

jeffrey ford | March 16, 2007 09:42 AM

You have my vote.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 09:42 AM

D Chunn:

But you can name a recent Campbell winner! Right? Right?

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 09:52 AM

Patrick - SFWA's membership includes Brian Aldiss, Harry Harrison, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Harlan Ellison, Anne McCaffrey, Robert Jordan, Jean M. Auel. Peter Beagle, Greg Benford, James Gunn, Terry Bisson, Michael Bishop, Norman Spinrad, Ben Bova, Ray Bradbury, David Brin, Terry Brooks, Lois McMaster Bujold, C.J. Cherryh, Chris Claremont, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Laurel Hamilton, George R.R. Martin, Philip Jose Farmer, Gene Wolfe, Alan Dean Foster, Harry Turtledove, David Gerrold, Martin H. Greenberg, Joe Haldeman, Kevin Anderson, Brian Herbert, Nancy Kress, Mercedes Lackey, Robert Sawyer, Frank Robinson, Julian May, Frederick Pohl, Mike Resnick, Fred Saberhagen, Robert Silverberg, Jack Vance, and Jane Yolen. Among many others.

Your mileage may vary, but I'd say that, yep, SFWA is generally supported by most of the top names in the field. Not all - but most. When PNK suggests that there aren't 1,500 professional in SFWA, he's voicing (I believe) the not-uncommon opinion that SFWA's membership standards are too -lax-.

I'm gladdened to hear John state that he's not in favor of relaxing those standards. Rather, they should be tightened.

Robin Wayne Bailey
SFWA Prez

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Oops. Don't know why that duplicated. Sorry.

Lugo | March 16, 2007 10:02 AM

he hasn't had a novel published in this century; his last published novel, White Light, which he co-wrote with William Barton, was published in hardcover in 1998. Essentially, he's a decade out of practice with the practical aspects of publishing science fiction.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that anyone eligible to belong to the SFWA should be eligible to be President of the SFWA. Membership requirements say nothing about when the member published, only that he or she did so.

One wonders... how many SF writers have "one Paid Sale of a prose fiction book to a Qualifying Professional Market, for which the author has been paid $2000 or more" within the last five years? Does this unnecessarily limit the Presidency pool? Perhaps the pool should be limited, of course.

Patrick | March 16, 2007 10:03 AM

G. Jules -
Which of John's 9 points does RWA not already do?

You make many of my points. the high-profile authors who are still involved with RWA are doing it because they remember how much RWA helped them

I'm pointing out how RWA does point 9 WAY better than SFWA.

It seems that SFWA needs writers more than writers need SFWA. How do you make writers want to be part of SFWA? Just because they are eligible?

If I go to Clarion or Odyssey, when I'm published and want to give back or help out. I help those organizations, not SFWA.

I'm not jockeying for membership. I'm trying to help. I've found resources to help me where I'm at now and where I'm trying to get to. But like many here, I'd love to see the organization be useful.

Dave Ruddell | March 16, 2007 10:04 AM

But you can name a recent Campbell winner! Right? Right?

Cory Doctorow?

B. B. Kristopher | March 16, 2007 10:08 AM

You know, I would actually agree with a minimum threshold for maintaining membership, but I suspect it would never happen.

The other thing that might be nice, and honestly, might help clear out some of the dead weight, is a code of ethics/conduct. Basic rules that say "This is a professional organization, and if you can't behave as a professional, you don't belong here."

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 10:15 AM

Dave Ruddell:

What? Cory won that award last century!

Patrick:

"But like many here, I'd love to see the organization be useful."

Opening up a professional writing organization to people who are not professional writers yet is not going to make it more useful to the people who are professional writers, Patrick. And that is who SFWA is for.

As I said earlier, SFWA should do many things to encourage novice SFF writers and help them toward meeting the requirements for eligibility. When they meet the requirements, they should be encouraged to join and then to participate so the organization makes a compelling argument for membership.

As I said, RWA is free to do what it wants for its own reasons. I don't believe their choice is the best one for a professional writing organization, and I wouldn't endorse it for SFWA.

James Nicoll | March 16, 2007 10:18 AM

Wasn't the idea of dividing writers into active and otherwise floated during the short-lived Sawyer administration (Who admittedly was soon replaced by Norman Spinrad, who I believe was seen as easier to work with)?

A three-year qualification period might penalize the slower writers. Martin, for example, went four years between installments in his fantasy series (although he did have one novella in 2003, I think) and Kingsbury has had gaps of up to 26 years in his publications (Even recently, 7 years passed between "The Heroic Myth of Lieutenant Nora Argamentine" and PSYCHOHISTORICAL CRISIS). A qualification period that disqualifies a best-selling author like Martin might be seen as a little peculiar.

B. B. Kristopher | March 16, 2007 10:18 AM

But you can name a recent Campbell winner! Right? Right?

Elizabeth Bear

TCO | March 16, 2007 10:18 AM

John: That too. bleh. ;-)

Tim Akers | March 16, 2007 10:18 AM

I'd like to say that I have been firmly opposed to joining SFWA, precisely for the reasons John has listed as being in need of reform. The organization strikes me as backwards looking and curmudgeonly. So. Good luck.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 10:24 AM

James Nicoll:

"A qualification period that disqualifies a best-selling author like Martin might be seen as a little peculiar."

This is one of the many reasons why I have no interest in divvying up the SFWA membership in this sort of way; it's asking for a headache that's not worth having.

That said, I do think the focus on SFWA should always be on the health of active writing careers; both in those whose careers are chugging along nicely and in helping those who have stalled or had some setback get their work into the public arena.

TCO | March 16, 2007 10:25 AM

(trolling on) I beleive in an aristrocatic attitude. Wannabes should be excluded from the SFWA. In fact, John is the conservative's candidate. The other dude is a "usedtabe". That's John's main point. So asking for rights for the hoi palloi is the wrong thing wrt John. You would have a better chance with the other dude.

