There's always new books coming out, and I want to keep abreast of them. I want to support my friends and peers; I want to see where the genre is headed. And I cannot understand an attitude to SFF that situates doing so as *less* important than a singular, old, restrictive canon.
-
Show this thread
-
Here's the thing: the recent past matters, too! And it always feels extremely conspicuous that it gets ignored when folks like Martin and Silverberg, per the recent Hugos disaster, think the only past that matters is exclusively 40+ years ago.
1 reply 2 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Given that Martin, Silverberg and others have ostensibly been attending cons and participating in fandom *continuously* since the Good Old Days, I find it... let's say significant, that their much-vaunted anecdotes never seem to include the past two decades. Which is a long time!
1 reply 4 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
They don't get up and talk about multiple Hugo winners of recent years like Cat Valente or Seanan McGuire. (They mentioned NK Jemisin, but only to make out as if she's nothing special.) They don't talk about amazing new talents like Yoon Ha Lee or Charlie Jane Anders.
2 replies 2 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
The thing about the past is that we're always adding to it - but not in their recollection. The past is always singular, with a giant chasm of Nothing between their personal cutoff point and the present, and it's MADDENING.
2 replies 3 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
The only exception to this is their personal achievements, like they alone get to straddle the Great Nothing between their heyday and the now like living messages in a bottle.
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
And what this says to me - the impression I cannot help taking away - is that, to them, the *recent* history of the genre doesn't matter except inasmuch as it represents a continued audience for their exploits. They want to broadcast to modern fandom, not engage with it.
1 reply 1 retweet 27 likesShow this thread -
Which is, I think, desperately ironic, in that part of what they're grasping after is a legacy: a continued sense of relevance. But because they're not engaging with new fans or writers as people and peers, only as potential subjects, they're actively eroding their own relevance.
1 reply 2 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
If, as a new fan or writer, your formative impression of Silverberg is Dude Who Longwindedly Compares Himself To Jesus While Praising A Fascist At An Awards Ceremony, why the fuck would you bother to look up his writing? What's the appeal, there?
1 reply 4 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
If Silverberg understood how legacies work, he'd be encouraging new writers and fans, engaging with the modern genre, extending a hand to newcomers at cons and generally using his status for good, not sitting coolly on a pedestal and periodically bemoaning the state of things.
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread
But ego isn't a legacy; it's just annoying, like trying to insist in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary that your personal entry points into the genre are The Only True Entry Points and therefore The Perfect Canon Forever, Amen.
-
-
Anyway! It's beautiful day, and I'm going to go spend some (socially distanced) time outside with my offspring instead of ranting on the internet now. FIN
0 replies 1 retweet 21 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.