(I debated with myself over whether to send this.
It turned into a bit of a rant so it's kind of
long; I apologize. You guys encouraged me, so it's
all your fault. -- V.)
A week or so ago someone bemoaned the poor quality
of novel manuscripts by new writers and the poor
judgment of the reading audience in preferring
media tie-in books to mainstream sf. This was my
response.
I know writers who published two or three or
TWENTY creditable sf novels but who cannot sell
their (equally creditable, or better) third or
fourth or twenty-first novels. The excuse is that
their previous novels didn't sell enough copies so
the chain stores will no longer order their books.
(Whether this is true or not, I don't know; it's
the reason they were given.) Some of these writers
have been offered the chance to "start over" again
with a new name, a third or fourth or twentieth
novel published as a "first novel" -- and, oh, by
the way, you have to take a first novel advance
for the book, too.
How can one enthusiastically encourage new writers
when one is aware of the sort of treatment they're
likely to encounter? What can one say to a new
writer who has sent a bit of their heart to a
publisher who's sat on it for a year without a
word?
As for tie-ins, I must disagree with the idea that
the difficulties sf is having are due to the
preference of readers for media tie-in books. This
rather widely-held belief presupposes that the
audience for tie-in books includes all the same
people as the audience for mainstream sf, and that
they choose tie-ins over original novels. It's
always made to sound like a child choosing
halloween candy over broccoli. I think this is a
false analogy. One could make as good a case
(probably better) for the preference of readers
for romance or mystery or even fantasy over sf.
It _is_ a difficulty that the means of production
and the shelf space for media tie-ins are
connected, more or less by accident, with the
means of production and the shelf space for sf. If
blockbuster movies were mysteries or romances, the
tie-in production resources and shelf space would
be in their corners of bookstores. SF movies and
sf novels kinda sorta bear a vague resemblance to
each other so they end up in the same place.
The audience, however, is quite different. The
audience for media tie-in books is at a minimum
ten times the size of the audience for science
fiction. It is, in my experience, an ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT AUDIENCE. If I and every other writer
who had ever written a Star Trek or Star Wars book
were taken out and killed, as some of our
colleagues would like, and all our books burned,
it would make not a blip's worth of difference on
the sales curve for mainstream science fiction.
Having a bestselling tie-in novel will have
virtually no effect on one's original fiction
sales, much as one might wish the opposite. The
folks who enjoy media tie-in books are looking for
a different experience. Not better. Not worse.
Just _different_.
One thing tie-ins do accomplish, indirectly, for
the reader of mainstream sf is that they support
quite a large number of mainstream sf writers who
would find it difficult to subsist on the advances
for their original novels.
It does none of us, readers or writers, any good
to keep wailing about how media tie-in books are
wiping out science fiction. It isn't true. Nor
would wiping out media tie-in books help sf. The
only thing that will keep sf from becoming
boutique publishing, as the average sales of the
average mass-market sf novel continue to plummet,
is trying to expand the audience for science
fiction.
Whether that's possible, I have no idea. For all I
know, the sf audience (actual _or_ potential) is
finite and saturated. I know nothing about
advertising or marketing. I wouldn't even know how
to start attempting to enlarge the market. My
level of advertising sophistication would run more
or less to Uncle Martin growing his antennae and
asking, "Got Science Fiction?"
If I had a couple million bucks, I'd hire Eileen
Gunn and ask her to try a publicity campaign.
I think marketing niches and pigeonholing are a
lot more dangerous to sf than media tie-in novels.
I think we may be sub-ghettoizing ourselves out of
existence:
Can't count "Flowers for Algernon" as science
fiction because... because why? Maybe because it
was too good?
(I heard that the following happened but have no
independent proof of it. Consider it, at best,
secondhand gossip. But I think it accurately
reflects the mind-set of a large proportion of sf
writers.) Michael Crichton wants to join SFWA?
Let's ridicule him until he goes away, because...
because why? Because he's a worse writer,
technically, than anybody else in the
organization? Not bloody likely. (Besides, nobody
ever asks about the quality of your writing when
you apply to join SFWA. They ask if you've sold
something to a professional market.) Because he
makes classic sf ideas accessible to a wider
audience? (Gosh, what a <Fe><Fe><Fe> horrible
concept.) Could it be because... because he makes
too much money?
A long-time member of SFWA tried to define Ursula
K. Le Guin as "not a science fiction writer"
because she writes in other genres. (Ursula
herself always describes herself, first, as "a
science fiction writer," and this moronic campaign
against her very much hurt her feelings.)
I do know that my book The Moon and the Sun, which
straddles several genres (sf, historical fiction,
alternate history, fantasy), has gotten, first,
the best reviews of any book of my career, and,
second, the following comment from a seriously
depressing number of publications that might have
been expected to review it: "Gosh. It's a
wonderful book. We love it. But... we don't know
how to pigeonhole it. So we're going to ignore
it."
Vonda
Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:22:06 -0400:
>I certainly haven't been deluged in quality
>manuscripts from new authors
http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda
Some official good news at
http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:05 PDT