Here I am, associate SFWAn, speaking up a little. (After all these years in and around the business, remarkable, ain't it, that I'm not a full-timer? My own damn fault. Anyway...) Sitting by the sidelines with a confirmed goal for 2008 of getting that third qualifying sale and more, I find myself in a continual state of dismay at the organization. Over the last 20 years, it seems as though the one thing the group has consistently managed to do is enhance its reputation amongst nonmembers as a fractious gang of bickerers and, more recently, as remarkably short-sighted, especially as concerns its approach to technology (insert requisite observation about that irony of that development). If the Internet has done anything for the group is has a) enhanced that reputation by exposing the truth of the perception, and b) allowed smarter and saner voices like Scalzi's, Buckell's and yours (rarely but markedly), among others, to be heard on the subject of that reputation.
The whole thing makes me a little crazy. Membership in SFWA has networking value as well as other benefits (though these days they seem few and far between), but those things get lost when controversies like this overwhelm the positive aspects of the organization. When such controversies become what the organization is about, there's no point in being organized (which makes me wonder how it's managed to survive as long as it has). Much as I want to be a member (and this may be a habit of wanting more than an actual, practical goal with specific purpose, in which case I must reexamine it), what good does it do me as a writer to join an organization with such a bad reputation? That's a major PR challenge that the new group of officers will have to deal with; Burt's not the guy to do it. Were I able to vote, I'd vote for Davies and Mary Robinette Kowal because, based on their platforms, I believe they could turn the group around.
I'm certainly not the first to wonder if it's time for SFWA to shut its doors and for a new association to be created for writers in the genre. I'm not advocating, just wondering. Sometimes starting a new draft is far more effective than revising an existing work. That, however, would create its own challenges.
In a telling moment this weekend at RadCon, I asked an accomplished, well-established author if she was a SFWA member, and she responded as though I'd asked her if she was a motherf*cker, offended that I'd even consider the possibility. That right there speaks volumes. The group--as an associate member, dare I say "we"?--has work to do.
Random observations...
The whole thing makes me a little crazy. Membership in SFWA has networking value as well as other benefits (though these days they seem few and far between), but those things get lost when controversies like this overwhelm the positive aspects of the organization. When such controversies become what the organization is about, there's no point in being organized (which makes me wonder how it's managed to survive as long as it has). Much as I want to be a member (and this may be a habit of wanting more than an actual, practical goal with specific purpose, in which case I must reexamine it), what good does it do me as a writer to join an organization with such a bad reputation? That's a major PR challenge that the new group of officers will have to deal with; Burt's not the guy to do it. Were I able to vote, I'd vote for Davies and Mary Robinette Kowal because, based on their platforms, I believe they could turn the group around.
I'm certainly not the first to wonder if it's time for SFWA to shut its doors and for a new association to be created for writers in the genre. I'm not advocating, just wondering. Sometimes starting a new draft is far more effective than revising an existing work. That, however, would create its own challenges.
In a telling moment this weekend at RadCon, I asked an accomplished, well-established author if she was a SFWA member, and she responded as though I'd asked her if she was a motherf*cker, offended that I'd even consider the possibility. That right there speaks volumes. The group--as an associate member, dare I say "we"?--has work to do.