![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Capricon Panel Thoughts
Feb. 26th, 2009 08:20 pmApparently, once every other day is about the max of what I will be able to post around here. I mean, if you spend three hours of your day in a meeting, which results in six hours of action items, you try and keep up on blogging. /rant/
Ahem. Following up on my Hugo post, here are some thoughts on my other panels.
What Is It Reviewers Think They’re Doing?
Description of Panel: Do reviewers know anything at all? Do they add any value? And how can I get a paying gig like that? Our panelists discuss the State of the Art in modern SF reviews—and where the best can be found.
Well, my first thought was "where do I get a paying gig?" Steven Silver, a fellow panelist, got paid once for a review, but most of us do it for the free books. So, why do I review?
1) To highlight “obscure” books – such titles featured here as Return to Luna, Shenandoah Spy, Luggage By Kroger, and all of the ISFIC books.
2) To give an extra boost for Really Good Books – for example, Sly Mongoose, ISFIC Press stuff.
3) To discuss books I found personally interesting.
When reviewing self-published, an important part of the process is to stamp a "Seal of Quality" on the book. In other words, is this book "publishable?" I wanted to take a side discussion on marketable vs. publishable, but we didn't. (A publishable book is a written work of some quality. But because of obscure topic or a slow start, it may not be marketable by a publisher.)
SF: Plot Driven or Character Driven?
Description of Panel: What really keeps SF fresh? Is it mind-bending storylines, or its ability to bring realistic heroes and villains into our lives? Or is it just the robots?
This panel had five attendees, and was moderated by Phyllis Eisenstein. Especially with Phyllis's expertise on the subject (she taught a class in SF in 1968, while I was learning to be potty-trained) we could have done with less folks. I made (I think) two useful points.
1) Science fiction as romance. “The dictionary definition of "romance" as a genre is: "a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious" (which is sort of right, though the "remote in time or place" clause oversimplifies a much more complex quality of removal from everyday reality.)” (Debra Doyle)
2) SF as mystery – what do the aliens want, how do we solve the problem (The Cold Equations). A mystery reader approaches a book looking for clues, which you need to do if you're going to grasp SF.
At some point this year, I'll discuss my thoughts on the panels I merely attended.
Ahem. Following up on my Hugo post, here are some thoughts on my other panels.
What Is It Reviewers Think They’re Doing?
Description of Panel: Do reviewers know anything at all? Do they add any value? And how can I get a paying gig like that? Our panelists discuss the State of the Art in modern SF reviews—and where the best can be found.
Well, my first thought was "where do I get a paying gig?" Steven Silver, a fellow panelist, got paid once for a review, but most of us do it for the free books. So, why do I review?
1) To highlight “obscure” books – such titles featured here as Return to Luna, Shenandoah Spy, Luggage By Kroger, and all of the ISFIC books.
2) To give an extra boost for Really Good Books – for example, Sly Mongoose, ISFIC Press stuff.
3) To discuss books I found personally interesting.
When reviewing self-published, an important part of the process is to stamp a "Seal of Quality" on the book. In other words, is this book "publishable?" I wanted to take a side discussion on marketable vs. publishable, but we didn't. (A publishable book is a written work of some quality. But because of obscure topic or a slow start, it may not be marketable by a publisher.)
SF: Plot Driven or Character Driven?
Description of Panel: What really keeps SF fresh? Is it mind-bending storylines, or its ability to bring realistic heroes and villains into our lives? Or is it just the robots?
This panel had five attendees, and was moderated by Phyllis Eisenstein. Especially with Phyllis's expertise on the subject (she taught a class in SF in 1968, while I was learning to be potty-trained) we could have done with less folks. I made (I think) two useful points.
1) Science fiction as romance. “The dictionary definition of "romance" as a genre is: "a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious" (which is sort of right, though the "remote in time or place" clause oversimplifies a much more complex quality of removal from everyday reality.)” (Debra Doyle)
2) SF as mystery – what do the aliens want, how do we solve the problem (The Cold Equations). A mystery reader approaches a book looking for clues, which you need to do if you're going to grasp SF.
At some point this year, I'll discuss my thoughts on the panels I merely attended.
