mabfan (Michael A. Burstein) (mabfan) wrote,
mabfan (Michael A. Burstein)

Readercon Schedule

gnomi and I will be at Readercon 16 this weekend, and for those who wish to find me, here's my tentative schedule. Note that the reading and talk I'll be doing on Saturday morning from 10 AM to 11 AM will be held in two different rooms.

Friday 8:00 PM. Discussion (60 min.)
Hal's Worlds, The Memorial Anthology.
Shane Tourtellotte with Michael A. Burstein, Jeffrey A. Carver, Thomas A. Easton, Walter H. Hunt, Paul Levinson, Darrell Schweitzer, Allen Steele


Saturday 10:00 AM. Reading (30 min.)
Michael A. Burstein reads from his novel-in-progress.


Saturday 10:30 AM. Talk (30 min.)
Do Quit Your Day Job: Taking a Year Off to Write a Novel.

In summer 2004, Burstein left his teaching job to concentrate on writing a novel. By summer 2005, the first draft is finished and being revised. When can one ignore the advice not to quit your day job to write a novel? Why might quitting your job actually be the best thing for you in the long run? And how can one structure a life as a full-time writer?


Saturday 11:00 AM. Panel
Novel, La!
Michael A. Burstein, John Clute, Debra Doyle, David G. Hartwell (+M), Robert J. Sawyer

Sf has not one but two time-honored traditions of expanding the novella into the full-length novel. You can tell the same story at different lengths (_The Hemingway Hoax_, _Flowers for Algernon_, _Enders's Game_, "A Galaxy Called Rome" / _Galaxies_)--or you can write two more novellas (_Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang_, _More Than Human_, _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_). To what extent does the story itself dictate the best approach? What does the added material tend to be like? In the case of the simple expansion, is one version inevitably superior (fulfilling the dictum that every story has its optimum length), or can they have separate but equal virtues?


Saturday 2:00 PM. Kaffeeklatsch


Sunday 2:00 PM. Panel
Best-Guess Science, Hand-Waving Science.
Judith Berman, Michael Blumlein, Michael A. Burstein (+M), Samuel R. Delany, Joe Haldeman, Ian Randal Strock

There are two fundamentally different approaches a writer can take when dealing with highly speculative science which is important as a jumping-off point but otherwise not central to the story. Obviously, the writer can do extensive homework and make their best effort at getting the science right. However, there is also a longstanding tradition in sf of merely inventing some plausible-sounding explanation together with a little jargon and then getting on with what the story is really about. Both approaches have their advantages and their potential problems. How much does the specific story dictate the best approach, as opposed to the writer's temperament?


  • Hello

    Staying off of Facebook and Twitter for a few days, or at least trying to. Don't suppose anyone is still here?

  • Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

    The summer of 1989 was a strange one for me. I had spent a little less than half the summer hanging around my childhood home in New York City and…

  • Joel David Burstein (December 11, 1929 - November 2, 1990)

    Twenty-six years ago today, my father died. It feels odd acknowledging this anniversary today, because time has worn away at the emotional pain and…

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded