You are viewing grrm

Movie Magic

Santa Fe has a new movie theatre.

A brand-new Violet Crown multiplex opens today in the Railyard, with 11 screens, big loungers, gourmet food (including pizza), and beer and wine.

Parris and I attended their "soft opening" yesterday, meeting and mingling with Bill Banowsky of Violet Crown, VIPs from the Railyard Corporation and the local film community, and various dignitaries from the city and state... including former Governor Bill Richardson, whose administration really helped to put New Mexico on the map in television and film.

It was a gala event, and the Violet Crown is a gorgeous facility. They are only two blocks down from the Jean Cocteau, but we're friendly neighbors, and between us we hope to make the historic Railyard distinct THE place to see a movie in Santa Fe. There are plenty of great movies out there (old and new) for all of us.

The Violet Crown will be opening to the public today with AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON.

Down the street, at the Jean Cocteau, we will be showing ROAR.



See you at the movies!!

More Hugo Musings

Continuing the musings I began last night, about this year's Hugo ballot... the actual nominees, the work, rather than the politics...

This one will be shorter than my last, since I don't have much to say (yet) about the three fan categories I want to touch on.

BEST FANCAST is a stupid new Hugo category created to keep "fancasts" out of the hoary old Best Fanzine category. The nominees this year include three Puppy picks, and two that were not on the slates. I haven't heard any of the five. I doubt I will be voting in this category.

BEST FANZINE is the aforementioned hoary old category that dates back almost to the start of the Hugos. Here They Speak Twilltone and Gestetners, and then oldtimers mutter darkly about Ditto. But there are e-zines here as well. The Puppies grabbed four of the five slots in this category. Only JOURNEY PLANET was not part of the slates. However, one of the Puppy finalists, BLACK GATE, has withdrawn, leaving three. The only one I know well is Dave Truesdale's TANGENT, the online continuation of the an actual print fanzine that Truesdale has been publishing since the 70s. TANGENT has been nominated for Hugos before, I believe, though I don't think it has ever won. It's what trufans call a "sercon" zine, that is, mostly book reviews and criticism. Book reviews also seem to be the main focus of ELITIST BOOK REVIEWS, another Puppy pick... which seemed to me a lot like TANGENT, but not nearly as well done. There are much better review 'zines and blogs than these to be found on the internet, among them PAT'S FANTASY HOTLIST, the WERTZONE, BLOG OF THE FALLEN, and last year's winner, A DRIBBLE OF INK, but none of those made the ballot, so we will need to choose from those that did. I don't always vote in the Fanzine category (please note, I am saying I do not vote, not that I vote NO AWARD, two different things), but I expect I will this year. I still need to check out a couple of the remaining nominees, and look more deeply at the ones I was already familiar with.

BEST SEMIPROZINE. This category has always pissed me off, since it was created largely to kick LOCUS out of Best Fanzine, where it was winning every year. Of course, once Semiprozine was created, LOCUS proceeded to win that a bunch of times too, until the rules were jiggered once again to kick it out once more. (This is one reason I oppose jiggering the rules, even to stop the Puppies). They really ought to call this category BEST SEMIPROZINE THAT ISN'T LOCUS. But they don't. We have five finalists here, only two of which are from the slates... and one of those, ANDROMEDA SPACEWAYS IN FLIGHT MAGAZINE, has been loudly declaring that they were not informed and never asked to be on anyone's slate. I am really only familiar with LIGHTSPEED and STRANGE HORIZONS from this category. Both of those are pretty good. If anyone has an opinion to offer on the others, do speak up. If I have time to check them out, I will... if I don't, I will abstain in this category, i.e. not vote. I won't go NO AWARD, since I do think the two semipros I know are worthy. Not as worthy as LOCUS, mind you, but there you are...

And that's all I have to say about those. For now, at least.

Talk among yourselves.

Gillian, Meet Edgar

Here's some HAPPY news about the awards.

No, the the Hugos.

The Edgars.



The winners were announced today: http://www.theedgars.com/nominees.html

I was very pleased to see Stephen King take home the Best Novel award for MR. MERCEDES. You want to talk about writers who have been shamefully overlooked by the Hugos? (And by the Nebulas and the World Fantasy Award too). Start with King. He's right up there with Gene Wolfe on my own list. The world thinks of him as a master of horror, and he is... but horror is also sometimes known as "dark fantasy," and King has written plenty of SF and even some high fantasy (EYES OF THE DRAGON, anyone? THE DARK TOWER) too. He's won the National Book Award, but he's never taken home a rocket or a rock. So it goes, I guess. But at least now he has the head of Edgar Allan Poe. Bravo!

