It's ten years since I started attending British sf conventions. Gossip, disgruntlement and ill-will seem to be an integral part of them, with the latest juicy scandal often taking pride of place as a topic of informal conversation. Never, though, I have experienced one so controversial as Conspiracy '87, the 45th World Science Fiction Convention. And never has that controversy been so closely focused on a single feature of the convention, in this case the presence of New Era and Bridge Publications – respectively the British and American publishers of L. Ron Hubbard's ten-volume novel Mission Earth – and the Writers of the Future programme, which is sponsored by them and which carries Hubbard's name as its patron.
To say that the public profile of these organizations at Conspiracy '87 created unease and resentment in significant sections of the attendees would be an understatement; by the end of that long bank holiday weekend in Brighton, moral outrage had reached fever pitch. It was at this point that I, as tired and emotional as anyone else, decided that opinions should be canvassed, facts gathered and articles solicited for a publication intended to explore the issues underlying the unease. These issues are, I feel, larger than those which usually underlie the internecine squabbling that often besets the sf community.
The individual articles which follow will go into the various details of the controversy and draw their own conclusions. I should, however, explain briefly why I felt especially pressed to compile this publication. The chief reason was guilt. In the run-up to the convention, I was asked if I would be interested in participating as an sf author at the Writers of the Future stand, doing a session or two at their desk in order to offer information and advice to new writers. At first I was reluctant, knowing that Writers of the Future was closely associated with L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. About Scientology itself I knew (and know) little. Some years before I had read Dr Christopher Evans's Cults of Unreason and John Sladek's The New Apocrypha, and there were also intermittent articles in the national press – none of which presented the movement or the activities of its adherents in a favourable light. However, I was told that the Writers of the Future programme was strictly separate from Scientology, and I was also offered £100 for my services. It was this – primarily the money – which persuaded me to participate. I thought no more about it until the convention itself.
Neither I, nor I believe anyone else at all at Conspiracy '87, ultimately realized how much public presence New Era/Bridge/Writers of the Future would have at the convention. By the Friday or Saturday, friends and acquaintances from both sides of the Atlantic whose opinions I respected had begun to tell me in no uncertain terms that I should have nothing to do with Writers of the Future. It was scarcely a question of my reputation suffering since it's fair to say that of all the writers who have participated in the programme, I am the least well known to a mass audience. (During my one-hour stint at the Writers of the Future desk, the only person who came to the desk was Ian Watson, who was looking for his family.) It was more a question that anyone who was involved with WOTF would have their motives questioned and their integrity compromised.
Since then, the arguments have raged to and fro in my mind. Two weeks after the convention, in response to a request from Steve Green for my views on the controversy, and before most of the articles here had been received, I wrote: "if any other publishing company had so blatantly used a convention to promote their books and authors they would have caused a stir. The fact that Bridge/New Era already had, whether they liked it or not, an unsavoury reputation in the field, only makes matters worse. I regret my association with Writers of the Future and have no intention of supporting it again."
I now feel that this judgement was rather hasty; but more than that, I regret any expression of moral queasiness which is surely hypocritical given my less than elevated motives for originally participating in the programme, however invisibly. Nevertheless, there plainly remain legitimate areas for concern in all this, and Conspiracy Theories is intended to open up the debate. It does not, as will be seen, always provide answers to the areas of dispute and controversy, even those with a firm basis in facts.
I've tried, in the time available, to get as wide a range of opinions as possible, and I'm grateful to all contributors for undertaking the kind of unpaid work which is so much a hallmark of the sf community and gives evidence of that community's continuing commitment to open debate. As far as possible, I've also tried to let the articles speak for themselves. Where it has been necessary to seek out extra facts to fill gaps or answer queries, I've tried to do so, and all my insertions are prefaced with the initials CE. Inevitably there's a great deal of overlap in some of the articles, and also many cases in which facts or perspectives are at variance, even from people who take the same "side" in the argument. I've made little attempt to eliminate redundancies or reconcile differences since people's perceptions of what was happening at the convention are central to the way in which the controversy arose. They are also sometimes all we have in cases where the facts remain elusive or unknowable.
I apologize in advance for the density of type on the page which may not be easy on some readers's eyes; considerations of cost made it essential that I minimize the page count in order to maximize the print run. A number of people sent money to help finance this publication. You know who you are. Thanks very much.
CHRIS EVANS
Halloween, 1987