Oh...and wannabes: "hahahah...you're not getting published."

P.s. I'm intentionally not closing the tag.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 10:32 AM

TCO:

"Wannabes should be excluded from the SFWA."

More to the point, a "wannabe" should be helped and encouraged by SFWA to become a "be," the better to benefit from the services SFWA has on offer. "Ustabes" in SFWA can benefit from leadership that is actively publishing because those who are actively publishing are likely to have a better roadmap to help those who have detoured back on to the publishing roads as they exist today.

I don't believe in aristocracy as regards SFWA; I believe in the value of a professional organization comprised of and for professional writers and focused on the tasks of creating new writers, servicing publishing writers, and helping writers who are not publishing get back into the swing of things.

Sue | March 16, 2007 10:35 AM

James Nicoll | March 16, 2007 10:35 AM

"But you can name a recent Campbell winner!"

Bear, Lake, Spencer, Walton, Smith, Doctorow.

Firstly, I've done reviews of the Campbell winners. secondly, I got in the habit of following the Campbells because of George RR Martin's anthologies in the 1970s and 1980s. Thirdly, I know most of them.

There's probably a baseball analogy that could go here. Do they give out some sort of award for promising new players?

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 10:37 AM

James Nicholl:

"There's probably a baseball analogy that could go here. Do they give out some sort of award for promising new players?"

Um... Rookie of the Year?

TCO | March 16, 2007 10:38 AM

John: Come to the dark side. Let slip your inner dog off its leash.

P.s. This may not be helping you get elected...;-)

Jeff Hentosz | March 16, 2007 10:39 AM

For us in the bleachers: when's the ballot deadline and results announcement?

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 10:42 AM

TCO:

Tempter!

Jeff Hentosz:

Ballots must be received by April 28 (i.e., you'd want to mail them by around 4/18). The results are published in the Forum mailing afterward.

John Joseph Adams | March 16, 2007 10:43 AM

John! You're entirely too reasonable a person to run for SFWA office! I'd totally vote for you if I were anything but a lowly affiliate whose voice does not matter.

-JJA

Major Sukkup | March 16, 2007 10:45 AM

…name a recent Campbell winner…

Why, John, you are the most recent winner of that vaunted plaque! I saw it on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and in the middle column on the front of the Wall Street Journal. I think.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 10:47 AM

Don't forget my fashion photo spread in In Touch magazine!

G. Jules | March 16, 2007 10:48 AM

Patrick: My point, just to make things abundantly clear, is that I like the idea of SFWA being around as an organization which looks out for the interests of professional SF writers. I see no compelling reason why admitting unpublished writers would advance that goal, and a number of reasons why it wouldn't. End of point.

If SFWA helps new writers too, that's great; and in fact they already do -- Writer Beware and The Black Hole are SFWA-sponsored or were SFWA initiatives, and a lot of other SFWA members I highly respect are involved in the other programs I mentioned. Let me repeat that, just to be painfully clear: I think SFWA helping new writers is nifty; the fact that SFWA is already helping new writers is, likewise, peachy-keen. I just see no reason why the goal of helping new writers must involve giving them voting rights in the organization.

And now I'm letting going to let my argument stand, because I don't want to be one of those people who assumes anyone who disagrees with them just didn't understand their last explanation.

I'm curious -- what's your involvement with RWA?

Michael Capobianco | March 16, 2007 10:56 AM

Welcome to the race, John. Now it is a race, and that's a very good thing. I hope we can have a debate, as well as some informal discussions as soon as possible.

I must admit that I never expected the state of my webpage to be an issue in the campaign. It's gotten more hits in the last day than it had in the year before, so I guess I should work on it. ;-) The actual website is Michael Capobianco. The Geocities one is a back-up.

FWIW, I am not a status quo candidate. I agree with you that SFWA's focus has to change. Where we disagree is in what can practically be done and what needs to change.

Michael

Patrick | March 16, 2007 10:57 AM

So,

How do you propose to accomplish point 9 in your platform?

How do you get members and potential members to not see it as an affectation as you do/did?

Are you starting to get the feeling of why you don't want to do this? :)

Amanda Downum | March 16, 2007 11:01 AM

I'll make you another tiara if you're elected.

Joyce Reynolds-Ward | March 16, 2007 11:01 AM

John--

If I was eligible to vote for you, I would (damn it, I'm trying to get there!).

As a middle school teacher actively *trying* to get kids out there to read science fiction and fantasy (heck, getting kids to *read*, period!), I strongly support anything SFWA can and will do to promote the genre specifically and reading in general.

Christopher | March 16, 2007 11:02 AM

I think the deadline to receive votes is sometime in April.

I usually go for a sameday turnaround on SFWA ballots and so I didn't know that a write-in campaign was in the offing.

Grumble.

Anyway, good luck, man. Thanks for giving it a go.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 11:04 AM

Patrick:

"How do you propose to accomplish point 9 in your platform?"

Mostly by doing points 1-8 first.

Amanda Downum:

Oooh! That's definitely a perk worth having.

James Nicoll | March 16, 2007 11:05 AM

"Um... Rookie of the Year?"

In theory I like baseball but in practice, I discovered that watching it involved sitting in Exhibition Stadium, which I think doubled as a meat-locker.

"Bear, Lake, Spencer, Walton, Smith, Doctorow."

And Scalzi, of course, except that for some reason I have a hard time thinking of you as being recent enough to qualify.

Jeff VanderMeer | March 16, 2007 11:07 AM

If I was a member, I'd definitely vote for you. If you win, I might just rejoin.

