BRIAN W. ALDISS ALLEN KIM LANG POUL ANDERSON KEITH LAUMER PIERS ANTHONY FRITZ LEIBER ISAAC ASIMOV ROBERT A. W. LOWNDES CHARLES BEAUMONT RICHARD LUPOFF GREG BENFORD KATHERINE MacLEAN ALFRED BESTER anne McCaffrey JAMES BLISH J. FRANCIS McCOMAS ROBERT BLOCH DEAN MCLAUGHLIN ANTHONY BOUCHER P. SCHUYLER MILLER LEIGH BRACKETT MICHAEL MOORCOCK RAY BRADBURY LARRY NIVEN MARION ZIMMER BRADLEY ANDRE NORTON REGINALD BRETNOR ALAN E. NOURSE JOHN BRUNNER ANDREW J. OFFUTT KENNETH BULMER ALEXEI PANSHIN ---------------------------------------------- JOHN W. CAMPBELL EMIL PETAJA s JOHN CARNELL H. BEAM PIPER ’ TERRY CARR FREDERIK POHL SYMPOSIUM JOHN CHRISTOPHER ARTHUR PORGES 3r ARTHUR C. CLARKE DANNIE PLACHTA tr HAL CLEMENT MACK REYNOLDS I MARK CLIFTON JOANNA RUSS GROFF CONKLIN ERIC FRANK RUSSELL BASIL DAVENPORT FRED SABERHAGEN AVRAM DAVIDSON JAMES H. SCHMITZ B io HANK DAVIS T. L. SHERRED CHARLES DE VET ROBERT SILVERBERG LESTER DEL REY CLIFFORD D. SIMAK AUGUST DERLETH E. E. 'DOC SMITH PHILIP K. DICK GEORGE 0. SMITH GORDON R. DICKSON JERRY SOHL jllopii HARLAN ELLISON NORMAN SPINRAD PHILIP JOSE FARMER THEODORE STURGEON DANIEL F. GALOUYE JEFF SUTTON DAVID GERROLD WILLIAM F. TEMPLE H. L. GOLD THEODORE L. THOMAS MARTIN GREENBERG WILSON TUCKER JAMES E. GUNN PIERRE VERSINS EDMOND HAMILTON KURT VONNEGUT, JR. double-.bill HARRY HARRISON TED WHITE ZENNA HENDERSON KATE WILHELM JOE HENSLEY ROBERT MOORE WILLIAMS JOHN JAKES JACK WILLIAMSON LEO P. KELLEY RICHARD WILSON DAMON KNIGHT ROBERT F. YOUNG DEAN R. KOONTZ ROGER ZELAZNY $3. the DOUBLE BILL Symposium ...being 94 replies to 'A Questionnaire for Professional Science Fiction Writers and Editors' as Created by: LLOYD BIGGLE, JR. Edited, and Published by: BILL MALLARDI & BILL BOWERS Bill BowersaBill Mallardi press 1969 Portions of this volume appeared in the amateur magazine Double:Bill. Copyright , 1963, 1964, by Bill Bowers and Bill Mallardi. Copyright (&), 1969, by William C. Mallardi and William L. Bowers. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without permission of the Editors, except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Printed in the United States of America by: ELLET GRAPHIC ARTS, 2962 Trenton Road, Akron, Ohio 44312. FIRST EDITION, September 1969 of 500 copies--300 copies of which are available at $3.00 or tl.Ss.; or $2.25 to members of the SFWA who were not contributors. [Contributors may acquire additional copies at $1.50 each.] [...in the United Kingdom, from: B. Terry Jeeves, 30 Thompson Road, Sheffield Sil 8RB, U.K.] 15% of all proceeds to be donated to T.A.F.F.; the remainder applied toward publishing costs. 'D:B Press' is a non-profit, amateur hobby...devoted to, in the main, the fields of Science Fic­ tion and Fantasy, and to the People who write/illustrate/edit/publish/read 'the stuff'. Address all correspondence, U.S. orders, etc., to: WILLIAM L. BOWERS or WILLIAM C. MALLARDI : P.O. Box 368 : Akron : Ohio : 44309 Designed by Bowers Lloyd Biggie, Jr. ---------------------------- 8 ...an Introduction ...the Editors --------------------------------- U Double:Billings [Editorial Preface] THE QUESTIONS: Question ONE ------------------------------------ 15 "For what reason or reasons do you write Science Fiction in preference to other classes of literature?" Question TWO ------------------------------------ 24 "What do you consider the raison d’etre, the chief value of Science Fiction?" Question THREE --------------------------------- 31 "What is your appraisal of the relation­ ship of Science Fiction to the 'Main­ stream' of Literature?" Question FOUR ---------------------------------- 41 "Do you believe that participating in fandom, fanzines, and conventions would be a benefit or a hindrance to would-be writers?" Question FIVE ---------------------------------- 49 "What source or sources would you recomm­ end to beginning writers as having been, in your experience, the most productive of ideas for Science Fiction stories?" Question SIX ------------------------------------ 57 "Do you feel that a beginning Science Fiction writer should concentrate on short stories as opposed to novels -- or vice ver sal Why?" Question SEVEN --------------------------------- 64 "What suggestions can you offer to the beginning writer concerning the develop­ ment of 'realistic' characters and writ­ ing effective dialogue?" Question EIGHT --------------------------------- 73 "Do you believe that an effective novel requires a message or moral? Please comment." Question NINE ----------------------------------- 81 "To what extent do you think it possible to detect a writer's viewpoints as to politics, religion or moral problems through examination of his stories?" Question TEN ------------------------------------ 90 "During your formative writings, what one author influenced you the most? What other factors such as background, educa­ tion, etc., were important influences?" Question ELEVEN ------------------------------- 99 "What do you consider the greatest weak­ ness of Science Fiction today?" IIP ...an Index [...of Questions answered.] LOYD BIGGIE, JR ...an Introduction ...by way of an EPILOGUE to the original magazine version... "Once in a while you find yourself in an odd situation. You get into it by degrees and in the most natural way, but, when you are right in the midst of it, you are suddenly astonished and ask yourself how in the world it all came about. " Thus the opening paragraph of KON-TIKI. Thus The DOUBLE:BILL Symposium. Summer, 1963. The day may have been hot, but I insist that the weather was irrelevant. In my mail was a letter from Bill Mallardi asking, among other things, if I had anything for the DOUBLE:BILL ANNISH — then on the drawing boards, or in the ink tubes, or wherever it is that an annish spends its gestation period. I didn't, but my subconscious twitched, I put paper to type­ writer, and wrote out the plan for the Symposium. Whence the idea? Without a psychoprobe it is probably too late to determine; but its con­ ception no doubt derived in part from the irritation I have felt with convention panel discuss­ ions. Despite occasional brilliant individual contributions, these never quite seem to come off. The scheduled participants too often fail to appear, and their places are filled with protesting innocents hastily drafted from the audience, who must pause when they rise to ask what the sub­ ject is. The discussions meander, become entangled in arguments, spread out senselessly or con­ tract unreasonably. The panel may be dominated by one garrulous personality while the other mem­ bers hover mutely in the background like a Greek Chorus waiting for a cue (which does not come). None of this makes for the kind of illuminating discussion, the highlighting of various facets of a subject that is, or should be, the real purpose of a panel discussion. Why not, I asked myself, a kind of written panel discussion, which would group together a number of brief comments or answers to questions. The participants could mull over their respon­ ses at their leisure; the brevity would keep the discussions to the point and impose a minimum of inconvenience on those taking part; and, because none of the participants would know what the others were saying, the arguments would be left to the readers. So I typed out the plan. There had to be ground rules. First, and most important, the project needed a Worthy Cause. The answer sheets, completed and signed by prominent writers, would constitute a valuable coll­ ector's item. We agreed at the beginning that these sheets would be bound and offered at auc­ tion, with the proceeds pledged to TAFF. [The Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund, a fund intended to take Britons to American Worldcons and, in alternate years, vice versa. -- FANCYCLOPEDIA II, 1959.] The other rules were routine: that the addresses of the participants would be confidential (having taken the trouble to answer the questions, we did not want them to suffer the further inconvenience of becoming embroiled in correspondence with the individual readers. The readers could harass the editors with their comments -- which is what letter columns are for); that the participants would receive copies of the number(s) of DOUBLEtBILL containing the Symposium; that the answers would not be cut (entire answers could be dropped if space required or if repetition made this seem desirable, but any answer used would be used in its entirety); and so on. "You furnish the questions,” I told the editors, "and I will try to get them answered." The editors responded enthusiastically with a list of twelve questions. THE DOUBLE:BILL SYMPOSIUM (9) The questions deserve more than a passing comment. Obviously the eventual success of such a project must depend to a considerable extent upon the questions asked. To answer one partici­ pant's query — "Who composed those devilish questions?" -- this is how they evolved: The trouble with questions--and I speak as a former college teacher who has asked more than his fair share--is that too often they fail to elicit the type of answers the questioner has in mind. Ideally, the best question for the Symposium would be one that encourages,or even demands, the exposition of different viewpoints. It should be aimed at a subject upon which the partici­ pants are likely to have varying opinions, the stronger the better. At the same time, the ques­ tion should be composed with the Symposium's audience in mind. We wanted the right kind of ques­ tion, but we also wanted the sort of question our readers would like to have answered--the ques­ tion they themselves would ask professional writers if they had the opportunity. We were under no illusions, either before or afterwards, that our list of questions would actually satisfy those ideal requirements. Producing even a workable list of such questions is a formidable task, and the editors were probably aware of the likelihood that their questions would please no one. The finest tribute to their efforts, I think, lies in the fact that in all of the commentary on the Symposium that I have seen, no reader has criticized the questions.