But that wasn't all. Down in the Short Story category, I was thrilled to see that Gillian Flynn will be taking home Edgar for her story from ROGUES, "What Do You Do?" Well deserved! It was an amazing story, and Gardner Dozois and I are delighted that we had the honor of publishing it. I believe this is Gillian's first Edgar, but it won't be her last. She's a terrific writer, and a delight to work with.



Congratulations to all of this year's Edgar winners. I trust that winners and losers both enjoyed a night of celebration, free of rancor and politics and puppies.

(Maybe I should become a mystery writer).

Tags:

No On NO AWARD

No, I am not saying don't use NO AWARD at all when you vote for this year's Hugo Awards.

NO AWARD has been, and remains, a viable and legitimate option for the Hugo voter. I've been voting on the Hugos since the 1970s, and I use NO AWARD every year, usually in about a third of the categories. However, I have seldom (not NEVER, just seldom) placed it first. I rank the finalists that I think worthy of the rocket above NO AWARD, and the ones I think unworthy below it. That's the way I intend to use the option this year as well, in spite of the slatemaking campaigns that buggered the nomination process to the seven hells and back.

NO AWARD is a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Voting NO AWARD on everything down the line... or even (the lesser option) on everything that appeared on either Puppy slate... well, I don't think it is smart, I don't think it is fair, and I know damned well that a NO AWARD sweep will kill the Hugos.

I think I have made my disagreements with Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen and the rest of the Sad Puppies abundantly clear in the many blog posts that preceded this one, and in my debates with Correia both here and on his MONSTER HUNTER NATION. And I think I have made my disgust with Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies clear as well. No one should be in any doubt as to where I stand on all this.

As much as I am opposed to what the Puppies did, and what they are trying to do, I am also opposed to Guilt by Association. Like it or not, the ballot is the ballot, and it is before it now, for each of us to deal with as he or she thinks best. For my part, that means it is now about the stories, the books, the work itself. Reading, thinking, weighing my choices... voting.

I am not going to tell you who to vote for. I am not even going to tell you who I am going to vote for (with one exception, which I will get to in a later post). But I do intend to share some of my thoughts and opinions here as I go through the process. The Puppies bark and yelp about it all being about the work, but you may notice that they never actually TALK about the work (well, except to attack REDSHIRTS and That Infamous Dinosaur Story [which, it should be noted, did not even win the Hugo]). It is all SJWs and CHORFs and secret cabals over in Puppyland. But over here, I think it's time to discuss the things the Hugo Awards are actually supposed to be about: writing, editing, drawing and painting, fanac...

Let me start with some easy categories.

BEST FAN ARTIST. This is the only category that is one hundred percent Puppy-free. I guess, not really being part of fandom, they don't get any fanzines, so they didn't know any fan artists. Whatever the reason, neither the Sads nor the Rabids threw up any candidates here. Which makes this, to my mind, the clearest refutation of the nuclear option. Do you really want to make these artists collateral damage? There is no possible reason to vote NO AWARD in this category, unless you honestly feel that none of the finalists is worthy of a Hugo. I don't feel that way, so I will be voting for the Fan Artists I like best.

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST. Ah, now this one is harder. The ballot here consists of Julie Dillon, last year's winner, and four Puppy nominees. I met Julie for the first time just last month at Norwescon, where we were both guests. She seemed like a very nice person, and I already knew she was a very talented artist. Talented enough to win two Hugos in a row? In the past, this particular category has often been dominated by popular artists who put together long, long, LONG winning streaks (Freas, Whelan, Eggleston). Is Julie Dillon going to be the next? Maybe, maybe not. If she were contending against Donato Giancola, John Picacio, Dan Dos Santos, Michael Komarck, Marc Simonetti, John Jude Palencar, and some of the other top artists who have won (and lost) Hugos in years past, I'd rate her chances of repeating about 50/50... I mean, she's good, but so are they. But thanks to the Puppies, none of them are on the ballot this year. Instead Julie Dillon is facing four artists that I've never heard of. Which is sort of curious, because I follow SF and fantasy art very closely. I check out the art shows at every con I go to (and buy art there), I read SPECTRUM religiously as soon as it comes out, I have a gallery of my own at my theatre, and I love illustrated books, comics, calendars, so I'm always looking for new artists. The Sad Puppies went in saying they wanted to put some new names on the ballot... hey, got to hand it to them, they did that here. Anyway, I've checked out the artwork of the four Puppy artists as best I can, via websites, Deviant Art, Google, and similar searches. I urge all of you to do the same. Then come back and tell me what you think. As for me... I will be using NO AWARD in this category, but not for first place. There is an artist here who is more than worthy of a Hugo.

Moving along...

The two DRAMATIC PRESENTATION categories -- Long Form (for movies, mostly) and Short Form (for television episodes, mostly) -- are another case in point where voting a straight NO AWARD ticket would be idiotic. Yes, four of the five nominated movies and three of the five nominated TV episodes appeared on one or the other of the two Puppy slates. But I can assure you, from a couple of decades laboring in the vineyards of Hollywood, that there are very few people at any of the studios and networks who even know what the Hugos are, much less the Sad Puppies. I doubt that any of them ever knew they were on anybody's slate. Some of them don't even know they are nominated. Voting NO AWARD over GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or INTERSTELLAR because the Puppies liked it too gives Correia, Torgersen, and Vox Day power over your choices that is altogether unwarranted. It's just stupid. Vote for the movies you liked best. Vote for the TV shows you liked best. If there are some you don't think Hugo-worthy, rank them under NO AWARD. Looking at any of the Dramatic Presentations as part of any Puppy slate is hallucinatory.

There are also two categories for EDITOR -- Long Form (for books, mostly) and Short Form (for magazine editors, anthology editors, and the like). Vox Day is nominated in both of them, which is a testament to how successful the Rabid Puppies were in getting out their vote, since he was not on the Sad Puppies slate, and I cannot imagine that a single trufan wrote in his name. If any further proof was required that the Rabids were more interested in "blowing up the heads of the SJWs" than in rewarding good work, well, look no further. The other Long Form finalists are Toni Weisskopf (Baen), Anne Sowards (Ace/ Roc/ Penguin), Sheila Gilbert (DAW), and Jim Minz (Baen). Please note that there are no editors from Tor nominated. Tor editors have dominated Long Form Editor for most of the category's existence, but this year, it would seem, the Puppies chucked them out. (For some reason, the Puppies seem to hate Tor, despite the fact that Tor publishes a number of their favorite writers). Aside from the exclusion of Tor and the inclusion of Vox Day, this is a solid list, however. Yes, all of these nominees appeared on one or the other of the Puppy slates... but we now know that at least two of them were slated without their knowledge or consent (we don't know either way about the other two). All four are long-time industry professionals who have done excellent work. None of them have ever won a Hugo. Some commenters have asked how they can possibly evaluate the work of an editor, since they don't know what they started with. Fair point. We can only judge by the end results. Look at what DAW published last year, at what Baen published, at what Penguin published. Vote for the editor who gave us the most good books. I will be voting in this category as well. "Puppy taint" or no, I am not willing to throw four good people under the bus called NO AWARD.

Short Form Editor is a bit more problematic. The nominees here are all from the Puppy slates too. Edmund Schubert of ORSON SCOTT CARD'S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW has withdrawn (see his statement in one of my earlier posts). That leaves anthologist Bryan Thomas Schmidt, anthologist Jennifer Brozek, and Mike Resnick, editor of GALAXY'S EDGE magazine and a seasoned anthologist himself. Resnick has been nominated for many many Hugos in the past, winning some, losing more... but never before as an editor, I think. The other two are first-time nominees. What is curious here is the absence of the "usual suspects," the editors and anthologists who have dominated this category all the way back to when it was "Best Magazine." Sheila Williams of ASIMOV'S is not here, Gordon Van Gelder of F&SF is not here, Trevor Quachri the new editor of ANALOG is not here. No Gardner Dozois, no Ellen Datlow... all swept away by the Puppies. It is, to be sure, nice to see some new contenders from time to time. But you know, they used to say that to be the champ, you need to beat the champ... and this year, the champs were not even allowed in the ring, thanks to the slatemakers. Do they despise ANALOG and ASIMOV'S and F&SF the same way they despise Tor? No idea, you'll need to ask Correia and Torgersen. In any case, these are the nominees we have. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I put Resnick, Schmidt, and Brozek in the same boat as the four legitimate Long Form editors, and I will be ranking them according to the quality of their editorial work, as best I can judge it from reading their magazines and books. I would urge all of you to do the same.

