Mind Meld: The Intersection of SF/F Games and Genre Fiction

Today I am participating in a Mind Meld over at SF Signal on the subject of "The Intersection of SF/F Games and Genre Fiction." A group of science fiction and fantasy authors, including Matt Forbeck, Elizabeth Bear, Myke Cole, and others, discussing the back and forth between gaming and genre fiction writing. Lots of good stuff in the discussion. Please everyone check out the post. You won't be surprised to see that my own response leads off talking about Skyrim.

The Eternal Champion

Today's SF Signal Mind Meld asks what "Science Fiction Biographies We Would Like to See Published" There are great answers from John Joseph Adams, Gardner Dozois, Gary Farber, Gordon Van Gelder, and Farah Mendlesohn. I'm also in there, somewhere in the middle, giving my usual spiel about why Michael Moorcock is the single most important figure in 20th Century Literature and how the entire multiverse would come unraveled if you went back in time and prevented his birth. There are two great books that deal with Moorcock already, both written by Colin Greenland. The first is Entropy Exhibition: Michael Moorcock and the British 'New Wave' in Science Fiction, written in 1983 and being the first critical assessment of the New Wave movement, and the second is Michael Moorcock: Death Is No Obstacle, a book length interview with Moorcock. Both are long out of print, and I'd like to see them both reissued, at least in ebook format. But neither is quite a biography of the great man.

SF Signal's MIND MELD: What 'Sword and Sorcery' Means to Me

Art by Benjamin Carre

The latest SF Signal Mind Meld is up, and this one asks the question, "How do you define the sub-genre of 'Swords and Sorcery'?" For answers, they turn to the contributors (and co-editors) of my recent anthology, Swords & Dark Magic: The New Sword & Sorcery. Answers come from such luminaries as Michael Morcock, Joe Abercrombie, Garth Nix (whose answer takes the form of a poem!), CJ Cherryh, Glen Cook, Bill Willingham, JK Parker, Tanith Lee, Tim Lebbon, James Enge, Scott Lynch, Jonathan Strahan, and Yours Truly.

The entire post is well worth reading, though I think I'm going to find myself quoting Moorcock's "Captain Blood meets Cthulhu" quite a bit in the coming days.

Whole Lotta Lou

SF Signal's latest MIND MELD is a brilliantly-informative round robin asking a Who's Who of anthologists, "Can you describe what goes on behind the scenes - from conception to publication -- when creating a short fiction anthology?" There is much wisdom to be had in part one and part two. I am in part three, using their question as an excuse to talk about whatever I felt like and not really answering it.

Meanwhile, I'm up twice at Tor.com talking about the fact that a band has named itself after Mark Chadbourn's Age of Misrule series, and reviewing George Mann's The Affinity Bridge (while sneaking in the first public shot of Ghosts of Manhattan).

Lou Round the Web (Lou Con Smash)

Two items of possible interest:

My review of Neil Gaiman's Batman: Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?deluxe edition hardcover is up at Tor.com. The short of it: I wasn't sure if I liked it while reading it, but realized in retrospect that it moved me emotionally much more than I realized. Overall, positive. And it's utterly gorgeous.

Meanwhile, over at SF Signal, the latest Mind Meld asks the question, "What are the lessons that Comic-Con and Worldcon can learn from the other? Is there in fact a generational migration of professionals and fans that are choosing to attend large, catch-all media cons like SDCC instead of Worldcon, and if so, why?" Some very provocative responses.

Lou the Economist

SFSignal's latest Mind Meld is up, this one asking, "What can the SF industry do to weather a prolonged economic downturn? Will new authors have an even harder time breaking into the field?" I'm not sure what the very small pool of respondents indicates - are the rest of us too glum to comment? But some very good answers from Diana Gill, Mark Newton, and Justina Robson. I'm in there too, pontificating away...

Mark Newton: "...this is SFF fandom - this is people's passion, and fans will invest as much time and energy into it as always. I'm confident that this is nothing to worry about."