JeffV

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 11:07 AM

James Nicoll:

"And Scalzi, of course, except that for some reason I have a hard time thinking of you as being recent enough to qualify."

Well, I was hanging around before OMW got published. I give the impression of being an old(er) hand.

Jeff VanderMeer:

Well, if I win and you rejoin, I'm gonna put you to work, man. Fair warning.

Rob Davies | March 16, 2007 11:12 AM

I would vote for you if I could, John. I agree that the SFWA website should be revamped and made to look more, ah, futuristic. Or at least contemporary.

Your platform sounds great and I hope you win. (As long as your books keep coming.)

Patrick | March 16, 2007 11:15 AM

what's your involvement with RWA?

None. But, the people who have helped me the most have been members.

The reason why I think the inclusive nature of RWA makes more sense is because of the SFWA definition of 'professional'.

It is geared toward short story writers who may only strive to write as an affectation, writing 1 or 2 stories a year. Theoretically this makes a great minor league system for writers. But it doesn't. In my opinion.

Someone writing 1 or two short stories a year isn't professional, in my opinion. Someone striving toward a career as a writer is.

I don't write short stories, because I don't READ short stories. I tried, because it made logical sense that it was the minor leagues. Except it isn't. It's closer to T-ball.

I understand the concept and desire for an 'Organization of Professional SF Writers' but I think a 'Professional Organization of SF Writers' stands a better chance.

Michael, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, too. :) Let the debates begin. :)

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 11:18 AM

"Wasn't the idea of dividing writers into active and otherwise floated during the short-lived Sawyer administration (Who admittedly was soon replaced by Norman Spinrad, who I believe was seen as easier to work with)?"

Hi, James -- some corrections here. When SFWA first began it distinguished between active members and associate members on the basis of frequent publication. If a writer joined as an active, but then didn't publish again - even a reprint - for three years, they were "re-qualified" as an associate. Associates could do everything that actives could do except vote on business matters and hold office.

However, at Robert Heinlein's, um, insistence that policy was changed and "once an active, always an active" became the new rule. During Rob Sawyer's brief term, the organization underwent a bitter and divisive fight to determine whether or not SFWA should reinstitute "requalification." But "requalification" lost decisively, and "once an active, always an active" remains the rule. Nobody really wants to fight it again.

Robert Sawyer, I should note, was succeeded by Paul Levinson. Sharon Lee followed Paul. And Norman followed Sharon. "Requalification" was roadkill by the time Norman came on board.

History R Us.

And John, this is my only concern about your run for office. You're still a fairly new member. Do you have enough grasp of SFWA's history, of the dynamics of the organization? Have you had enough interaction with its membership? Grand ideas are wonderful and play well to the crowd, but do you have the patience to handle the day-to-day minutiae, because there's no escaping it.

Speaking of not escaping it, I've got to go write a FORUM report. Zoom! --->

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 11:34 AM

Robin Bailey:

"And John, this is my only concern about your run for office. You're still a fairly new member. Do you have enough grasp of SFWA's history, of the dynamics of the organization? Have you had enough interaction with its membership? Grand ideas are wonderful and play well to the crowd, but do you have the patience to handle the day-to-day minutiae, because there's no escaping it."

I have a pretty good knowledge of the history of the group and what some of the dynamics are; I don't pretend to be an old hand, however.

The platform above is just that: A platform, a statement of ideas. As I note in the entry, whether these ideas are implementable -- and whether they would be implementable under my tenure -- remains to be seen. I certainly wouldn't expect to get them all passed; indeed, I don't know if all are practical. But I think they all should be put out there and wrestled with.

I don't expect to be politic all the time; I don't expect to be popular all the time. I would like to at least get things moving forward. One of the things I liked about your tenure, Robin, was I think you were moving things in the right direction; I'd like to keep that momentum going.

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 11:35 AM

"Ballots must be received by April 28 (i.e., you'd want to mail them by around 4/18). The results are published in the Forum mailing afterward."

The results are officially announced at the business meeting at the Nebulas, which I believe will be May 11th. There's a longer gap this time than usual between the ballot due-date and the event.

James Nicoll | March 16, 2007 11:36 AM

"During Rob Sawyer's brief term, the organization underwent a bitter and divisive fight to determine whether or not SFWA should reinstitute "requalification." But "requalification" lost decisively, and "once an active, always an active" remains the rule. Nobody really wants to fight it again."

Thank you for your corrections, which serve to show why I shouldn't rely on what I laughingly call my memory (I remember Levinson's term mostly for the resolution to the Dragon Magazine CD-Rom thing but for some reason my memory wants him to have preceded Sawyer).

"Sharon Lee followed Paul. And Norman followed Sharon."

I could have sworn that Sharon Lee _followed_ Norman Spinrad. Ritual admission that wikipedia is not the most reliable source but it seems to agree with me.

Just out of curiousity, what fraction of the SFWA membership would have been reclassified from active to associate had the changes gone through?

Lucy Kemnitzer | March 16, 2007 11:36 AM

Anyone who writes three short stories or one novel and is paid SFWA-qualifying rates can join.

This part isn't true: if you look at the qualifying and specifically-not qualifying markets, you'll find that there are professional-rate-paying markets which do not qualify.

Matt Jarpe | March 16, 2007 11:38 AM

John,
I'm glad you're energizing this debate. Like many newbies, I wanted desparately to be part of SFWA, to join in the secret SFF.net newsgroups and go to the swank parties and vote for the Nebs. When I got my third story published I joined up right away.

Imagine my disapointment to find out what really goes on in the secret SFF.net areas. It's like getting the key to the executive washroom and finding the bosses snapping each other with towels and giving each other wedgies. I also burned myself out reading for the awards (Hugo and Nebula) and finally dropped out.

It seems to me the loudest voices in SFWA are the ones with the least relevance to the concerns of profesional writers. Maybe they've just got a lot more time on their hands. I do like the Emergency Medical Fund and your manifesto here has convinced me to donate what would have been my membership fee, had I stayed on board, to that fund.

Good luck.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 11:40 AM

Lucy Kemnitzer:

"This part isn't true: if you look at the qualifying and specifically-not qualifying markets, you'll find that there are professional-rate-paying markets which do not qualify."

Agreed: should read: "Anyone who writes three short stories or one novel ain SFWA-qualfied markets can join."

TCO | March 16, 2007 11:47 AM

Lucy: This is a common wannabe attitude. That your "sales" are actually sales. That glorified fanzines and even websites (!) are magazines. They only one who cares about those crappy markets are other wannabes. General readership has a hard enought time knowing about the Big Three. Once you drop below that, you're in minutia. Those other 'zines are things that people run out of love because they want to call themselves editors of something. Oh...and the "small press" (much really vanity press)...don't get me started.

Read the GVW Chronicles episode, where Brian hears about someone making a "sale" and doesn't have the heart to ask if it is to a paying market. That skewers you wannabes.

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 11:53 AM

Joyce Reynolds -- are you aware of aboutsf.com? As a teacher with an interest in science fiction, I think it will interest you. It's a website developed at KU by James Gunn aimed at teachers, librarians and students. It's jointly sponsored by SFWA, Tor Books, SFRA and the private pockets of too-few people.

It's just one of the "backward-looking and curmudgeonly" things that SFWA does or helps to do to foster new readers and to get SF into the classroom.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 11:55 AM

TCO:

You don't know this, but Lucy is rather well-established in science fiction circles and knows this stuff very well. Your trying to lecture her about this stuff is, well, amusing.

The SF community has more than one focus for esteem; being a writer can be one, but so can being a fan.

Walt Boyes | March 16, 2007 11:59 AM

As a new SFWA member (so new I ain't got my membership card yet) I have to agree with you, John:
"More to the point, a "wannabe" should be helped and encouraged by SFWA to become a "be," the better to benefit from the services SFWA has on offer. "Ustabes" in SFWA can benefit from leadership that is actively publishing because those who are actively publishing are likely to have a better roadmap to help those who have detoured back on to the publishing roads as they exist today."

That's why we've spent so much time and money on the "Introducing" slot at JBU, and why we maintain the JBU slush conference on the Bar. We are teaching wannabees how to be published, and we are deliberately doing it at a much higher rate than we can publish ourselves. We think it is necessary to the health of the genre and the profession. We are going to continue to do it, and we are pleased to see that several authors who we have helped polish their stories have gotten published elsewhere when we've been closed to new submissions.

Walt Boyes
Associate Editor, JBU
new Active Member, SFWA

Chang, the real O.C. | March 16, 2007 12:00 PM

Shoot,dog,I'd votefor you. I suspect I need to collect a few more rejection slips and acceptances before then. You do make an extremeley cogent,intelligent and articulate argument for the Betterment of the SFWA.

The In Touch spread will not help. Not even with the leopard print thong. OR THE LEOPARD!

Catherine Mintz | March 16, 2007 12:02 PM

I am the current SFWA Secretary.

If you are an active member and have lost/tossed your ballot, you are entitled to a replacement, and I urge you to ask for one and vote, no matter who your choices might be. SFWA needs contested elections.

I also serve on the Membership Committee. We are in theory up to date with applications. If you have applied and not gotten a response, it's time to make sure your application didn't vanish in a computer glitch.

TCO | March 16, 2007 12:05 PM

JS: Mebbe, mebbe not. And I aim to please.

That said, and "building on that" (hehe): There is a common and repeating fallacy of wannabes wanting to dress things up as more than what they are. Calling glorified fanzines, magazines. Calling "sales", where no or minimal money changes hands. And I love pointing to the Emporers naked doodads, when he is naked and others try to ignore it.

Of course, BP wrote the DON QUIXOTE equivalent wrt wannabes (vice knights) in his Chronicles. He nailed their tender reality-avoiding hides to the table. Oh...and every single "howtobe a writer" site like Poyer's and Sawyer's does the same. So that is more evidence that the problem is common and that it is good and noble and fun to correct it.

I just like doing it with a bit more spin and meanness.

Oh...and I don't care if I don't know some detail. Nya nya!

Robin Bailey | March 16, 2007 12:06 PM

"I could have sworn that Sharon Lee _followed_ Norman Spinrad. Ritual admission that wikipedia is not the most reliable source but it seems to agree with me."

Arrgghhh. James, I'm sorry. Thirty hours without sleep are catching up. It was Rob, then Paul, then Norman, then, Sharon. Then Catherine Asaro. Then, uh, hmmm, well, me.

"Just out of curiousity, what fraction of the SFWA membership would have been reclassified from active to associate had the changes gone through?"

Interestingly, as part of that debate Michael Kube-McDowell and Linda Dunn conducted a fairly rigorous study and poll of the membership. The discovery was that the larger proportion of the membership -had- sold at least one short story or had a reprint of a previous story within the three-year lapse period that was under consideration. I don't remember the exact numbers now (and obviously not at this hour).

Oh, and John S -- thanks. I've gotten unused to compliments.

TCO | March 16, 2007 12:13 PM

Walt: You're a case in point. It's not just about the "helping other people stuff" for a guy like you. It's about showing off that you are a "real writer" now. Give me a break. The real writers are the ones in that paragraph at the beginning (Sawyer and Niven and Spinrand and all that.)

For the guys like Sawyer or Poyer or whatever, it's about having some interesting content at their site, about encouraging book buying, and getting people to take classes from them, and vote them awards. And Sawyer would probably admit it. Not with the way I say it with a twist of the knife, but with some PC way of dressing it up as "marketing".