And that's all the categories I care to tackle right now. It's late, and I'm tired. But I will share more of my musings with you in the days and weeks to come. (I still have a lot of reading to do, needless to say).

Schubert Withdraws

Edmund R. Schubert, the editor of ORSON SCOTT CARD'S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, has announced his decision to withdraw from the Hugo race. Schubert was a nominee in the category Best Editor, Short Form. He had been included on both the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy slates, though apparently without his knowledge.

He has issued a statement explaining the reasons for his withdrawal, which you can read here:
http://aletheakontis.com/2015/04/in-which-edmund-schubert-withdraws-from-the-hugos/

Sasquan had previously announced that the Hugo ballot in now at the printers, so Schubert's name will still appear, but he has indicated that he will refuse the award, should he win it.

I understand the reasons for his withdrawal and applaud his integrity. It cannot be easy to walk away from a major award, perhaps one that you have dreamed of someday winning. And this takes courage as well; like the others who have dropped off the Puppy slate, he will undoubtedly come in for a certain amount of angry barking from the kennels.

Gene Wolfe

The NEW YORKER has run a major profile of Gene Wolfe. Good reading, for the Wolfe fans out there... and an intriguing introduction to one of the field's greatest writers, for those who have yet to sample his work.

You can check it out yourself at http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/sci-fis-difficult-genius

The article becomes especially apt in light of the ongoing Hugo Wars.

One of the claims of the Sad Puppies has been that certain writers in our field have been wrongly overlooked when the rockets were being handed out. There is a certain amount of truth to that (please note, that unlike many on the other side, I am capable of conceding a point from time to time). We all know the names of the "overlooked writers" that the Puppies chose to champion.

I have my own list, very different from theirs. At the top of it is the name GENE WOLFE.

Gene Wolfe has never won a Hugo.

Nebulas, yes. World Fantasy Awards, yes. Locus Awards, BSFA Awards, Campbell Memorial Award (not to be confused with the Campbell New Writer award). Even the Rhysling Award for poetry, and something called the August Derleth Award. But never a Hugo. Eight nominations, zero wins.

I would rank Wolfe as one of the greatest SF and fantasy writers of the past half-century, right up there with Roger Zelazny and Ursula K. Le Guin. Yet he remains without a rocket.

The Hugo Awards are not perfect, no. No more than any other award. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar. That did not mean that the Oscars were in the hands of some secret cabal. Hitchcock, by all reports, would have liked to have won, but he never let it bother him. He just kept on making movies, and Gene Wolfe just keeps on writing great books.

Will he get a Hugo some day? Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. His books will still be being read a hundred years from now. That's the "award" that matters most.

Gene Wolfe: one of the great ones. And a class act.

Puppy Whines

Puppygate is the gift that keeps on giving.

Every time I think I have said all that needs to be said on the subject of the Hugo Awards, one of the Puppies does or says something else egregious, something I cannot let pass.



I have tried to have a rational discussions of the issues here, addressing each of the claims put forward by the Sad Puppies and their supporters calmly, with arguments based on facts, history, common sense. Although I continue to disagree strongly with Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen on... well, on just about everything they say... I've managed to have a civilized and civil dialogue with both.

But beyond the borders of my own Live Journal, the dialogue has been anything but civil. And it grows more toxic and hateful with every exchange, it seems... especially from the Puppies.

Yes, it's my old friend "the Tone Argument" again.

When we began this exchange, I pointed out that was going to call the Puppies "Puppies" because that was what they had named themselves. I asked for the same consideration, asked that they stop with the "Social Justice Warrior" stuff, because that was NOT what my side calls ourselves, and some of us find it offensive. Instead of respecting that request, the Puppies doubled down. ALmost every post from them is SJW this, SJW that. For some, the original term was not enough, so now they are talking about "Social Justice Whores" and other twists on the term. And Brad Torgersen himself, seemingly not content with SJW and SMOF, has gone out of his way to come up with CHORF, a new epithet that he is using at every opportunity.