Mind Meld: The Future of Written Science Fiction

SF Signal is back with another one of their "Mind Meld" round tables, this one on the future of written science fiction. The respondents this time around include Jeff VanderMeer, Liz Williams, Allen Steele, Mark Newton, Jay Lake, Elizabeth Bear, Paul Di Filippo, Sean Williams, Chris Roberson, Dot Lin, Alexis Glynn Latner, and Yours Truly.

I particularly liked Jeff Vandermeer's assertion that:

"...the real challenge is writing near future SF. Stross I believe said near future sf is impossible. I respectfully say that is bullshit. To be relevant that is exactly what SF needs and how SF is falling down on the job right now. SF can do escapism just fine right now. But dealing with things head on? Not so well. SF has to get down in the nitty gritty of the horrible position we are in right now or it runs the risk of being just as irrelevant as the next medieval based fantasy trilogy. Yes it is hard to do. Who ever said writing was supposed to be easy? Show some guts."

And I particularly liked Chris Roberson's exact opposite reaction:

"I'd love to see more people playing what Rudy Rucker calls the 'power chords' of science fiction. He describes these as 'those classic SF topes that have the visceral punch of heavy musical riffs.' The list includes: Blaster guns, spaceships, time machines, aliens, telepathy, flying saucers, warped space, faster-than-light travel, immersive virtual realities, clones, robots, teleportation, alien-controlled pod people, endless shrinking, the shattering of planet Earth, intelligent goo, antigravity, generation starships, ecodisaster, pleasure-center zappers, alternate universes, nanomachines, mind viruses, higher dimensions, a cosmic computation that generates our reality and, of course, the attack of the giant ants. I want more of that stuff. The good stuff, the fun stuff. The mind-expanding thought-experiments and heady adventure stories."

And I loved Jay Lake's analogy, which explains how I can reconcile both of the above:

"Literature is like rock and roll...new movements come along, but the old ones never die. Reader tastes change, writers and publishers adapt, or they don't. I for one hope to keep writing what I love, and keep adapting at the same time."

Amen.

Mind Meld: SF with an Opposing Viewpoint

Over on SFSignal, my earlier post "Science Fiction Belongs to the World" provides the inspiration for this week's Mind Meld. They ask, "As a reader, can you enjoy a story that is pushing an opposed viewpoint from one that you hold (religion/politics)? If the author is prone to holding, and writing about, views opposed to yours, can you enjoy their works or do you stop reading them?"

Here, Charles Stross does a good job of articulating what several people commenting in my original post said, which is that there is a difference between art and propaganda, when he says, "I don't really care what politics or religion an author advocates, so long as their portrayal of all viewpoints is honest. Why? Because fiction is an attempt to construct a consistent vision of a universe which accommodates the human condition; and twisting the beliefs of your characters to fit some ideological preconception damages their humanity. This in turn tends to introduce gaping plot holes that rely on the protagonists being stupid or self-destructive for no obvious reason (other than that they are wearing the Bad hat that makes them do Bad Things). And it frequently goes hand-in-glove with Idiot plots, where the Idiot wins out in the end purely because his heart is pure, and the author said that it was so, and re-arranged the plot accordingly."

My favorite response comes from Cheryl Morgan, who reminds us "that science fiction has always been a conversation. And that doesn't mean just a conversation about methods of faster-than-light travel, or First Contact protocols; it also means a conversation about politics and religion. If you are not prepared to listen to other people, you can't have conversations with them. So yes, we ought to be reading books we disagree with."

MIND MELD: How Do Media Tie-In Novels Affect SF/F?

SF Signal is back with another great Mind Meld, this one asking, "How do you think media tie-in novels affect the genre of sf/f?"

It's a subject that I've had a change of heart on in recent years, going from borderline hostile to casually tolerant, bolstered largely by observations on the difference between 20th and 21st century fandom. But looking over the SF Signal posts, the arguments in favor go something like this:

1. Media tie-in novels are a gateway drug for (young) readers to discover "real" sf&f.
2. Even media tie-in novels get people thinking about important SFnal concepts.
3. The sales numbers associated with media tie-in novels brings its own kind of respect to our section of the bookstore and makes more non media tie-in works possible.

