(The following material -- which will be posted to other forums
-- is submitted on the theory that I apparently haven't gotten in
*nearly* enough trouble lately. So I may as well go for broke.

jms

John J. Miller
SFWA Secretary
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
(address deleted for privacy)

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am in receipt of your recent letter inviting me to rejoing SFWA.
While others who have either resigned from SFWA or let their
memberships lapse have received similar letters, I note that you
added, in handwriting, the following: "Michael - We're particularly
interested in encouraging writers of your stature and experience to
rejoin."

I'm posting this, my reply, both online as well as in standard mail
to you, because the issues at hand affect others in the industry;
because it is a good subject for public debate; and because SFWA has
to this date refused to publish my letter of resignation from SFWA
in its membership publication; even now, years after the fact, SFWA
does not choose to recognize the boorishness of its behavior toward
those of us who work in television, film and other media.

To recap, for the benefit of those looking on, and for the purpose
of historical accuracy: a number of us were troubled by the fact
that SFWA allowed TV and film scripts in the SF genre to count for
membership, so that our dues could be accepted, but that these very
same scripts were not considered "real" science fiction...and thus
ineligible for consideration for a Nebula Award.

An attempt was made to restore the Dramatic Nebula, given in years
past, in order to achieve equity with other forms of SF. Those
involved in the attempt included myself, Harlan Ellison, David
Gerrold, D.C. Fontana, Michael Cassutt and others. We believed,
foolishly in retrospect, that SF writers -- presumably forward
thinking and progressive -- would understand that stories can take
new and different forms, that SF for television and film was a
perfectly valid form. It's still SF; it simply uses a new kind of
technology to facilitate that storytelling. Since SF is often
about the foolishness of small-minded people when faced with
changing technologies, and generally the impact of technology on
people and art forms, we felt they would agree that the time
was right for the reinstatement of the Dramatic Nebula.

We were wrong.

We were greeted by an outpouring of such virulent bigotry, such
undisguised hostility, and such abuse as to numb the senses. There
was hate mail, name-calling and dead-catting; we were called (in
person, and in SFWA's publication) "hacks" and "no-talents" and
told that scripts aren't stories...obscene and threatening messages
were left on my answering machine...hate mail arrived at my home...
and the most nakedly straightforward one stated, "I work my ass off
for a few pennies a word, while you Hollywood hacks earn big bucks
for turning out crap. You'll never see the Dramatic Nebula back as
long as I'm alive."

To help defuse some of the tempers, many of us were willing to
disqualify ourselves from ever being eligible for the Nebula, should
it be reinstated, to remove any suspicion of a vested interest. It
was the principle that concerned us.

For an organization claiming forward-thinkers, there was more fuzzy
thinking and illogic pouring out of SFWA than at any average meeting
of the Flat Earth Society. "Why should SFWA give scriptwriters a
Nebula if the WGA won't give awards to prose writers?" some yelled
at us, which granted was at least an attempt to put together a
comprehensible sentence.

"Because the WGA is *form* oriented, and SFWA is *genre* oriented,"
we said, "that's why. Any genre script can win a WGA award, as long
as it's in the right form. And any form of SF should be able to be
considered for a Nebula, as long as it's in the right genre."

Our point, in the final analysis, was simply this: If SFWA will not
recognize scripts as SF for the Nebula, then they should not qualify
for membership in SFWA. If SFWA *does* recognize them as SF for
purposes of membership, then they should be eligible for the Nebula.
It was real simple: you can't have it both ways. Pick one.

But that didn't happen...the illogic, the contradiction was allowed
to continue, with SF scriptwriters held as second-class citizens
within SFWA. In theory, a GOR novel could be considered for a
Nebula...but a Babylon 5 script could never even begin to be
considered because according to SFWA, it isn't a story, it isn't
real writing, it isn't literature, it is absent of quality, and
fundamentally, it ain't SF.

It was this issue that finally compelled me to resign from SFWA,
as had others before me. That, and the insults, abuse, veiled
and not-so-veiled threats and harrassment I received from many
in SFWA over this issue.

And now you come to me...and you ask me to rejoin. You say this
is because of my "stature and experience"...but what use can that
be to SFWA if my work and the work of every SF writer working in
television or film is dismissed as lacking in merit by virtue of
the form in which we work? Since the bulk of my work is in TV,
how can SFWA consider what I have to be "stature" if it does not
recognize that there is any quality work in SF being done in TV?

I don't believe in stature, particularly and especially my own.
I'm still the same person I was when I resigned, for good or ill.
The only thing that matters to me, that has *ever* mattered to
me, is the work. The storytelling. This genre. I love SF. I
love the community of fandom that has embraced it, and given it
life. I love the sense of wonder that is SF.

