![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Back several decades ago, I yearned mightily to be an active member of SFWA, to be among the ranks of "professional" writers of the genre I loved. I managed to achieve that desire and for many years was happy to be among the crew. I was on the Grievance Committee for a time Way Back When, ran for Treasurer once (and lost by a handful of votes), and chaired the first Grants Committee for a year or so.
But, for the last several years, when the time has come to pay the yearly dues, I've hesitated over my checkbook, pondering my return-on-investment from SFWA. The answer lately has been that it's very little. The online forums seem mostly filled with vitriol from stupid personality-driven flame wars. The yearly Members book had always been valuable, especially back in in pre-internet days, but these days I'm in regular contact with many of my peers via e-mail, and if I needed contact info for someone, a quick shout-out to the group mind would get it for me. SFWA used to perform services of value to professional writers (the audits comes to mind) but projects like that seem to happen less and less frequently. Once, I think SFWA had genuine clout in the publishing industry; now, I suspect the organization is mostly a toothless tiger. The Nebula Awards process seems to be dominated by friends-nominating-friends. The ability of the organization to do something of importance to actively-publishing writers seems (to me) to be diluted by the number of 'active' members who are really not -- once you've sold your three stories and become an active member, you can remain in that status forever by writing your yearly check, even if you never sell another word in your life.
And, of late, SFWA seems (again, IMO) to be making stupider and stupider decisions. I've long ago given up on the online forums; I stopped reccing and voting on the Nebula; I've stopped reading the Forum since there's essentially no significant content in it; the Bulletin still has some interesting articles, but nothing I'd miss horribly. Market reports I can get several places online. I have an agent who will act as the 'bad cop' in relationships with publishers. I've found another organization that has been far more valuable professionally than SFWA has been in a long time.
No, I'm not going to resign in a huff, as some have in the last few days.. But when the time comes to write that check next year, I seriously doubt that I'm going to put pen to paper. I can think of better things to do with my money.
But, for the last several years, when the time has come to pay the yearly dues, I've hesitated over my checkbook, pondering my return-on-investment from SFWA. The answer lately has been that it's very little. The online forums seem mostly filled with vitriol from stupid personality-driven flame wars. The yearly Members book had always been valuable, especially back in in pre-internet days, but these days I'm in regular contact with many of my peers via e-mail, and if I needed contact info for someone, a quick shout-out to the group mind would get it for me. SFWA used to perform services of value to professional writers (the audits comes to mind) but projects like that seem to happen less and less frequently. Once, I think SFWA had genuine clout in the publishing industry; now, I suspect the organization is mostly a toothless tiger. The Nebula Awards process seems to be dominated by friends-nominating-friends. The ability of the organization to do something of importance to actively-publishing writers seems (to me) to be diluted by the number of 'active' members who are really not -- once you've sold your three stories and become an active member, you can remain in that status forever by writing your yearly check, even if you never sell another word in your life.
And, of late, SFWA seems (again, IMO) to be making stupider and stupider decisions. I've long ago given up on the online forums; I stopped reccing and voting on the Nebula; I've stopped reading the Forum since there's essentially no significant content in it; the Bulletin still has some interesting articles, but nothing I'd miss horribly. Market reports I can get several places online. I have an agent who will act as the 'bad cop' in relationships with publishers. I've found another organization that has been far more valuable professionally than SFWA has been in a long time.
No, I'm not going to resign in a huff, as some have in the last few days.. But when the time comes to write that check next year, I seriously doubt that I'm going to put pen to paper. I can think of better things to do with my money.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I've been thinking we really need one.
From:
no subject
But I know cons still use the directory for contacting program participants, so it may be worth paying dues just for that.
Three years ago, I would have been homeless, if not for the Emergency Medical Fund, and fund raising here on LJ. I noted that when I did the panel on online piracy at Philcon, I made that point, and people in the audience wanted me to elaborate, but Erik Flynt yanked it back to topic.
I agree with you that the problems in SFWA go back to the recertification wars. I think the folks who minimally qualified are the ones driving the flame wars and dragging out the howitzers to deal with the mosquitoes of online piracy. (Which I'm still conflicted about, as I am to the references Pournelle is making about me.)
About the Nebula log-rolling, well, less said, the better. I'm on good terms with my college sweetheart but he regularly got recommended, mostly because his classmates at Clarion recommended him. I like Tom, and he wrote some good stuff, but it wasn't any better than the short stuff Jack wrote that got ignored.
What this other organization that's been so valuable? Jack quit the Author's Guild when they changed the dues structure.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Oddly it's my perception that it's the opposite.
From:
SFWA = Nailed
As an editor ... gosh, if I think about that, seeing SFWA in a cover letter actually makes me a bit suspicious. I hadn't thought of that before, but when I focus on it, there it is.
From:
no subject
Di
From:
Tepper
You know, the last conversation of any note I had with Jack was at the beginning of the SFWA involvement with fighting digital piracy. I found him in a bar at a con - where I can't recall - and told him that we'd found a lot of his work on-line along with that of Roger's, Howard Waldrop and George's short fiction. He didn't seem to care much. I don't know what your 'position' on digital piracy is, but I have to say that it really pissed me off to see Roger's work online because he had died a few years earlier, and his family was pretty clueless about not only piracy but also about copyright issues. They had no protection from the ripping off of Roger's literary estate, and there was little that could be done to help.