Tempest | March 16, 2007 12:20 PM

I'm not a member of SFWA and hadn't considered joining once I reached the lofy goal of three pro pubs, but if you get to be president and get even one of these goals accomplished I might actually consider joining.

Johnny Carruthers | March 16, 2007 12:21 PM

Good points made in your platform. Unfortunately, I'm not a member or SFWA, so impressing me doesn't really accomplish much. Good luck.

TCO | March 16, 2007 12:29 PM

Why not start a renegade organization that outlaws non-actives?

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 12:31 PM

Too much effort.

Patrick | March 16, 2007 12:33 PM

TCO - Will you allow wannabes?

TCO | March 16, 2007 12:37 PM

Only my special hug partners, Pat.

Jules Jones | March 16, 2007 12:40 PM

I write cross-genre, so I have an interest in both SFWA and RWA. I can't join SFWA because none of my sales have been to qualifying markets. I can join RWA, and as of the beginning of this month I can even join RWA as a pro-published member, because my publisher has just been recognised by RWA. Nevertheless, I have had a great deal of passive help from SFWA over the last few years, because while I cannot join the organisation, it makes a great deal of useful material available to non-members. Old-fashioned and ugly the website may be, but there's a lot of useful stuff on the public area. This is not the case with RWA.

As noted, I am not a member of SFWA, nor am I likely to be any time soon. I still have an interest in it being a healthy, well-functioning organisation, and I think John's platform is a good one. I'm glad he's willing to stand.

Norayr | March 16, 2007 12:44 PM

John I am not a writer but a simple fan of your fiction. My concern is that if you get involved in SFWA you will have less time to write the books that we love to read. I know of at least one science fiction author who is involved in so many different projects that he states that he does not have time to write novels on a regular basis. Hope it does not come to that.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 12:52 PM

Norayr:

"I know of at least one science fiction author who is involved in so many different projects that he states that he does not have time to write novels on a regular basis. Hope it does not come to that."

My mortgage tells me to tell you not to worry about that too much.

Chaz Brenchley | March 16, 2007 12:53 PM

John -

Reluctant bosses are the best. If I were a member, I'd vote for you instanter.

Hmm.

Catherine Mintz:

I believe I qualify. If I applied for membership now, would I be safe to get a decision (and a vote) before the deadline...?

Sam | March 16, 2007 12:54 PM

Norayr:

I second that Norayr. While it is nice for you (John S) to devote your time and efforts to this, speaking as a fan and someone who knows absolutely nothing about this RSVP, 3CPO jibberish you guys are intent on talking about today the selfish part of me just wants you to write Science Fiction and let someone else worry about that stuff.

A.R.Yngve | March 16, 2007 01:37 PM

I'm not a member (and probably never will be), but I think your proposals are very sound and forward-looking.

Good luck, and I hope you'll get to lead the SFWA into the 21st century.

Harry | March 16, 2007 01:38 PM

I had heard, on Lawrence Watt-Evan's sff.net newsgroup, that requalification was not a big issue with SFWA. He and several others pointed out that it would exclude a very small number of members, and most of the people who would be affected by requalification rules quit the organization on their own after a couple years.

For the life of me, I can't find a link to the discussion.

Note: IANASFWAM

PixelFish | March 16, 2007 01:50 PM

Am not a member (yet). But I have often wanted to grab the SFWA website by the digital lapels and give it a good shaking. Or you know, redesign it so it is attractive, easy to navigate, and standards compliant. (Customizable RSS feeds from writers blogs might be a way to promote SF writers.) There's a lot of helpful stuff there, but sometimes it's hard to find. And style sheets....please, Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me style sheets. (We could even make style97.css for those people who are inexplicably fond of Times Roman with #0000FF hrefs.)

Just mentioning a potential overhaul would have me voting for you, were I a member of said organisation. Alas, I am not, but I think your platform is teh swell.

Michael M Jones | March 16, 2007 01:51 PM

I'd still love to see some more attention paid to the double standard I brought up above, which a few people have chimed in on: that it's perfectly fine for the -rest- of the field to join SFWA and contribute their money and time and so on, but the only real voice they get is pretty much unofficial.

If SFWA is a membership organization for professional writers, why are agents, editors, and publishers allowed to hang around the sidelines looking shifty until it's time to throw wild con parties? Why aren't they entitled to nominate/vote on awards, and why don't they have a say in who runs the organization? Why are writers with less than three qualifying sales likewise penalized? Are they somehow less invested in SWFA's future and its success, or less qualified to vote for awards?

That's what gets me. It seems that so many of the people with their finger on the pulse of the field today are left out when it comes to these things. Take, for instance, Ellen Datlow, who helps put out several anthologies a year on average, including the highly-regarded Year's Best Fantasy and Horror. Can you tell me that a well-informed, active, influential member like that isn't qualified to vote for President? No, the fate of SFWA lies in the hands of people who might not have actually published anything in years. Not just in those running, like in this current election, but in those voting.

I guess what angers me is that for the first time, I want to get involved, even in a small way, and I can't. I want to make my voice heard by voting. I want to help improve SFWA, and yet I can't. I've had three sales. It's just that the first sale was to a market which died before it could achieve qualifying status, and the third was a reprint of the second. But I've been steadily active in the field, in one way or another, for going-on ten years, and an Affiliate or Associate member of SFWA for most of that time. But when it comes down to the crunch, I'm just not worthy to say "Hey, I'd like to vote for John."

It's not exactly like there are any other membership organizations for those involved in the SF/Fantasy field, right?

In the meantime, I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy my right to read the Bulletin and the forums, hug my SFWA Directory, and work on the grassroots movement to get other people to vote for John.

Nick Mamatas | March 16, 2007 01:56 PM

Usually I write myself in (the rest of the time I write in "BATMAN, MOTHERFUCKERS, BATMAN!!!") but this time I wrote you in.

