ellen_datlow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ellen_datlow) wrote2007-10-09 01:16 pm
ellen_datlow) wrote2007-10-09 01:16 pm
Vote vote vote--and rec rec rec rec
Ok. Here's my impassioned plea/push/nag for anyone who reads this blog and is eligible to recommend stories and or novels for the various peer group science fiction, fantasy, and horror awards.
I know that some people feel that awards themselves are a bad thing and that they should all be abolished. I'm not talking to you. I don't believe that and I know I'm not going to change your minds.
Awards are NOT going to go away but they could become less visible (which I think is a bad thing). As an editor I really appreciate it when the stories/books I edit make final award ballots and win awards. And I think most writers are even more appreciative of this. It gives a sense of validation for what you're doing by your peers (for the Nebula and Stoker).
Right now is "award rec season" and there are discussions on both the SFWA Bulletin Board and the HWA Bulletin Board about how their respective awards are dying --not enough members are recommending works to even make a preliminary ballot.
Now some people think that this might be because no one likes the work being published.
Others that no one is reading enough short fiction to be interested in recommending works in those categories.
I have a really difficult time believing the first reason. I've been reading sf/f/h short fiction for twenty five years and have found no drop off in quality in any of those fields.
I can't answer for the second but I hope it's not true because if so my profession will die and I love editing short fiction.
If you care at ALL for the genre short story then I urge you to recommend the stories that you think are worth bringing to the attention of your peers.
This is totally off the cuff and I know if I thought about it more I'd have more to write--but I'd also probably just delete the whole post...
Comments welcome!
I know that some people feel that awards themselves are a bad thing and that they should all be abolished. I'm not talking to you. I don't believe that and I know I'm not going to change your minds.
Awards are NOT going to go away but they could become less visible (which I think is a bad thing). As an editor I really appreciate it when the stories/books I edit make final award ballots and win awards. And I think most writers are even more appreciative of this. It gives a sense of validation for what you're doing by your peers (for the Nebula and Stoker).
Right now is "award rec season" and there are discussions on both the SFWA Bulletin Board and the HWA Bulletin Board about how their respective awards are dying --not enough members are recommending works to even make a preliminary ballot.
Now some people think that this might be because no one likes the work being published.
Others that no one is reading enough short fiction to be interested in recommending works in those categories.
I have a really difficult time believing the first reason. I've been reading sf/f/h short fiction for twenty five years and have found no drop off in quality in any of those fields.
I can't answer for the second but I hope it's not true because if so my profession will die and I love editing short fiction.
If you care at ALL for the genre short story then I urge you to recommend the stories that you think are worth bringing to the attention of your peers.
This is totally off the cuff and I know if I thought about it more I'd have more to write--but I'd also probably just delete the whole post...
Comments welcome!
no subject
I always find it amusing how fanboys react to people whose material they didn't grow up reading.
Your attempt to place story quality on a bell curve is wrongheaded, and stories are qualitatively different from one another.
no subject
Sorry, but to a broad audience, in general, they are good, or not good. You yourself have said some are better than others, speaking of wrongheadedness.
Disagreeing with that common activity of rating material is one thing, if you are more of a 'literary fetishist' type that can't bear to bring yourself to do that, you aren't the only one.
I have read one, Orm the Beautiful, so I will give you that one if you chose I gave it 4.5 out of 5. Not sure that dragon archaeology is designed to appeal to a broader audience though. :)
Don't think I have seen any of the others, off the top of my head.
no subject
And no, readers won't say "good" or "not good" which is rather the problem. You're describing the casual reader. Short SF drove off its casual readers long ago. It now caters to an aging, shrinking marketplace of people who want to relive their childhood experiences .
There's also nothing inherent in the idea of a story that would lead to most stories being mediocre, some awful, and some few excellent. I know you don't understand that, but it's true. Stories aren't published randomly, so a curve doesn't apply. Any randomly chosen issue of MZB (to name a dead magazine) would almost certainly be chockful of crap. Any randomly chosen issue of Crank! (to name another dead magazine) would almost certainly be full of very good stories.
It just seems that such notions are beyond you. No surprises there — fanboy critics with numbered rating systems are rarely capable of reading for depth or quality.
no subject
If you don't understand that, then your grasp of simple early high school mathematics is very, very poor.