From:
SFWA
SFWA has made its share of blunders, going all the way back to its founding, but it still does good work. Even if it did nothing else, it would still be worth supporting for the Emergency Medical Fund and the Legal Defense Fund.
More than that, however, is the principle that SFWA represents, of writers banding together to help each other. We need that more than ever. SFWA was founded with the idea "we're all in this together," and if it hasn't been all that it should be for the past half-century, it is still better than anything else we've got.
Increasingly, however, SFWA and organizations like SFWA seem out of step in this "every man for himself" and "I've got mine, Jack" marketplace, where the whole idea of paying forward seems to have become wildly unfashionable. Again and again, when SFWA is debated, I see new writers posting that they're qualified to join SFWA, but decided not to because, "I didn't see what SFWA could do for me," or "SFWA wasn't worth the dues," or some variant thereof.
Which to my mind misses the point. Maybe it's a generational thing, but as I see it, the question is (to paraphrase JFK, one of the heroes of my own generation), "Ask not what SFWA can do for you, but what you can do for SFWA."
So maybe instead of quitting SFWA, you should run for office again. You did offer to take your turn in the barrel, but you never actually got to crawl inside and spend two years herding cats. It gives you a different perspective.
From:
Re: SFWA
You're right; I never took the turn in that barrel. Your argument is valid -- if I thought SFWA was salvageable. I'm skeptical that it is. It's not just that cats are difficult to herd; it's that the current cats are entirely uninterested in going in the same direction and actively resent it when someone tries.
I'm disgusted with both sides in this current dust-up. The "Anti-Burt" crowd is casting the man as the New Satan, but on the other side, there seems to be nothing but obfuscation and excuses. Given the hash that Dr. Burt made of copyright problems the last time (and I'll even allow that perhaps he did it out of misplaced zeal rather than outright incompetence), there's no way that he should have been placed back in charge of the e-piracy committee. He should have recused himself and stepped aside. That he doesn't see that (and that Capo -- whom I thought was an effective president in his last reign -- evidently doesn't either) boggles my mind.
On top of my other issues with SFWA, nearly all of which seem endemic to the structure of the organization, I'm now of the opinion that SFWA is Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, and no matter how many people volunteer and no matter who's in office, SFWA will remain broken. I remain open to being convinced otherwise... but that's how I see it.
Like everyone else, I only have limited hours in the day to accomplish the things I need to accomplish, and I have to make a judgment call as to whether the time expenditure will pay off. I'd prefer to give the hours I can where my efforts might be appreciated.
That doesn't appear to be SFWA.
From:
no subject
From:
Re: SFWA
Bottom line, though, is that any statement that says "SFWA is this" or "SFWA is that" is meaningless. SFWA is its members. More crucially, SFWA is its officers. When the officers change (the prez, especially), so does the organization, becoming more or less effective.
I'll give you a f'rinstance. The Emergency Medical Fund had been around for decades when I took office as part of Michael Capobianco's first administration, but there were only a couple of thousand bucks in the fund, and the maximum loan the EMF could make to anyone was limited to $500. Given current medical costs, that was hardly a spit in the bucket; the EMF was a well-meaning idea without the resources to offer significant help to anyone. It was Capo and his team who decided that could be changed, who formed a fund-raising committee for the EMF and sent them forth to run auctions at cons. As veep, it was my charge to staff the committee, and I got Peter Heck to chair the group. Best thing I did as veep, probably. Peter Heck was MAGNIFICENT, really sank his teeth into the task. EMF auctions became a regular feature of many cons, the EMF now has funds well in excess of six figures, and can give people real help.
So maybe we can say this is something that SFWA did well. Except "SFWA" did not do it. Capo did it, and I did my little bit, and Peter Heck did his HUGE bit, and for many years. If Peter had said no, and I'd appointed someone else to head the fund-raising committee... well, who knows?
The problem is, there are not enough Peter Hecks to go around. Nor enough Michael Capobiancos, for that matter. I can also testify, from my years as veep, that it is like pulling teeth to get people to serve on a committee, especially if it involves any significant amount of work. Many of the people who DO agree to be part of the committee then do... well, nothing. I suppose that's a flaw in the whole "committee" concept; everyone sits around waiting for someone else to take the lead.
And it is even harder to get people to run for SFWA office. Which is why we have so many uncontested elections.
I do recognize that you "only have limited hours in the day to accomplish the things I need to accomplish," and acknowledge the truth of that... but you do realize that's the same thing everyone else says when approached about serving as an officer or committee member, I hope. Everyone in SFWA has books to write, deadlines to meet, only twenty-four hours in the day.
Maybe you're right, and Andrew Burt should have stepped aside in the present situation. If he had, however, who would have stepped up to take his place? Would the new chair have been as zealous, as active, as willing to devote so many hours to hunting down epiracy? Maybe. Maybe not.
And putting all that aside, surely the worth of SFWA cannot be judged by a single action of a single committee under a single administration? What about the EMF, the Legal Defense Fund, Writer Beware, the SFWA suite at worldcons, Griefcom, etc? What about forty years of good work in defense of the writers in the field? Surely all that must count for something.
From:
no subject