by David Gerrold
Over the last eight months, F&SF has gotten letters from Papabear accusing us of homophilia, an unsigned one implying that we’re homophobic, Rebecca O.’s note suggesting we have a bias against women writers from the west coast, and Mark B.’s 12-page missive about why he won’t be renewing his subscription. Thank goodness for folks like Jesse W., at78rpm, and David Gerrold for making the mail a joy to open!
* * * *
February 12th
Dear Gordon,
Re: Your recent announcement that you will be outsourcing the jobs of domestic science fiction writers to cheaper-working authors in parallel dimensions.
I take pen in hand to object most strenuously.
Yes, perhaps some of those other writers are more prolific, having access to advanced technology like typewriters or even home computers. Nevertheless, the traditional science-fiction story, handcrafted by a dedicated artisan, will always have a unique charm to it that no machine-produced work can ever duplicate, let alone surpass.
But even more important, a Resnick or a Robinson or a Willis story written in a parallel dimension will take the bread out of the mouths of our own hard-working Resnick, Robinson, and Willis.
Quite frankly, it speaks volumes about your character. How will you sleep at night knowing that our children are going hungry?
Sincerely,
David Gerrold
* * * *
June 23rd
Dear Gordon
Re: Your recent request to borrow my timebelt.
I must regretfully, but most emphatically, say no. Absolutely not. No way. Don’t even think about it.
I have bounced forward several years to see what you would do with access to portable temporal transport, and frankly, I am appalled. You will be bouncing forward yourself, two-three-four years at a time, to purchase copies of your own magazine at the newsstand, even before the stories within have been written—you will then publish those stories with only token payments to the authors.
How do I know this? My future self is very upset with you for publishing “Unstrung,” “The Mouse King’s Motorcade,” “A Day at Crater Park,” “The Lifeguard at Cassy Beach,” “Uncle Morris,” and my personal favorite, “The Patient Dragon.”
Despite your efforts to be fair, I believe you have created a philosophical conundrum as well as an ethical one. If I have not written the stories that you have published, then who did? If no one did, then isn’t it immoral for me to accept payment for stories I have not personally created? Yes, you are paying for the use of my name, but is it right for me to put my name on a story that I haven’t written yet?
And yes, I can argue the other side of this too.
Many of your future authors will be grateful, receiving payments for stories they would have written, but now don’t have to write, so they can write other things instead, thus doubling or tripling their actual output; but I worry that raiding the future for stories will have a long-term destructive effect on the field because it will deny authors the necessary process of experiencing their own creative energy at work, living through the authorial process, and evolving through that writing into more mature literary voices.
While this may be only a subjective opinion, I truly believe that if you were to have access to a timebelt, the result would be a disaster for the science fiction genre. By keeping authors stuck in the immediate rewards of their unwritten work, they will not be moving forward into the experience of actually creating results and the lessons to be learned from such labor.
Call me old-fashioned, but I love science fiction too much to allow you to stunt the literary growth of its finest practitioners.
As always,
David Gerrold
* * * *
August 19th
Dear Gordon,
It is not my job to tell you how to run your magazine. I’m merely a reader and a sometime contributor; but I feel obligated to comment about your use of a synthesized-sentience intelligence engine to generate stories “in the style of....”
Yes, the first two or three times it was a fun experiment. I admit it, I enjoyed the recreated Heinlein story “The Steel Feather.” And I’m sure a great many fans of Fritz Leiber were thrilled to see a new Fafhrd and Gray Mouser story, “CSI: Lankhmar.” And if truth be told, the synthesized Sturgeon tale “To Kill a Unicorn” actually brought a tear to my eye.
So no, I do not object to the occasional reinvention of the voices of the past as a way of paying honor. It’s a chance to revisit the heritage that delivered us to the present. But I believe that when you reinvented Harlan Ellison, you went too far. Yes, there’s no question that “Screaming Ice Flowers” was a brilliant demonstration of the technology—but Harlan Ellison is still alive! Using a computer to recreate his unique vision puts him in the position of competing against his mechanical self.
Gordon, where does it end? It is a very short step from here to a nightmare situation where flesh-and-blood writers become totally unnecessary.
I foresee a day when each new issue of the magazine isn’t edited—it’s generated. You could simply decide which authors to emulate, how many words to produce, and what themes will be explored. The magazine could be synthesized faster than you can print it out and read it.
From a publisher’s point of view, the possibility is tempting, but it strikes at the very heart of the editor/author relationship upon which this entire field is built. I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to publish any more synthetic stories.
Your pal,
David Gerrold
* * * *
October 3rd
Dear Gordon,
This morning, a close friend sent me a very distressing email. If what he says is true, I am appalled and disturbed.
I hope it is only a vicious rumor and I hope you will take the time to clarify the circumstances for me, but according to my friend, you are now hiring illegal aliens from 3-Grxl-90, Horta VI, and Brunnehilde 4.2 to write stories for the magazine.
In fact, my correspondent was quite clear that these illegal aliens aren’t even writing fiction, merely their own personal life histories. So how can you call this work either Fantasy or Science Fiction? It puts the hard-won credibility of the magazine at risk.
Please tell me that this is not the case. Or if it is, please tell me that you will cease and desist immediately.
Writing from the heart,
David Gerrold
* * * *
November 35th
Dear Gordon,
I suppose I should congratulate you on your decision to clone the most popular writers in the field, so as to increase the output available to you and other editors. It’s a bold and audacious step.
But frankly, it smacks of assembly-line production. Duplication removes the uniqueness of the artisan. It destroys the concept of authenticity and authorship. Did Larry NivenPrime write “Ringworld Reloaded” or did it come from the duplicated soul of Larry Niven1? How is the reader to know if a story came from the actual author?
Even worse, what is the reader to make of conflicting stories from dueling clones? I refer you to the unfortunate incident with McCaffrey5 and McCaffrey7 and the readers’ confusion about the authenticity of “Blood Feuds of Pern.” Which story is canon? Which is apocryphal? That particular argument hasn’t ended yet and probably will never be resolved, now that McCaffrey5 is charged with beating McCaffrey7 to death with a Best Novelette Hugo.
Consider this, Gordon. If you continue with your cloning program, pretty soon you will be publishing so many stories from the cloned masters of the field that there will be no room left in the magazine for new and upcoming writers. You could put the entire science fiction genre into a literary Klein bottle from which there will be no escape.
With much fear and trepidation,
David Gerrold3