[More]

[Continued]

In order to rejoin SFWA, I would have to accept the tacit
implication that my work is NOT SF...and this I will never do.

Last year, I realized a lifelong dream, and we received the Hugo
award for an episode of Babylon 5. And I'll tell you a true
thing: I'll take the Hugo over the Nebula any day, because it
comes based on the quality of the work...it comes based on the
understanding that fans have that SF is SF, regardless of the
medium. Where the pro community throws up barriers, and tidal
waves of snobbery, and play political games by defining SF as
whatever is most convenient for them, the fan community is open
to the free debate of one singular question: "Is it good SF?"

In light of that, what possible reason could I have for wanting
to rejoin SFWA? To associate with writers who disdain the form
in which I work? To try and educate them? We tried that...and
got our heads handed to us.

It's not just the Nebula that's the concern...as before, I'm
willing to permanently disqualify anything I write, now or in
the future, from Nebula consideration, to set aside allegations
of self-interest; it's the principle of the thing that matters,
the desire to make this better for the next guy to come down this
road; and it's the attitude behind the current situation that
rankles, that worries me; the open hostility and prejudice
against those working in the visual media.

So thanks, but no thanks.

SFWA has chosen to ostracize film and television...and in the
end, has only hurt itself. By sticking its head, ostrich-like,
in the sand, it has failed to come to grips with these new
media...has become isolated, so that no one in Hollywood thinks
of SFWA members, because SFWA thinks nothing of Hollywood.

The result? Where once many SF novels were chosen as fodder for
movies, now movies and TV shows drive a substantial portion of
the novel market through licensing. All too often now, books are
based on movies, when it *should* be the other way around, which
means that the audience is deprived of visual medium access to
some truly excellent work. The publishing industry has become
more like Hollywood in many ways now, looking for the blockbuster,
losing the midlist, one megacompany swallowing up another. We've
been there, done that, and could've helped.

(Now *here's* an irony I hadn't considered before just this
moment: while an episode of B5 is not eligible for a Nebula, a
novel based on B5 *is* eligible. Where is the logic in that
one? And here's another irony: one of the members who most
vociferously opposed the Dramatic Nebula on the grounds that
everything SF that came out of Hollywood was crap...well, his
name showed up recently on a list of writers asking to be
considered for an assignment to write one of the Babylon 5
novels.)

Because of SFWA's provincial attitudes toward those of us who
work in TV and film, it has lost access to secondary markets
and opportunities, costing its members potentially hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

If parts of this letter seem angry, or frustrated, you should
understand that the two areas of my life which have always meant
a great deal to me are my work in television, and SF as a genre.
I'm proud, have always been proud, of both. Many producers
assigned to SF series deny they're doing SF, as though they were
ashamed of it. I've always embraced the idea. I was proud to
be a member of SFWA. I was proud to write for television. But
finally I had to choose between them, and that was a very
difficult, painful thing for me. It still is. It's like having
divorced parents; you want desperately for them to get along with
each other, somehow put it together again...but it doesn't happen
and doesn't look like it will *ever* happen. So you get upset.

I'm not upset with you, John, or even many members of SFWA, a
number of whom weren't even members when all this went down a
few years ago. It's simple frustration with a system, and a
certain loud proportion of the membership, that is provincial
and parochial. A great deal of good could come out of a tighter
coordination between those of us working in the visual media,
and print authors. To see that frittered away is maddenning.

Television and film are as valid a forum for the exploration
of science fiction as any short story or novel. As long as
SFWA persists in saying otherwise, I will never rejoin that
organization.

Let me know when you folks get serious. Let me know when you
are willing to consider that what we do in TV and film counts as
SF. Then we'll talk.

But not before.

J. Michael Straczynski
Executive Producer/Creator/WRITER
Babylon 5

{original post had no questions}

The only point of disagreement is that "SF on screen is
actually more of an accomplishment." They're equal, in different ways,
and certainly a movie or TV show can, in time, start to look dated.
But a book, which exists in your head, never grows old.

jms

{original post had no questions}

I agree 100%. One of the things I've been ragging on for years
is that you should bring in SF writers to work on SF shows. Real
simple logic. But the perception there is that SF print authors can't
deal with, or are disdainful of, scripts...something SFWA perpetuated
when many of their members said they (as a group) wouldn't be able to
make sense of a script.

There are some terrific resources out there who would be
invaluable to any SF series. That's why I gave Peter David his first
shot at a live action TV series, ditto for Christy Marx and others.

jms

Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
> As to the SFWA, is there anything that we, the fans can do to
> help you win this crusade?