Nick Mamatas | March 16, 2007 01:58 PM

As far as why editors, agents, etc. are not allowed full voting rights, the answer is rather obvious.

SFWA may need to move against various editors, agents, etc., with greivances, audits, public campaigns, etc. Were agent and editor members given the vote, they would likely vote in their interests: for officers who would not aggressively protect the rights of writers through grievances, audits, and public campaigns.

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 02:05 PM

Nick Mamatas:

Did you write "SCALZI, MOTHERFUCKERS, SCALZI!!!"? Because it would rock if you had.

Nick Mamatas | March 16, 2007 02:19 PM

You always struck me as more of a Bat-Mite figure.

Walt Boyes | March 16, 2007 02:34 PM

TCO said: "Walt: You're a case in point. It's not just about the "helping other people stuff" for a guy like you. It's about showing off that you are a "real writer" now. Give me a break. The real writers are the ones in that paragraph at the beginning (Sawyer and Niven and Spinrand and all that.)"

Crap. I've been a real writer (defined as I pay my mortgage with the money) for about twenty years now. I make my living as a writer and as an editor. I don't need SFWA to validate me. I DO need SFWA to help promote the genre that I've been active in a lot longer than I've been writing in it.

It absolutely IS about helping other people. What, you think the dozen or so of us that regularly crit on JBU get paid for it? Get real. It is for the luv.

The reason I joined SFWA, and the only reason, was that I have a bias toward being part of the solution.

Walt

Steve Carper | March 16, 2007 02:35 PM

I'm the SFWA Liaison to Writers Organizations, so I keep tabs on how the other major genre groups are structured and what they do with their members' money. Some of this information that is of general relevance to f&sf writers goes into my Writers' Bloc column in the Bulletin.

In the grossest practical sense, the organizations that do the most have the most members and the most money. The Authors Guild has the largest names and can afford a full time legal staff to pursue the suits that are of benefit to all authors. The Society for Children's Book Writers and Illustrators allows in would-be members and can afford to sponsor two major conferences a year that are primarily dedicated to teaching the craft of writing.

And the Romance Writers of America, which also allows in would-be writers, holds a major conference each year at which a special day of panels each are held for librarians and for booksellers. This gets their members' books into the view of those who can make purchases happen in a direct and efficient manner. That's in addition to their Romance $ells advertising booklet and the other promotional ventures they can fund.

While I've been agitating for change in SFWA for years, in terms not dissimilar to your proposals, I'd strongly suggest that your ideas are close but not completely on the mark.

First, while I acknowledge that the culture of SFWA is such that allowing in would-be writers is a non-starter, something must be done to increase the money that the organization has to spend. We need to roughly double our income to begin to have enough to get any message into a world already suffering from cacophony. That includes paying for at least one new full-time position, preferably for promotion, something I've long insisted was necessary.

Second, we need to get our message out past our fanbase and into the larger readership. Rolling the Nebulas into a fan convention and holding a fan convention of our own does not send the message of professionalism that we need. We can open up the Nebulas by making them into a conference on the business of writing, capped by the award. But it must be separate from a con.

What can SFWA do better than any other organization? It can teach the craft and business of writing f&sf, and it can promote written f&sf and those who produce it. SFWA needs to brand itself as the automatic go-to for that information, just as RWA has for the romance genre and SCBWI has for the children's' book genre. Both organizations charge for access to that information in ways above and beyond the cost of a membership, although that is their financial base. Could SFWA-brand books (chapbooks, pamphlets, conferences, whatever) on f&sf writing bring in an audience? Perhaps. Could promoting the Nebulas beyond their current invisibility and paperback status bring in revenue? Perhaps. (I'm already on record as calling for a return to a calendar year nomination schedule for the Nebulas to make them more attractive to buyers.)

Since I'm already on public record as calling for several of the planks in your platform, I have to say that I think you're on the right track. The publishing and the reading worlds have changed. SFWA must change with them. Tweaking the knobs on contracts should be an average Tuesday for the organization, not a boast for an administration.

Realistically, however, change will take money and a full-time paid staff not composed of people who consider their membership an affectation. Every successful writers organization has a paid professional who runs the organization. Every single one. Until SFWA understands that simple truth and makes some effort to address it, no substantial change is possible.

Money and staff, John. How does your candidacy address them?

Laurie Mann | March 16, 2007 02:35 PM

Gee, John, you're taking what was supposed to be a quiet Nebula Weekend and gone and made it all interesting. See you in New York - do you plan to bring that tiara?

Patrick | March 16, 2007 02:35 PM

Jules - I may be down playing the help I have recieved from people who are members of SFWA that got me started. But, none of them ever came out and said SFWA is great. RWA members that I have met, tend to. Some are former SFWA members.

I do agree with John in principle that it should be an organization of professionals and focus on professional issues such as copyrights, healthcare, legal funds and such. It's the definition of 'professional' that's a little sketchy, which is probably why RWA opens it up.

It's not like we can have a test like the bar exam to qualify writers as 'professional'.

I'm just thinking that opening it up and making it a positive experience for 'wannabes' encourages them to become and stay active as members when they do get published. Thus, growing the organization and increasing its leverage, which PNH implies that it currently lacks. The way it appears now, is it is a status symbol. Symbol of what, I'm not sure.

I ask this, what's the harm in having unpublished writers?

Michael M Jones | March 16, 2007 02:37 PM

Nick -
That's as logical as anything, I suppose, though somewhat disappointing and disillusioning. I can see where that might cut down on that sort of thing. I suppose those agents/editors/publishers who achieved Active status at some point in the past before taking up a more dominant role as agent/editor/publisher, are less likely to manipulate the system for their benefit now. Maybe.