The arguments against go something like this:

1. Media tie-ins are eating the shelf space.
2. Work for hire isn't a good thing for a writer to be doing, career-wise.
3. Media tie-ins encourage people to want "same book, different cover" and not stretch.
4. Media tie-ins present the "poorest face" to the general public and hurt the perception of SF&F in the general public.

(A lot of these cons come from Alan Beatts, a very smart and articulate man, whose bookstore, Borderlands Books, is one of the best genre stores in America. The fourth point, which Alan makes, is probably the best argument against in my book.)

Now, as I said, I myself started out with a bias against media tie-ins that I've dropped when I realized it was a bias. As Rob H. Bedford points out when he says, "The funny thing is that the perception of non-genre readers towards 'us' is not too different than how genre readers look down upon media tie-ins." I don't ever want to take the position of "grumpy old man" and that alone might be enough to sway me.

Then I happen to have a lot of my friends writing them - from Paul Cornell (arguable the best of the Doctor Who novelists, though he's moved past it now), to Chris Roberson (X-Men, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k), to Sean Williams (who just hit the #1 spot on the NYTimes Bestseller list with The Force Unleashed.) Now, these guys are all great writers. I know this from their non-media tie-in work, but I can't imagine that they give any less when they do their tie-ins. And, in fact, I see reviewers calling out their work as being the best in their respective franchises.

And I've met enough people for whom the media tie-in was a gateway drug to know that it happens. As Kevin J. Anderson says, "A large percentage of the readers of my Dune novels with Brian Herbert have also followed my Saga of Seven Suns (enough that those books are now hitting general fiction bestseller lists). Anybody who claims that tie-in readers don't read other novels is simply misinformed..."

The Dune books are tie-in novels?!? (With the Dune films, maybe?) Still, the man does know media tie-ins, so if he says they follow him home, I am betting they do.

That being said, anytime you are trying to convert one type of behavior into another, you are dealing with very small percentage. So whether you are trying to get someone to respond to a direct mail campaign, or click through a banner ad on a website, or read a newsletter and buy a book, you are dealing with something like a 1 or 2% adaption rate. So while I don't doubt that the readership for the highest profile authors -- hugely-successful writers like Kevin J. Anderson, Michael Stackpole, Timothy Zahn, etc... -- are following them home to their non media tie-in material in significant numbers (because 2% of a million is significant), I'm not sure that the average media tie-in author is pulling a significant percentage of readers back to his/her creator-owned work. I'll be curious to see what Sean Williams' NYT Bestseller does to his Books of the Cataclysm, for instance, as the first is still on shelves in paperback and the second comes out in paperback in November. I certainly hope we get a bounce - but it might take two or three bestselling Star Wars novels in succession before we do. What Chris Roberson is doing - working his way through a succession of different franchises - might be smart, since if it's true that he's only going to pull off only a few percentages of a given fan base, then by writing for a different fan base each time he should be able to begin to aggregate these percentages into some measurable numbers.

On the other end of it, I'm not sure that media tie-ins are taking eyeballs away from the "real" stuff. My own experience penning over 500 articles for the pages of magazines like Star Trek Monthly, Babylon 5 Magazine, etc... is that the vast majority of the readers (that 97-99%) don't care about the byline, only the subject. As David Gerrold says, "Tie-ins are merchandising. They are marketing. They are also a particular kind of advertising, using the bookstores as additional channels to raise consciousness of the primary product." Walter Jon Williams reverses this when he says, "Trek reruns became nothing less than hour-long advertisements for Trek fiction- and the commercial advantages of having hour-long ads for your fiction soon became apparent." But the point is, I don't think the readers that are gobbling down Star Wars would pick up Brasyl if only George Lucas wasn't in the way. I think those readers wouldn't be in the SF&F section in the first place, they would be out watching more Star Wars and playing with Star Wars toys and games, and Brasyl's numbers would remain unchanged. As Andrew Wheeler says, "Avid tie-in readers are, again, fans of the property rather than of the genre as a whole, and expecting them to suddenly jump to books that aren't about that property is unlikely."

I also know from my time on Star Trek that media SF can get you thinking "in SFnal ways," as witness the large number of inventions, from the compact disk to the beds in use in our M*A*S*H units, that were directly inspired by the tech of Trek. And I do think that thinking "in SFnal ways" is good for the world at large.

But what really strikes me is how many of the fifteen people who responded to this question came themselves to SF&F through media tie-ins. So while maybe it's only a small percentage of media tie-in readers who graduate to the "real" stuff, it may be a high percentage of readers of the "real" stuff who came in via media tie-in. I know I came to SF publishing after a stint in SF television myself. And as Chris Roberson says, "You hear a lot about the 'graying of fandom,' and there are eternal cries for new fans and new readers. As nice as it would be to think that we could simply hand young readers the smartest, most 'challenging' novels that our genres have to offer, it seems unlikely to snare more than a bare handful of them. How much better to hit them where they live, to take franchises they already enjoy-in tv, film, video games, you name it-and offer them more of the same?"

Of course, the number one way that books are discovered isn't via browsing in bookstores. It's still good old word of mouth. Which means that the best thing you can do for SF&F is to share it. And on that note, I have to agree with Walter again when he says, "The success of media SF is on the whole a positive thing. It shows that there's an audience for SF, and that there's money to be made on science fiction ideas."

As long as those ideas are top notch, I think we're okay. Which it means its down to the individual writers to be excellent (even if excellent isn't a requirement). And, in a world where what we are being told to be is "spreadable," then seeing SF everywhere can only be good for the overall health of SF. As I've said before, more of everything means more quality as well as more crap. Omni-media SF is here to stay, we might as well start thinking of more ways to make it work for us.

Mind Meld: Is There a Gender Imbalance?

The latest Mind Meld up at SFSignal asks, "Gender imbalance in genre fiction publishing is an ongoing point of discussion in the blogosphere. Is there an issue here? If so, then what are possible solutions? What can readers, writers, editors and publishers do to rectify the situation?"

Lots of interesting responses. I'm there too.

MIND MELD: Who's Driving This Bus?

SF Signal's back with another Lou-inspired Mind Meld question, this one, "Q: Although science fiction was born on paper, sci-fi presented through visual media (film and television) has significantly higher audiences. Which medium, then, is the driving force behind what science fiction is and where it's headed, and who is driving it?"

They open with novelist John Scalzi, IMHO one of the best and brightest of 21st century SF, saying it's apples to oranges, they're only indirectly related, but really it's the one with the money. This is followed by Stargate: Atlantis executive producer Joseph Mallozzi saying that film & TV is a case of too-many-cooks but it pays well, and the freedom of the novelist to chart their own vision independent of interference is the driving factor.

Other contributors include Yours Truly, Gary K. Wolf, Joe R. Lansdale, Lucius Shepard (who reminds us that it's all compromised crap), Paul Levinson, Mike Resnick, Charlie Jane Anders (with a nice sounding sound bite about how the future is open source fiction), Paul Cornell, Mike Brotherton, and Lawrence Person.

I was particularly struck by what Paul Cornell said - who has written for prose, television and comics so is certainly the most qualified to know:

Certainly, prose SF is always first to any given concept, but public awareness depends not on one movie, but on dozens of Sci Fi Channel movies of the week, parody, advertising use, etc. That public awareness is important, in that SF seeks to portray what happens 'if this goes on', and such satire only really bites if the public recognises the truth of the future being described, as used to be the case with Arthur Clarke's descriptions of the vastly agreed-upon post-Apollo future of humanity in space.

So at the moment, to some degree, in this matter of the public's collective unconscious vision of where it might all go, what's to be done and what's wrong right now, TV and the movies are indeed taking the lead, the superhero trope, Lost and Battlestar Galactica all, for instance, asking 'is my instinct about what the look on that person's face means enough, or do I need some greater insight into their nature in order to be safe?' Dick got there first, but the development of that thought has happened largely outside of prose.

Me, I think that the much smaller, but potentially richer, vein of SF literature charts the vanguard that gradually trickles down and informs the larger, vastly more successful media, which in turn throws up images that get reabsorbed by the literature. Symbiotic, but we're talking whales and those little fish that swim alongside them (I'm still seriously jet lagged).

Still, I think the best case that the literature is still driving (even if the media train it tows behind it is overshadowingly large) is this bit from Joseph Mallozzi's blog:

So who is John Scalzi? Well, he’s just the guy who renewed my interest in SF literature and restored my joy of reading, a joy I am forcing upon you all via this book of the month club. I used to read a lot as a kid, particularly scifi, but as I grew older my hours spent in the company of Asimov and Clarke lessened considerably. Given everything that was going on in my life, reading became an indulgence I no longer had time for. I would continue to read at a more leisurely pace, but I was no longer the voracious reader of my early youth when I would devour two or three books on a good week. Then, a couple of years ago, I sat back and took stock of things. Here I was, a fairly successful writer/producer who, unlike my co-workers, didn’t spend my free time golfing, playing video games, or traveling. So, what was I doing with my free time? Well, to be honest, I didn’t have a lot of it because I’d feel guilty if I wasn’t working on something or, at the very least, thinking about working on something. I realized that I was being ridiculous. I worked hard enough during the season to earn some downtime. I needed a hobby. Something I could enjoy guilt-free. Preferably something that would help me relax and yet, at the same time, keep my mind active. And that’s when it hit me. Reading! It offered the enjoyment and relaxation of a regular hobby but, in my case, also offered the benefit of serving as a means of research and education.I joined an SF online book club, enjoyed the first two selections, and then along came John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War. I was blown away. It was fun. It was funny. And, most importantly, it was clever as hell! I loved it, and most everyone I have recommended the book to has loved it as well.

So, Scalzi writes book. Book so good that TV producer of long running, successful SF franchise loves book. TV producer becomes avid SF reader, promotes SF novels to his thousands of fans, spends all day reading, thinking about, proselytizing SF.

Conclusion A: Books still inform media.
Conclusion B: Both Scalzi and Mallozzi deserve big hug.

Lou Talks in Three Articles

Lots of Lou on the Web!

SFSignal is back with another Mind Meld. This one looks at Hollywood Science Fiction and asks "What other story, or stories, do you believe are deserving of being made into movies and why?" In addition to Yours Truly, responses are from Peggy Kolm, Michael L. Wentz, Michael Blackmore, SciFiChick, and the always interesting John C. Wright. Wright argues that, as a visual medium, "A science fiction movie that does not involve spectacle and special effects is not taking advantage of the primary strength of movies." I concur. I'd pick my list from some newer works though, as nothing dates like the future. Still, as I say in my own piece, with the cost of CGI dropping, there's going to be more of everything, so I think they'll be enough to keep us all happy.

Meanwhile, I'm interviewed about illustrator Stephan Martiniere over on io9.com in "The Future Will Be Bio-Mechanical." Some very nice samples of his work, including the concept art he did for the I, Robot film that happens to be the piece that lead me to put him on our edition of River of Gods.(And speaking about Ian McDonald books, although I'm not in it, there is an interview with Ian talking about both Brasyland the forthcoming The Dervish House up at Post-Weird Thoughts.)

Finally, GalleyCat uses the occasion of Michael Moorcock's Grand Masterhood to quote me and others talking about John Picacio's genius in a piece titled "A Grand Master's Greatest Character Reborn." This is, of course, about Picacio's recent work conceiving and illustrating Moorcock's Elric: The Stealer of Soulsreissue for Del Rey as well as our own The Metatemporal Detective.Michael Whelan's Elric has always been the definitive portrayal of the character for me. Until now. Go see why.

MIND MELD: Is Science Fiction Antithetical to Religion?

Very proud to have had a hand in today's Mind Meld, which asks "Is Science Fiction Antithetical to Religion?"

The short answer is "of course not." But the long answer is fascinating, particularly as described by Adam Roberts, John C. Wright, and James Morrow. (And what I wouldn't give to see these three guys debate the topic on a panel at a con somewhere.)

Here's a sample from Morrrow: "To the degree that science fiction is the literature spun from human insights into the laws of nature, then it is indeed the last place a person should look for corroboration of the Christian worldview or any other frankly religious perspective. For better or worse - better, in my opinion - science has yet to provide a single molecule of evidence for the supernatural, and so far every attempt to make the empirical substantiate the ethereal, from the laboratory testing of the Shroud of Turin to the crude appropriation of particle physics by various self-styled mystics, has come to nothing. How appropriate that I should be composing this essay in the shadow of the death of Arthur C. Clarke, who spent so much of his creative energy reminding us that neither conventional theists nor 'New Age nitwits,' as he called them, will find any genuine comfort in science qua science.

