anghara (anghara) wrote,
anghara
anghara

Eh...? What's that again?

From the feed of MakingLight, the blog of the inestimable Nielsen Haydens of Tor, comes the list of those worthies' Worldcon programming schedule. And while there are some panels that make me chuckle and assume that much fun will be had by all (the Monday noon panel, for one, entitled "Arouse Is Not the Past Tense of Arise" - being a grammar geek myself that's probably one I would have found myself attending, and enjoying thoroughly) - there was ONE panel on that list that made me do a whiplash double take.

This one:

Sunday, 11 AM
Is Zelazny Still Relevant?
Julia Rios (moderator), Patrick Nielsen Hayden, David G. Hartwell, and Willie Siros

Is Zelazny still RELEVANT? What kind of bullpuckey is that? Is Asimov relevant? Is Heinlein? Is George R R Martin, for that matter, a hot HBO TV series notwisthstanding?

What do you mean, is a writer still "relevant"? Particularly a spec-fic writer, and even more particularly one who doesn't write hard SF where science might get dated fast? WHat does "relevant" mean?

I'm sorry, I'm up in arms because Zelazny is one of my own personal literary gods - he has his own little niche in my temple of words and there is always a little candle on his altar. So yeah, he's relevant. To some people. To ME. What on earth is this panel about, who thought it up and thought it would be a good idea, and why are they picking on Roger Zelazny?

Growl.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch
    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    Help
  • 7 comments