Thanks...and as for SFWA, it's an internal matter that they will
have to consider on their own.

jms

{original post unavailable}

The point of my "internal matters" reply was in response to
someone who wanted to know whom at SFWA to bombard with email about
this. I'm reasonably confident that no one at SFWA wants to receive
such a bombardment, and such a bombardment would not do any good, hence
my observation.

That's got nothing to do with the reality that SFWA's stance is
massively stupid, and deserves to be openly discussed. As someone
once said, "When someone does a foolish thing you should tell them it
is a foolish thing; they may choose to continue doing it, but at least
the truth is where it needs to be."

I'm certainly pleased to hear that GRRM is currently SFWA's
veep. George is a VNM (Very Nice Man).

Of course, that's got nothing to do with SFWA's general attitude
toward this area, scriptwriters in general, or the dramatic nebula
(they get to like George because a) he's an accomplished novelist, and
b) he's a VNM, and ignore the rest of it if they so choose). Still,
it's good news for George, and I'm pleased for him. It's a good thing
to have George, since some others, like Harlan Ellison, also refuse to
rejoin SFWA over the dramatic nebula question, and the treatment of
scriptwriters in general. George is a much more patient and generous
man.

jms

Rob Carr <73200.2754@compuserve.com> asks:
> But who would want to win such an award?
> What's it mean if you let someone else win?

Well, for starters, I don't think it would be letting someone
else win; nominees would be submitted, and the best of that batch of
nominees would win in head-to-head competition. We've been bypassed
for the occasional Emmy nomination even though I think some of the work
done that year in those areas was at least as good as anything done
elsewhere...does that diminish the kudos to the ones who *did* win?

Beyond which...even if SFWA *were* to start working on restoring
the dramatic nebula -- the chances of which are roughly equivilent to
an ostrich giving birth to an iguana -- it would take them a couple of
years minimum to do it, by which time B5 is over anyway, and who knows
if any later work of mine will be in the SF area at that point anyway?
(It's likely, but one never do know...I ended up on Murder She Wrote
for 2 years, remember.)

Either way...my concern is the principle at work here. If
disqualifying or refusing the Neb myself is the only way to ensure that
this ain't a personal agenda, and thus make the road easier for
somebody else down the road, then that's jake by me. But, as stated,
the odds of this are slim and none.

jms

{original post unavailable}

"It's a looooooong jump from that to saying that SFWA 'doesn't
consider screenwriters real writers.'"

Ah.

So, I take it that the letters that appeared in the SFWA Journal
from SFWA members stating essentially that point did not actually exist
in our universe, having instead filtered over via some spatial rift
from the Bizarro Universe version of SFWA...(which would frankly be
redundent).

jms

{original post unavailable}

But, see, Mike, there's the contradiction...when you talk about
SFWA being tolerant and inviting, you're generalizing from the
individuals to the group. But when I do the same, you say, "No, no,
those are just the individuals." When enough individuals say
something, it becomes a group opinion, and hence an organizational
opinion.

Basically, you're saying that if the action is *positive*, it's
SFWA the organization speaking...if the action is *negative*, it's just
the members talking, thus giving the group deniability.

You can't have it both ways, Mike.

jms

{original post unavailable}

Okay, Mike...so the organization speaks for itself. Over on
GEnie, George Martin came in, and speaking as Vice President for SFWA,
speaking for the *group*, said, of my statement to disqualify myself
from future Nebulas to show that this isn't part of a vested interest
on my part but rather the principle, "Don't you have enough awards,
Joe?" When another fan reminded him of my statement given above, he
said, "You cannot disqualify yourself from a Nebula, and I suspect Joe
knew that." (Which I didn't.) In essense he first questions my
motives and my ethics, then assaults my honesty, as his way of dealing
with my raising the issue. (I then made it plain that I will not
accept any Nebula in future, regardless, if that's what it takes,
though I think most people knowing you don't want one will tend to
discourage voting in that area.)

So now what is this, George speaking as George, or George
speaking for SFWA the organization? Because when he came in he sure as
heck made it clear that he was speaking in his capacity as VP.

Sorry, Mike, but the organization acts as its members act, and
speaks as its members speaks, and George's intemperate reaction, to
immediately and gratuitously go for the personal attack rather than
discussing the issue, when I had never said a WORD about any one person
in this discussion, just shows again why many are afraid to pursue this
issue any more. They're tired of the petty, personal attacks, and so
am I, from many of the members AND the organization and its
spokespersons. Because an organization doesn't exist as some kind of
Platonic ideal, outside reality (though in this I sometimes wonder if
SFWA is outside reality). It says in the Bible, "You shall know them
by their works." An organization is known by what it does, and what
it says, through its members. So you can try and divorce the two all
you want, but they're the same thing.

jms