This is not the way to argue, not the way to exchange ideas, not the way to have a dialogue. Someone who takes pride in coming up with new mocking epithets and insults to hurl at his opponents is telling the world that he has no interest in debate, that he would rather just spit and hiss and jeer. And then there's the curious Puppy trick of mocking themselves, with an air of outrage, implying that the hated "SJWs" have called them these names... which is bullshit. Brad's latest blog post, proudly trumpeting that he is a "hateful hater who hates," is just the latest example of this. Before that, we've had the Puppies calling themselves Wrongfans having Wrongfun, or the Evil League of Evil, and similar stuff.

It all boggles the mind. And of course it leads to surreal arguments that 'their side' is justified in calling our side "Social Justice Whores" and the like because our side has called their side "Wrongfans" and "Haters" -- when, of course, we haven't. You are calling YOURSELVES that... with sarcasm, sure, but still, you are the guys coining all these new and exciting insults, for both my side and your own.

Let me ask, once again, for civility. When the argument is about political issues, I will call your side "conservatives" and "right wingers," and I'd ask you to call us "liberals" or "progressives" or even "left wingers," not SJ-Whatevers. When we are focused more on worldcon or the Hugos, I will continue to call you "Sad Puppies," and I will take care to differentiate you from the Rabid Puppies... except in cases where you're acting in alliance and agree, where I will just say "Puppies." And you can call my side "fandom" or "worldcon fandom" or "trufans." The two sides use "fan" to mean very different things, as I have pointed out repeatedly, which causes some of the confusion. Here's a new thought: if you insist on calling yourselves "fans," then call us "fen," the ancient, hoary, fannish plural of fan. Fans and fen, there we go, two terms for two sides, no insults. Is that so bloody hard?

Also... can we please stop it with the moronic World War II metaphors? Larry Correia is not Churchill, Brad Torgersen is not FDR, and no one is Hitler. We are not fighting the Battle of the Bulge. No matter how the Hugo vote goes, no one is going to a death camp to be gassed.
This is not a fight for freedom, on which the fate of western civilization depends. We are talking about a literary award here. Bottom line, we are arguing about whether the mantle of past Hugo winners like Robert A. Heinlein, Ursula K. Le Guin, Alfred Bester, and Robert Silverberg should be passing to Anne Leckie, John Scalzi, and Jo Walton, or rather to Brad Torgersen, John Wright, and Kevin J. Anderson. This is an argument about what makes a good story, about prose style and characterization and theme and originality. We do not need to make it a blood feud. Have a little sense of proportion, Puppies.

And really, stop it with all the vitriol. Or the rest of the world may actually start to take you seriously when you named yourselves 'hateful haters who hate.'

Stranger Than Strange

Every time I think my life could not possibly get any weirder, it does:

http://www.poprageous.com/products/grrm-leggings

I can think a dozen things to say about those leggings, all of which would get me into deep, deep trouble, so I had better just scratch my head and say, "No, really? This must be a joke."

I don't think I get any money off these. But who the hell knows at this point?

Tags:

Fanageddon

The membership numbers for Sasquan continue to climb higher and higher. In the past, worldcons in major metropolitan areas like LA, Chicago, Boston, and London have boasted the largest membership numbers, while those in smaller and more out-of-the way locales have been smaller. Spokane is about as small and out-of-the-way as worldcon sites are like to get, and therefore might reasonably have been expected to be one of the smaller worldcons in the past decade.

But this is no ordinary year. Thanks to Puppygate and the Hugo War, Sasquan's membership numbers are way higher than anyone could have expected. The little con in Spokane even has an outside chance of eclipsing the record membership totals set last year by London.

FILE 770 has the numbers: http://file770.com/?p=22097

What's even more unusual -- though perfectly understandable in context -- is that this huge upswell is for SUPPORTING memberships, not attending. In other words, these are people who want to vote on the Hugo Awards, but have no actual interest in attending the worldcon.

But who are they? Are these new members Sad Puppy fans, signing up to vote the Torgersen/ Correia slate to victory? Are these the Rabids, the lockstep legions of Vox Day? Or is this fandom, gathering to defend the integrity of the Hugos? Pronouncements abound, but no one really knows, and no one is likely to know until the envelopes are opened. This will be the most dramatic Hugo night in worldcon history. But not in a good way.