Stories are not chosen at random, no. They are chosen because they are better than the 99% of dreck that is written that isn't good enough, in general. Of those that are published, some are better than others. You have now said this twice. Even if you can't manage to go past that, then you have three ratings you have given already, not good enough, good enough to publish, better than what is usually published. If you are suggesting that everything you pick to publish is 5 star brilliant, and will be to everybody, that is just crazy talk in anyone's language.
To someone with , Crank! (which I have never heard of) would be chock full of crap, no matter what your opinion of it was.
You have sampled many fanboy critics with numbered rating systems then to have a large amount to judge from? :) If not, your methodology is flawed, and this would then be an exceedingly gross generalisation.
Just as flawed as suggesting that elitists with literati pretensions can assume to know how any given random person reads.
You want to get a large broad audience? They aren't going to care too much about allusions to Tolstoy or the brilliant use of semi-commas.
The quality that matters is do you not suck enough to read.
no subject
Nope. Some stories are chosen, for example, because they satisfy some need, such as the need to fill X number of pages, or because they are related to previous, better stories, or because there is a belief that a certain number of stories per year must be in spaceships, or because there haven't been any stories containing a wizard in a few months and this one is "good enough" to satisfy that, or because someone who doesn't write many short stories anymore sent in a two page flash fiction, etc etc.
Even if you can't manage to go past that, then you have three ratings you have given already, not good enough, good enough to publish, better than what is usually published.
Again, nope. There's good enough, good enough but not at the right time, not good enough, better than others, good but inappropriate for reasons of building an audience, good enough but too superficially similar to something else already published, not good enough but the publisher insists, good enough but the publisher says no, etc.
You'll note that a number of those categories have nothing to do with literary values.
If you are suggesting that everything you pick to publish is 5 star brilliant, and will be to everybody, that is just crazy talk in anyone's language.
Of course I'm not suggesting that. I am saying that anyone who is actually interested in reading quality fiction will acknowledge that the works I choose are of quality and ambition, even if they don't like the stories themselves.
This is not the case in most magazines. Some magazines actively militate against some attributes of quality, in that the audience they are hoping to retain is made up of people actively hostile to complex-compound sentence, or women characters, or certain types of politics, or "depressing" stories or "funny" ones, or stories that contain sex, etc etc etc.
You have sampled many fanboy critics with numbered rating systems then to have a large amount to judge from? :)
If the sample isn't large, it tends to be rather complete because of the small number.
At any rate, you've already spent a few posts fuming about literary fetishism, Tolstoy, semi-commas, etc., while also explicitly speaking only of satisfying ("do you not suck enough to read") so thanks for proving my implicit point.
Making a magazine that caters to your taste would exclude the broad audience of readers, most of whom read because they enjoy the act of reading, and not simply because they wanted to go into outer space when they were five years old, or because they stopped making Star Trek episodes.
no subject
0.5 0.000
1.0 0.005
1.5 0.009
2.0 0.033
2.5 0.086
3.0 0.290
3.5 0.298
4.0 0.210
4.5 0.045
5.0 0.025
As what I have for a sample of genre fiction stuff, which will include a lot of 'best' type material, not your garden variety monthly magazine publication, which would shift it lower. If you had to read all the stories in a year and rate those it would look like different.
You could interpolate a continous function from this, but pretty clearly discrete. :)
If all you can manage is binary, or trinary, then do that. ;-)
Would be pretty impossible to grow up reading Elizabeth Bear, given that she is from North America as far as I know, and her approximate similar age, I would most likely have learned to read somewhat before she did.
Who else but a fanboy would be editing an internet fantasy magazine and writing the stuff, anyway?
no subject
Would be pretty impossible to grow up reading Elizabeth Bear, given that she is from North America as far as I know, and her approximate similar age, I would most likely have learned to read somewhat before she did.
Are you being coy, or are you really just as stupid as that sentence reveals?
Who else but a fanboy would be editing an internet fantasy magazine and writing the stuff, anyway?