I don't know, I'm not sure that answer really satisfies me enough though. I'm still ... unhappy with the status quo. And I'm unhappy that there simply isn't any better - or other - choice, to my knowledge.

TCO | March 16, 2007 02:43 PM

Walt: Try to step back and self-reflect and have some insight and perspective. You're supposed to be a writer and all. Don't you see some patterns of human nature, here? Sheesh.

Laurie Mann | March 16, 2007 02:43 PM

Steve wrote:
Second, we need to get our message out past our fanbase and into the larger readership. Rolling the Nebulas into a fan convention and holding a fan convention of our own does not send the message of professionalism that we need. We can open up the Nebulas by making them into a conference on the business of writing, capped by the award. But it must be separate from a con.

Certainly the rumor that the Nebulas may take place during the ABA in the future really doesn't help. The ABA is a huge event and the Nebulas are going to be buried.

While I work on and attend fan cons, I'm don't like the idea of making the Nebulas part of an existing con. Since the Nebulas are given by writers to writers, it makes sense for them to be part of an event that SFWA runs.

Of everything John said, the point I agree with the most is to streamline eligibility so the Nebulas are voted for works published in ONE (and only one) year. And he's also right that the Web site needs some work.

TCO | March 16, 2007 02:45 PM

Walt: Try to step back and self-reflect and have some insight and perspective. You're supposed to be a writer and all. Don't you see some patterns of human nature, here? Sheesh.

Anonymous | March 16, 2007 02:46 PM

You have my vote!

On the "leading website" trope--add "leading social media strategy" and "leading virtual world presence."

And yeah, Centric will do all three on a pro-bono basis if you're elected--and, of course, if you're interested.

We've written it. Now, let's LIVE in it.

Jason Stoddard | March 16, 2007 02:47 PM

Argh, comments ate my identity for the post above.

Annalee Flower Horne | March 16, 2007 02:51 PM

I'm not a member (obviously), but I just want to weigh in on the whole 'should non-pros be allowed to join?' thing.

Why in dog's name would they be? Should people who just think electrical work would be a swell thing to get paid for be allowed into the IBEW?

We wannabes have our own support structures-- places like AbsoluteWrite and people like Miss Snark. We don't need the same kind of support as published authors do. And while our interests are closely related, they are not the same. SFWA should be refusing us membership.

If they let us in, one of two things would be true:
(a) they'd be taking our money and using it to support a group we are not a part of; or
(b) they'd be taking the money of published writers and using it to support a group they are not a part of.

Either way it would be bad news.

Kaolin Fire | March 16, 2007 02:52 PM

I can't vote for you, but I'm trying to spread the love.

One pro sale and, er, "sidetracked with editing".

Ken Brady | March 16, 2007 02:58 PM

Did you write "SCALZI, MOTHERFUCKERS, SCALZI!!!"? Because it would rock if you had.

If it wouldn't invalidate my ballot, I'd put that on my ballot right now.

Thanks for the motivation to do something with this ballot sitting on the coffee table. It's good to see someone actually pushing for advancing an organization whose membership is theoretically all about advancement.

Your point #5 is compelling, and should be extended far beyond a revamping of the SFWA website. Too many pro SF writers are invisible in online areas where SF is becoming reality. Of the 4.5 million people registered on Second Life, guess how few of them are SF writers?

Let's get things started. I'm on board to do something.

So, we've got Derryl Murphy up for VP as well. Anyone else?

Ken Brady | March 16, 2007 02:59 PM

Eek. Sorry about the triple spacing.

Nick Mamatas | March 16, 2007 03:49 PM

Some years ago, the HWA, in response to a financial crisis, opened up its membership to anyone with fifty dollars and the result was ridiculous. The HWA boards and venues were filled with shills for PublishAmerica, people who had no interest in ever writing for publication (they wanted to meet Stephen King or talk about horror movies), and literal semi-literates. The level of discourse was very low: "what's a cover letter?", "i wrote a book with witches and ghosts. it is 20000 words long. does anyone have an agent i can send it to?", and a personal favorite: "The only reason I'm still an Affiliate is because editors keep rejecting my work in favor of stories by Active members!" It took quite a while to raise the bar and get rid of the dead weight. Even now, HWA is trivially easy to join, but it is in much better shape now than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, thanks to having standards of membership.

Sure, RWA is big and powerful. Romance is a large fraction of the fiction marketplace. It would be big and powerful even if they eliminated their "pre-published" membership. However, RWA is still chockful of teeth-gnashing over membership issues, and there were internal dust-ups over "romantica" and other non-traditional forms of romance, new publishers being acceptable, etc.

Michael, as far as Actives who are now primarily agents/editors, etc., there are only a relative handful of those. Even if they did vote against writerly interests, it would hardly matter. But if agents, editors, etc. were allowed to vote and given full privileges, clearly the problem would be more profound.

Michael M Jones | March 16, 2007 03:58 PM

Nick - Again, good points. But another realization has come up that still rankles me a little: As an Associate, I pay the same dues as an Active. Now, I don't begrudge SFWA the dues at all. I'm still proud and pleased to be a member. I just find it somewhat ... bothersome that for the exact same money, I get less of a say in things which interest me.

I wish I could properly propose some form of equitable resolution that would improve upon the current situation. Maybe eventually I'll be able to. The system seems flawed, though.

Kami | March 16, 2007 04:09 PM

Why restrict membership?

GIVEN; that doing anything with SF authors is like herding cats,

ALSO; that doing anything with SF fans is even morso,

AND; that the bargaining power of ALL the famous, bestselling SF authors is considerable,

AND; that the buying power of ALL the SF fans is small compared to the general public,

GIVEN; that the corporations that produce and distribute are soulless creatures who's only motive is profit;

THEREFORE; it makes sense for the aforementioned small group of SF authors to collectively threaten, I mean, bargain those soulless corporations, since authors have monopoly power over the right to copy.

ALSO; the interests of the aforementioned AUTHORS are best represented by, well, authors - they have mortgages on the line, not entertainment.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY; that interested non-published-authors are unimportant, but that their interests are not completely overlapping.

NOR; is this to say that fans, and not-yet-professional authors do not care about what happens in the field, nor is this to say that they don't care about their favorite authors - of course we do.

Patrick | March 16, 2007 04:31 PM

When PNK suggests that there aren't 1,500 professional in SFWA, he's voicing (I believe) the not-uncommon opinion that SFWA's membership standards are too -lax-. - Robin.

Ah ok. See, I read it as the organization was too small to have money and clout and using inflated numbers. So, the opinion is the crazies are screwing it up for everyone.

I did say that I agree with the exclusivity going the other way, as well.

Good example, Nick. Was there a "Published-Pro" status?

I apologize if I'm annoying anyone/everyone.

TCO | March 16, 2007 04:46 PM

Mike (you ignorant slut): You say that you are happy paying the dues, then you whine about not getting more for your money. Did you cry like a baby and not get spanked enough as a child? Think, man, think.

(Ok...I'll spell it out: If you are unhappy with the deal, then write some fucking salable stories. If you're not good enough for that, then quit. If you decide to pay anyway, then you know what you're getting and can stop whining like a liberal.

TCO | March 16, 2007 04:50 PM

No way there are 1500 decent writers of SF and F nowadays. I can never find a good book to read, even when I spend freely.

Stephanie | March 16, 2007 04:56 PM

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the website got a whole corner of your platform to itself. I gnash my teeth over the unprofessional appearance it gives the genre's professional organization. I'd donate some time towards fixing it up, if you wanted help from an opinionated non-member.

Jules Jones | March 16, 2007 04:59 PM

Patrick: My personal experience of RWA is that it can be quite thoroughly unwelcoming to certain classes of writers, to the point of having in the recent past been willing to take the full membership fee while denying them some of the benefits of membership. As Nick mentioned, there have been internal dustups, not least over denying certain membership benefits to writers of erotic romance, changing the rules to exclude certain publishers, and trying to officially define romance to match the personal prejudices of some of the officers. I first encountered one of the pseudopods of the 2005 fracas by egosurfing and finding myself cited by name as an example of the sort of thing that the more... ah... traditional romance writers were perturbed by.

I'm aware that this affected a minority of members and has since been sorted out, and I had the misfortune to be thinking about joining just as the whole thing blew up; but nevertheless, the RWA is not quite as warm and cuddly to not-pro-yet writers as you suggest.

Not that SFWA is free of politics and bickering, of course...

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 05:08 PM

SFWA is a huggy lovefest all the time.

Michael M Jones | March 16, 2007 05:12 PM

TCO -
You win. I'm off to burn my manuscripts, trash my computer, and start life anew as a plumber.

John -
Thanks for giving me the brief opportunity to voice a few of my own thoughts. Good luck with the election. Or bad luck, as it may be.

karawynn | March 16, 2007 05:22 PM

Being one of those slackers who hasn't written professional fiction since the twentieth century, I finally let my 'affectation membership' lapse last year, to possibly be resumed someday when I'm actually ready to market a completed novel.

So I can't vote for you. I would, though. Good luck with that mess.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden | March 16, 2007 05:27 PM

To be clear: SFWA doesn't exclude agents, editors, and publishers from being Active Members.

It excludes agents, editors, and publishers who haven't sold a novel or three short stories to a qualifying market.

Speaking of qualifying markets, why on earth isn't Night Shade Books a qualifying market? (I just checked; it's not.) They have national distribution, good representation in the chains, and they recently beat us at auction for the next novel by a well-known SF writer. Somebody's asleep at the switch.

Steve Carper | March 16, 2007 05:36 PM

My understanding is that the membership committee does not work proactively. They wait until somebody applies using a publisher as a credit and then see if the publisher qualifies.

So if nobody has tried to qualify using Night Shade Books as their sole credit, the membership committee would have no reason to list them.

Alternatively, there could be something that disqualifies them for reasons I know nothing about.

Jeff VanderMeer | March 16, 2007 05:40 PM

John said: "Well, if I win and you rejoin, I'm gonna put you to work, man. Fair warning."

Yessir, Scalzi sir. And I ain't being sarcastic. I'd be happy to be put to work.

Jeff

TCO | March 16, 2007 05:41 PM

NightShade Books...sigh. Why do the wannabes always want to define the bar low?

John Scalzi | March 16, 2007 05:44 PM

TCO:

Stop trolling and be a good boy.

TCO | March 16, 2007 05:59 PM

(/trolling)(good boy)

Nick Mamatas | March 16, 2007 06:11 PM

One of the qualifications for publishers of novels is that it must be listed in the Literary Marketplace and Night Shade is not.

It's a very silly hurdle, but it would take some kind of by-law change to alter it, which doesn't make it impossible, but people would scream sufficiently about it explicitly to deny qualification to independent presses like Night Shade to make it very difficult.

As far as why members would try to do such a thing, it's generally because the Old Guard is almost entirely out of touch with reality.

Hannah Wolf Bowen | March 16, 2007 06:34 PM

One place to start with the website: the membership form. I just tried to fill it out (I've been eligible for a while now) and apparently I have to click that and print this and copy that other thing? Not to mention that the form may not have gone through, as I think was mentioned above.

I overstate a bit. But I also just submitted a request to join HWA, and took me two minutes, and I paid that fee right there with a credit card. And now I'm done, whereas SFWA will have to wait until Monday when I'm back at work with copier and fax machine.

Not even a member yet, but I know who I'm happier