"As always, however, the gritty observable is more complicated than the airy ontological. One thinks immediately of Michael Bishop, Gene Wolfe, and Orson Scott Card, three unapologetic Christians who've written novels and stories that are manifestly science fiction. No sane critic would argue that any of these authors has betrayed the genre's heritage or compromised the integrity of his artistic vision by filtering it through a spiritual persuasion - indeed, I suspect that something like the opposite is true for Bishop, Wolfe, and Card: their faith may give their fiction its edge."

Mind Meld: The Appeal of SF&F Art

Thrilled to have had a hand in SFSignal's latest Mind Meld, "The Appeal of SF&F Art," which asks illustrators what drew them to genre illustration to begin with, and what place illustration has in our field. Brilliant, elegant answers from Todd Lockwood, Dave Seeley, Jeremey Geddes, John Picacio, Donato Giancola, Glenn Orbik, and Bob Eggleton.

Particularly like this great bit from Lockwood: "Art, like writing and movie-making, is an exploration into the unknowns without and within. It ponders realms that cannot be photographed or described with words, because they are ineffable and timeless. It helps connect the emotional and visceral with the cognitive and philosophical, the unreal with the real. At its best, it teaches or amuses, shocks or disturbs; it makes you look again, and then again – only deeper."

On a related note, I'm happy to see Sparth interviewed on Irene Gallo's The Art Department. Sparth is an amazing illustrator who just so happens to have done the cover for Theodore Judson's The Martian General's Daughterfor us, which should be hitting shelves in the very near future.

More Thoughts on Series Fiction - but whose?

In response to my earlier post "Mind Meld: Science Fiction Series", Paul Wargelin made the following comment, which was so lengthy and articulate I will repost it here for more to see.

Hi Lou,

This is a question that poses even more questions.

1: Define “new readership.” Are we talking about readers completely new to SF&F, readers who generally do not read series books, readers who do read series books in other genres, or the SF&F reader looking to try something new?

2: Define “series.” Open-ended or finite? Or both? How about series of series (or trilogies of trilogies)? Single-author continuing story or multiple-author house-owned franchise?

Obviously, SF&F readers who enjoy reading series will continue to do so. The new series they choose to invest time in depends on their own tastes for the specific subject matter and tolerances regarding the length of a series.

Readers of series books in the mystery and romance genres may be willing to try urban fantasies that emphasize similar elements. Readers of Tom Clancy and other techno-thriller series would probably enjoy military SF.

But for people who do not generally read SF&F or series books, the bookshelves in that section of the store are intimidating between the numbered volumes and in some cases the size of the individual books. They don’t know where to begin, or even if it’s worth the time and effort to do so.

For publishers and booksellers, series books are no-brainers. They can build and retain a readership if the series is successful, and if the author is fast (and the books are short), they can publish several books in the series annually. On crowded bookshelves, the booksellers can just replace the last book in the series with the new one.

Of course series fiction is nothing new—from dime novels featuring both fictional and real-life Wild West figures through the pulp magazine continuing adventures of Conan, Doc Savage, The Shadow and others to comic book superheroes, and the Star Wars, Star Trek, Battletech, etc. media-tie in books—there has always been a readership for series.

I think the current publishing model for a book series, regardless of genre, is based upon attracting television and film audiences. CSI viewers may read Patricia Cornwell, while Buffy fans may be drawn to Laurell Hamilton’s Anita Blake novels, etc. Many modern book series are written as if they are film/TV scripts in prose form, and certainly read that way.

When the highest praise reviewers and critics can give a book is “this would make a great movie,” what does that say about the art of writing prose fiction? I understand that publishers and authors depend on Hollywood interest for financial reasons, but it’s almost as if those books that are considered for film or television adaptation are more valid or legitimate than those that aren’t. In the real money making world of Hollywood, publishing houses are idea factories and nothing more.

Back on topic: I don’t think that SF&F series are detrimental to attracting new readers who are already SF&F readers. Attracting the uninitiated reader remains a problem, and as I mentioned in previous posts here, avid SF&F film and TV viewers aren’t necessarily avid SF&F readers. The viewers get their story fix in a concise time frame and may not want to spend the time reading a dozen 600+ page tomes published over a dozen years when they can get the same amount of story watching one season of a TV show in nine months or three films in six years.

This isn’t our readership. Thirty-something years of blockbuster genre film audiences have not been driven to read genre books (despite the success of J.K. Rowling and Stephen King). I think in the television and information ages, if people haven’t developed a love for reading as children, they’re unlikely to do so as adults. We’re being bombarded with entertainment and information in the form of twenty minute sitcoms, forty minute dramas, two hour films, sound bites, RSS newsfeeds, and blogs that result in short attention spans and encourage an entitlement of instant gratification, while creating an intolerance and impatience for anything considered time-consuming—like book reading.

If SF&F book series aren’t attracting new readers in the genre, they’re unlikely to do so outside the genre. If there are already 10+ books in the series, and if it’s necessary to be well-versed in all of them in order to enjoy one of them, then publishers run the risk of losing both potential and long-time readers. The story lines running through the titles of DC and Marvel Comics are so inter-connected and insular that even readers who grew up on superhero comics no longer have a point of entry. If publishers are unable to attract their former readers, how are they going to attract new ones?

Mind Meld: Science Fiction Series

Today, SF Signal's Mind Meld question is: Are science fiction book series a barrier to gaining new readership?

Answers from Yours Truly, Chris Roberson, Joe Sherry, David Louis Edelman and John Joseph Adams. With all those names, there must be something good to be had from it, right?

MIND MELD: What Purpose Does Short Fiction Serve?

SF Signal is back with another installment of Mind Meld, this one asking What Purpose Does Short Fiction Serve? In addition to Yours Truly, entertaining and erudite responses can be read by the likes of such notables as Gardner Dozois, Ellen Datlow, Jonathan Strahan, Jane Yolen and others.

Mind Meld: Today's SF Authors Define Science Fiction (Part 1)

Another great Mind Meld from SFSignal. I'm not in "Today's SF Authors Define Science Fiction (Part 1)", but you know it's a topic near and dear to me. Best answers this time out are by Matthew Jarpe, Chris Roberson, Adam Roberts, and Paul Di Filippo. By "best" I mean most useful, to me, in my subjective opinion and for my own purposes in articulating why I work in this field and not in the mystery/thriller genre or something else. Which is not to disagree with those who describe SF as a marketing category, or a nonexistent territory, or a set of fun props. Because, as John Scalzi points out, it is all those things too, and rises above them on a case by case basis solely on the skill level and intent of its practitioner.

You can probably guess how I feel about this, "There's nothing special about science fiction, just as there's nothing special about any other movement or genre out there." But I'm working on both a talk I have to give at the end of this month on this very topic, AND the introduction for Fast Forward 2, so I'll save my response/energy for those.

Mind Meld: If The SF/F Community Ran Hollywood...

Another SF Signal Mind Meld post is up. This one, "If the SF/F Community Ran Hollywood..." has contributions from Chris Roberson, Paul Levinson, Angela @ SciFiChick, John C. Wright, Jayme Lynn Blaschke and Yours Truly. All comments well worth reading, but it all boils down to the fact that we'd all like Hollywood to be smarter and to put story telling above other concerns. Still, the overall vibe seems to be that there is a LOT more good out there than there was even a few years ago...

SF Signal: My Thoughts to Your Thoughts

SFSignal has revived the single question group interviews that I so loved from the now defunct Meme Therapy blog. Their new feature is called, appropriately enough, the Mind Meld, and Yours Truly is honored to be in the second installment, along with Matthew Jarpe, Tobias S Buckell, Andrew Wheeler, and David Louis Edelman, answering the question, How has the internet impacted your ability to sell books and what impact do you see it having in the future?

Teaser: "It's been pretty obvious for some time that we've moved from top-down marketing to peer-to-peer referral, and you can make a strong case that the shift in the paradigm isn't just coming but has already occurred."