One of the bright spots of the current era is that some writers and editors are actually emerging without having grown up in fandom. If anything will allow short SF to sustain itself, it'll be from this segment.
no subject
If you have ever done any of that, especially adding on the the whole magazine and writing thing, you are a way, way bigger fanboy than me. :)
no subject
Growing up in fandom meaning the various consumption habits of fanboys and fangirls, which can include cons and such but also just deep reading in the genre at the exclusion of other reading, watching primarily SF/F tv, experiencing a certain level of perceived hostility about the outside world.
Now, another question: why do you think a writer who publishes SF/F must be a fanboy?
no subject
Do I want to keep reading Tolkien that I read when I was 7, or Donaldson and Michener and Herbert and Clarke and Bronte and Norton and Alcott at 12, or John Wyndham at 9, or Fleming and Campbell at 8 or Verne and Wells and Idriess and Marshall at 10 or Kundera and Carey at 15 or Tolstoy and Waugh and Fitzgerald and Fowles at 13 or Dostoevsky and Solhenitszyn and Malamud at 14, or Potok at 16? Etc., etc., etc., etc.
No, definitely not, I want to read new stuff, in general. Some will even be non-fiction. :) Maybe even short stories with arty pretension. ;-) Some old short stories by some of the above, possibly.
I will read Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes again, though, guaranteed. Likely indulge in some Edgar Rice Burroughs, too, now and again.
no subject
The former is easily corrected: one may write SF/F because they enjoy playing around with certain forms, because the magazines pay whereas many lit journals don't, as an artifact of their own interests (i.e., they write what they like, and find out after the fact that only SF/F venues will publish it), because they write a whole lot of things for a wide variety of venues, etc.
As far as the latter possibility, I fear that increasingly that is the attitude. A by-fanboy-for-fanboy SF would quickly crawl up its own ass and cater to a shrinking audience. Indeed, that may well be what is happening after all.
And while you may not want to reread the Tolkien, etc., what some fraction of the audienc is just that. They want to read stories that remind them of being seven years old and discovering Tolkien. This is not the majority of the audience of readers, but this fraction does have more of a specific weight inside SF than in fiction in general and may be approacing a plurality of readers of the short stuff at least, which would go a long way toward explaining the otherwise confusing editorial choices made each month by editors who are more interested in keeping the last few rats on the sinking ship than they are for striking out to shore.
As a bit of an aside, I think it's pretty clear that for the last generation or so, everyone has had the same recipe for success in SF: get novelists that can appeal to TV-watchers, and then buy short fiction from those novelists if they manage to get popular. Needless to say, however, many TV-watchers don't want to read novels and many novel-readers don't want to read short fiction. The recipe has been a failure for the thirty years since Star Wars suggested it.
So, here's another recipe: if SF/F takes up about 7% of the marketplace for fiction consumption (in the US at least), why not publish SF that might appeal to the other 93% of people who are already in bookstores, looking for something to read, as opposed to chasing after people who enter bookstores only to buy DVDs or use the toilet?
no subject
With 2 tv channels or less at the time, not going to be much of that stuff on tv. Still isn't, even with 5 channels in a lot of places now.
Dr Who on Sunday evenings back in those days a pretty standard family activity for everybody, generally speaking.
Outside world hostility? Like going postal or shooting up schools?
No-one I knew defined 'likes to read a lot' as 'outside world hostility'. That would be some strange thesaurus there.
no subject
Also, I grew up in the middle of New York city and had all of five channels. When I moved to Long Island, that number when down to three. It's not that huge a difference.
no subject
Indulged in all the usual sorts of things like playing sport, underage drinking, parties, girls, bike riding, boardgames, pontoon, video game consoles in the pub, etc., just like anyone else, really.
People who like to read a lot, particularly where you live it seems are seen as freakish nerds to start with, aren't they, compared to the barely managed to get the bimonthly book they read crowd finished?
no subject
The bimonthly book crowd ARE our nerds.
Try two a year.
And the two a year crowd are considered the "readers."
Millions upon millions of adult Americans read nothing that isn't about carbohydrates, Sudoku, or shaved vaginas.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
He was trolling me; I called him on it. You're not being trolled here, so of course he didn't demand to see your royalty statements, or for that matter the spreadsheets or notes you keep while reading stories all year for YB, etc.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject