What SFWA Membership Offers You

SFWA, at its usual slow lumbering pace, is heading towards answering the question of whether or not the organization should allow self-publishing as a way to qualify for membership. For those unfamiliar with the current requirements, it involves sales to traditional publishing markets: three stories or a single novel advance at a specified rate (current 6 cents per word for stories and a $2000 advance for a novel, from a market listed as a SFWA qualifying market).

Do I believe results with self-publishing should qualify someone for SFWA? Yes, absolutely. To me the only question is how to define those results in a way that makes them comparable with the existing criteria.

The Economics of Being an Author

I believe that increasingly a 100% traditional publishing model is not as economically rewarding for most authors as one which combines it with (or may even be restricted to) self-publishing. Some authors will be able to make that approach pay, but the jury’s still out as to which way that trend will go in the future. However, I believe that SFWA members who follow a path restricted to traditional means will at some point be the minority — if they’re not already. Certainly the results of the poll we took show a lot of SFWA members (43% of responding Active members, 38% of Associates) are pursuing one form or another of self-publishing.

Sometimes people mention the self-publishing “bubble,” with the implication that all this newfangled stuff like e-readers is just a fad. I don’t agree. The experience of reading is undergoing a sea change. While physical books aren’t going away anytime soon, e-books are here to stay.

Are the Traditional Gatekeepers That Crucial?

Some of the arguments I’ve seen focus on the importance of the traditional gatekeepers (editors, publishers, and (to a lesser degree) agents) to the qualifying process. The argument falls along the lines that those gatekeepers are necessary because their economic investment in the text is the most acceptable way to certify quality. This argument also tends to be made primarily by editors and publishers.

While it’s true that self-publishing makes the author the sole and obviously biased person to answer the question whether something’s worthy of publication, luckily there are other ways to determine whether or not something is “professional-level” or not: an economic-based criteria that is already in the qualification rules.

To rely entirely on economic criteria is a more than adequate answer. SFWA already has them in place with the definition of minimum advance and per-word dollar amounts. Beyond that, what a publisher deems “good enough to be published” boils down to economic concerns as well: it means that the publisher believes it will make them enough money that an initial financial investment is worthwhile.

I should point out that, beyond the initial investment of time and creative energy, the self-published writer often — usually, in fact — invests financially in their books, in the form of hiring editing and proofing services, cover art, book design, audio production, advertising, etc. This should not be overlooked when considering the “average” self-published writer, who is very much a professional.

But in any case, it’s really the sales that matter. Whether or not readers want to spend money on the words. Asking self-published writers to prove sales comparable to the existing figures is reasonable as well as a simple and intuitive algorithm: the amount of money a traditional sale must make in order to qualify should equal the amount a self-published piece must make.

How we get people to prove sales is an important question. That and the actual criteria are the two most important decisions SFWA will be making.

Answering Objections:

In answer to some of the various objections I’ve seen.

SFWA shouldn’t do this because it will result in public feuds between traditionalists and the self-published.

Well, yes and no. A few diehards and zealots on either side will lock horns. As happens, and has happened on a regular basis since SFWA’s earliest days, there will come Heated Discussions. I believe this is par for this particular course, which is a lumpy, untended one full of straw men trying to play through.

But that group will be fairly small although loudly vocal. Most of us (and I say us because this is the camp I fall into) realize a number of things:

• As professional writers who want to make a living at writing, we need to know what options we have with self-publishing.
• There is a growing interest in self-publishing among us, as well as a rising number already trying it.
• It is an economically viable way of generating income.

I have a stake in this race — right now I’ve been finding my experiment in what is a essentially a form of self-publishing, a Patreon campaign, a reasonable way to self-publish short stories.

SFWA knows it can’t — and shouldn’t try to — please everyone. This step will be controversial no matter what. The best thing SFWA can do is make sure that reasoning behind the decision is sound, that the membership feels it’s gotten enough chance to weigh in, and that the Board is willing to listen to and acknowledge feedback on an ongoing basis.

A mass of unworthy bozos and hobbyist writers will descend on SFWA, tainting its ranks.

SFWA has plenty already. A few more aren’t going to destroy us. Beyond which, this is why there are qualification criteria.

Bozos and hobbyists both seem boogeymen for the most part to me. No matter what the group, there will always be the brash, the socially-inept, the deficient in empathy or manners, the chip-shouldered, the self-appointed prophets and others lacking in basic social graces. They are an unfortunate fact of life in any population, no matter how refined or well-educated. I have no reason to believe the self-published have them in any greater (or lesser) degree than the current membership, or even the general populace of professional speculative fiction writers.

To worry about the somehow unworthy and unprofessional is to ignore the fact that there’s already a few people in the ranks who are there on scant sales or the kindness of a friend who happens to be an editor. Again, I have no reason to believe that for some reason the ranks of self-published have a disproportionate amount of these. There are some very talented and hardworking writers out there depending on self-publishing.

In Conclusion:

I’ve been re-reading Dale Spender’s excellent nonfiction work, Mothers of the Novel, and working on a lengthy essay drawing parallels between it and some of the recent treatment of women in F&SF: BS like “pink” versus “blue” SF (poor women don’t even get a primary color!), reviews scoffing at Ancillary Justice’s gender “gimmick”, and the Truesdale review of Women Destroying Science Fiction (so many of his essays, really) all come readily to mind.

And there’s some overlap there with self-publishing as well, and the way it dismantles one of the structures that’s often worked to reinforce the status quo, which is traditional publishing. Arguments against the horde of unwashed yahoos that will descend upon SFWA often seem to say as much about the speaker’s attitudes towards class as anything else.

So yes. SFWA already has plenty of members working with self-publishing. Allowing professional writers to qualify via self-published sales is a step that’s both overdue and not dangerous to SFWA. The only real danger would lie in a decision to ignore the importance of self-publishing and its impact on professional writers of today.

Addendum on 9/17/2014 – Because I seem to have created some confusion, let me clarify something. I talked about self-publishing because that’s the thing on my mind the most at the moment, and did not mean to imply that small press stuff is unimportant or not under consideration. The effort to revamp the overall criteria includes looking at how qualifying through small press publications “” including crowdfundingstuff like Kickstarter, which is another can of worms “” should work as well as whether existing criteria should be revised.

The Nebulas this year were an amazing, dazzling, staggering blur, and an overall splendid time. (I got a selfie with William Gibson plus shared french fries with an astronaut!). But there was one sad thing for me, which was that in all the shuffle and mistimings, I didn’t get a chance to deliver the speech I’d prepared.

I’ve been spending some time post-Nebulas thinking and reflecting on everything I’ve learned from the SFWA Presidency, and all the valuable things I’ve discovered and learned as a result of my time in office. Over the next few weeks, I’ll publish the blog posts I have been putting together, one dedicated to each year, and then a final recap. It seemed a logical thing to kick that series off by sharing that speech, which contains a number of things I wanted to say to the SFWA family at large. I hope this serves.

Six Nebulas ago, Steven Gould approached me. He needed someone who’d be willing to run for Vice President the following year, picking up a one year term as SFWA made the transition to staggering the terms of the Vice President and President. He promised me it would be only a one year obligation. Insert hollow laugh here.

July 1st will mark a big transition in my life: after five years on the SFWA board, spending one year as Vice President under Steven Gould, and then two terms as President. I have spent more time on the SFWA board than most people do getting their college degree, and that is an odd thought. General wisdom is that the SFWA Presidency eats a book a year; I have definitely found that true, and I suspect a large number of stories got consumed as well. I am looking forward to becoming actually productive again.

But there have been a multitude of compensations. A wealth of friendships. An abundance of moments that delighted my heart or that felt like tremendous victories. There is a tendency to label SFWA governance toxic, to imply that it destroys the soul and hollows one out. I am pleased to report that this is not actually the case, that I have found it, on the whole, a community that is welcoming and well-intentioned, though not always graceful in expressing it. I step down feeling the better for the five years in which I have learned and grown.

I have presided over both the first and the second all-female President/Vice President teams in SFWA history, the first time M.C.A. Hogarth and myself, the second time Erin Hartshorn and myself. I had thought that perhaps now handing the Presidency over to Mary Robinette Kowal represented another historic first, only to find this was not so. The first female to female SFWA Presidency exchange actually took place in 2003, when Sharon Lee handed the reins over to Catherine Asaro. I’m taking part in a panel tomorrow called “We Have Always Been Here,” about women in science fiction and this underscored that truth. We have indeed always been here, doing much of the work that drives this community.

Three women have been working with me side by side every moment of this remarkable journey, and all three remain with SFWA, for which you are all very lucky. I ask them to stand as I mention them, and for a round of applause at the end, because without them I could not have stayed the course.

The first is Sarah Pinsker, who agreed to come onto the board at the same time I did and who has remained a Director at Large whose thoughtful, considered presence has contributed enormously to discussions, as well as seeing through multiple projects, including but not limited to the Baltimore Book Festival and the Mentoring Program, and being a consistent voice for marginalized writers.

The second is Oz Drummond, who has been part of the financial team first under the inestimable Bud Sparhawk, and then under the equally awesome Nathan Lowell, and who has worked to learn more about how a nonprofit 501C3 works than anyone else I know. I have seen much of Oz’s surroundings during our weekly SFWA video calls, as well as her cats, the wild turkeys, and various backyard deer. I will greatly miss those conversations.

The third is Kate Baker, our Executive Director, with whom I have fought shoulder to shoulder against the forces of chaos, miscommunication, and random bad luck. I cannot say enough about Kate, or we would be here forever, but suffice it to say, any team she is on is lucky to have her. Not just love, but mad props to you, Kate, for the amazing job you’ve done during my five years on the board.

And finally, thank you to you all, not just the people in this room, but the SFWA members watching or reading from afar. Thank you for your trust, your advice, your support, and your friendship. Thank you for the many times you reached out to tell me I was doing a good job. And thank you to the ones who weren’t afraid to call me on it when you thought I wasn’t. I have tried to validate your trust and, like you, to be welcoming and well-intentioned, though not always graceful in expressing it. I hope these inadequate words meet with your approval. And congratulations to Mary Robinette again, with many thanks for being willing to run for the office.

End speech and then we would all go drink and listen to the Alternate Universe acceptance speeches, which is perhaps where this speech should have been delivered. 🙂

As I said up above, in coming weeks there will be posts recapping some of the highs and lows, occasionally drawing back the SFWA curtain.

As I’m composing them, I’m asking you for a favor. If there is some SFWA moment that has been particularly meaningful for you in the past five years, I’d love to hear about it. I’d also love to know if there is a SFWA volunteer or volunteers that have helped make your experiences with SFWA positive. This is YOUR chance to give them a shout-out; drop me an e-mail about it!