Myself, I think it's All of the Above. Fans on both sides -- or all three sides, if you want to draw a line between the Sad Puppies and the Rabids -- are laying down their money to cast their vote. I also think the votes may be way closer than some of the people on "my side" think. I am sensing way too much complacency from fandom. The Puppies dominated the nominations by mustering 200-300 votes for their slate, out of 2000; the fans seem to be counting on the "other" 1800, the voters who scattered their own nominating ballots, to outvote the Pups. And yes, 1800 beats 200 every time... but that does NOT account for all these new members.

However this goes down, we will see more Hugo ballots cast than ever before. If any of this matters to you -- yes, YOU, reading this right now -- you can and should cast one of them. It will cost you $40, and you have until July 1 to sign up. Go to:

https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

Looking at those membership numbers, especially the number of Supporting Members as opposed to Attending, makes me wonder -- are any of the Puppies actually planning on coming to Sasquan? If their slate should prevail and win a bunch of rockets, who is going to be there to accept them? We know Brad Torgersen cannot attend, since he is being deployed. I believe that Larry Correia had also stated that he won't be going. So... who will?

Remembering Roger

On June 14, 1995 Roger Zelazny died at St. Vincent's Hospital here in Santa Fe. Though it seems very hard to believe -- for his voice and his presence are still very much with those who knew and loved him, and his words will live forever -- this June will mark the twentieth anniversary of Roger's passing.

At the memorial service shortly after his death, I spoke a few words about Roger and his work, and what he meant to me and to SF and the wider world of literature. You can read them here:

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/about-george/friends/in-memoriam-roger-zelazny/



Twenty years is a long time, but Roger and his work are still remembered. With the dark day of that anniversary approaching, we thought the time was right to share some of our memories of this amazing man and his incredible stories. It did not feel right to do it on June 14, however; we want to celebrate his life and his work, not his death. So we chose May 31 instead.

On Sunday night, May 31, the Jean Cocteau Cinema in Santa Fe will offer a special one-time only night of readings and reminiscences we're calling "Remembering Roger."

Roger's son Trent, a fine writer in his own right, is organizing the event for us, and other members of Roger's family are also expected to attend, along with lots of us from the New Mexico science fiction community and Albuquerque fandom. I will be there, as will Jane Lindskold, Melinda Snodgrass, Walter Jon Williams, John Jos. Miller, and many many more. We have lots of folks coming in from out of town as well. Neil Gaiman is trying to make it, if his schedule allows. Joe Haldeman is flying in. So is Michael Cassutt. And many folks who cannot come to New Mexico in person will be Skyping in to join us, or sending video greetings and readings. Joe Lansdale, Steven Brust, Howard Waldrop, and others will be heard from.

We won't be showing DAMNATION ALLEY, no... but we may screen the trailer, just for hoots and giggles. We will have other films and videos, though. A slide show, maybe... so if you have some good pictures of Roger, send jpegs to me or Trent. Artwork too. Most of the evening will be taken up with readings from Roger's work: his poems, his stories, favorite passages from his books. We expect there will be tears; we hope there will be laughter too. And Roger's own voice will be heard: he recorded the Amber audiobooks himself, and we hope to play some of that.

The evening's final offering will be a play. If you're read my memorial, above, you'll know that one of the last things Roger ever completed was a short musical play called GODSON. He read it aloud in my living room a few weeks before he died, but to my knowledge it has never been staged or performed. Until now.

GODSON will have its long LONG awaited premiere on the stage of the Jean Cocteau on May 31. Its the story of what happens when Death adopts a child, and it's pure Roger. We are in rehearsal now. Advance tickets for the evening will be on sale shortly; watch this space for announcements. All box office proceeds will be split with the Zelazny family and the actors and director who are bringing us GODSON. The Cocteau has only 130 seats, so if you want to be part of this, do not hesitate when tickets are made available. This is a one-time only event. (Though we would consider further performances of GODSON if the play is well received and there seems to be sufficient demand. Roger would like that, I am sure).



If you knew Roger, or even if you only knew his work, and you would like to help or be a part of this, please get in touch with Trent Z at trentzelazny@juno.com

We want to make this an evening worthy of one of greatest science fiction writers who ever lived.

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner