ellen_datlow | Vote vote vote--and rec rec rec rec

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!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's not like you to use space on your own strengths that might be spent on other people's weaknesses, Nick; I think you're slipping.

(Though, come to think of it, I already know why I don't read the traditional SF venues, and it would probably be more useful to me in the long run to hear more about why I should read CW. Though less entertaining in the short run.)

You can read CW or not. We're not one-at-a-timin' hyah, we's mass communicatin.'

It is true that many venues have circulations so minute that a handful of readers makes a big difference. It is also true that not a few readers have embraced a consumptionist aesthetic because of this; thus plopping down at cons and on messageboards and whatnot and making demands of editors and publishers and booksellers (Shocklines is notorious here, as you may have seen from my journal). I've also seen people declaring "boycotts" of one (i.e., not a real boycott) against writers such as Orson Scott Card, and engaging in all sorts of other telling actions: they really think that one person's decisions in a marketplace matter.

And when a mag has only a few subscribers, that may be even true. But that's not a workable model if one is looking for a broader audience. For a cult, sure, then it makes sense to stand in the airport and hand out pamphlets, but I'm not looking for a lifetime of engagement or to provide someone with a cultural index for their lifestyle, I'm looking for people who, when they hear about a good story online for free, go and read it.

Of course, by denying Moles' request, you've also inadvertantly thumbed your nose at everyone else who might be reading the thread...

(or you could provide a link to a story or two which you're particularly proud of and/or represent what you're trying to do.)

Oddly enough, I came back to this thread this morning and started participating again because Ellen intimated that by not pretending that the world was full of good stories I was slapping everyone I ever published in the face. (Apparently, I am only capable of publishing average stories, not stories that belong to the small minority of excellent stories written each year.)

To link to a handful of stories that I am particulary proud in a public venue would actually involve slapping the writers I've published across the face. Not gonna do it, sorry.

As far as this: "Of course, by denying Moles' request, you've also inadvertantly thumbed your nose at everyone else who might be reading the thread..." you prove my point. Individual readers in the SFnal hardcore think that they have massive power in the marketplace, generally because they operate under the belief that their actions are identical to or represent the actions of many many others.

This is not the case. This is a fishbowl, not the world. We shouldn't confuse the two, especially if we're looking for a broad audience.

Moles can take a few seconds out of the day to read CW if he likes. If he doesn't, that's fine too. But I'm not going to respond to "Dance, monkey, dance! Maybe I have a penny in my pocket, and you have to dance for it!" not when the pennies flow freely anyway.

I'm certainly not going to start dancing in a manner that would involve me smacking the writers I've published across the face.

Well, I can understand worrying about slighting every author except for one or two.

But as for the rest: you're assuming that you even have the attention of the fishbowl.

But as for the rest: you're assuming that you even have the attention of the fishbowl.

Then why should I be concerned about "thumbing my nose" at "everyone else who might be reading this thread" if I don't have their attention?

Clearly, I shouldn't.

So, given that you have argued within the course of just two comments that by not dancing for Moles I've insulted everyone who might be reading the thread (because they'd all have identical reactions, of course!) AND that I'm just assuming that anyone is paying attention, would you mind if I ask if you have a position here, or is this just a game of "Say the opposite of whatever Nick says, so he'll pay attention me"?

"reading your stories at CW" attention, silly, not "oh look Nick's on a soapbox" attention. You can use the latter to generate some of the former. And marketing-wise, I assume you would prefer people to read your stories rather than your lj-comment rants?

Ah no, now I get you. Thanks for explaining. Now, onto cases. I certainly don't want to do more than find the best stories from around the world, announce them in my blog on the first of each month of course, and let the chips fall where they may (with Neil and Sean and other stakeholders doing their work as well in making sure the stories are reviewed, read, etc.). I don't think hyping CW frequently on lj would be at all effective for a number of fairly complex reasons, not the least of which being the onrushing Singularity of Spam: one day I'll refresh my friends page and EVERY post will be hyping some link or other to click on. (I call is The Myspace Effect.)

From my POV, and you can read more about this in the intro to the Realms antho collecting the first year of stories when it is released late this month, the important thing about a website is the sort of story published, as far as generating a broad readership.

As far as the attention of the fishbowl in that case, the visitor stats show me that I have a fair chunk of it, and even better, an audience that ranges more widely than the hardcore of SF short fiction readership.

I don't solely want a deep readership, as that would involve too much competition from other sources (not just the other magazines out there, but Harry Potter fanfic and whatnot) and don't think the key to getting a wide readership is first cementing the deep readership. Indeed, I think that at this late date, the deep readership is so entrenched in its private language that a significant amount of SF is entirely incomprehensible to many many excellent readers.

got a headache from this "bash a Nick" thread(s), so I'm just going to pop in here cause I do want to talk a bit about actual short fiction.

Ok, so far the conversation has been all about the content of the stories currently published; granted, I'd like improvements there too. I both agree and disagree about some of the debate surrouding choice of content and manner of expression. What I do not want is everyone publishing the exact same damn thing, over and over. And I'd have to agree that core SF is far too imploded and quite thrilled at it.
Having said that, I am possibly a bit more optimistic than you are about some of the current short fiction being published, but there are prevalent trends I am not liking.
Would like to come back to content some other time, not so much the reason for my post.

Would a change in editorial and writer mindset regarding content be enough by itself to rejuvenate SF shorts and attract more readers?
For the sake of argument, let's assume content and allowed manner of expression has undergone a fundamental change in the mindsets of editors, publishers and writers. So, content is not the problem; content is fine.
The rest of the package is exactly the same as it is currently - from producing to distributing to marketing to pricing, etc.

Granted such a hypothesis (everything exactly the same as it is at present with the single exception of the content of short fiction itself) - would this alone be enough to rejuvenate the SF short medium?
See, I'm not wholly convinced content alone is enough, there's a hell of a lot plain wrong and outdated in the thinking models of how the medium is (mis)managed. That it continues to survive despite incompetence dictating direction is perhaps a small miracle, perhaps not.
Perhaps it is time for the print magazines to die completely. Is print, whether monthly, bi-annual or whatever, truly the best format for short fiction?
Remember the "Subscribe and save the zines!" debate? one of the recurrent notes being trilled all the time was "publish what people want to read."
Everyone is focusing on what is being published/ not being published as the sole problem.
I am not convinced it is the one and single problem. It is just one aspect of a whole range of problems. To begin with, letting people know a magazine exists; being accessible for curious readers to find and sample; the whole packaging and presentation.

It seems to me there is a hell of a lot more involved than just the content of published material; I cannot see a more expansive shift in editorial policies regarding their story subject matter by itself rejuvenating short fiction.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I'd say no. The digest format has to be dumped as well, the non-fiction feature well also has to be reconceptualized, and for God's sake the covers need to be adjusted.

SF magazines should try to look, feel, and read like magazines that actually sell more copies than cockfighting magaznes. And that's with keeping them in print, which is increasingly a poor idea across all sectors.

Since Nick is too busy quoting Coen brothers to answer: because Nick is pulling the best out of the slushpile, without too much regard for name-recognition? So he tends to publish the best stories from a lot of the same up-and-coming talent you see at, say, SH. Except that Nick's editorial "voice" is very different from the SH guys; if you're looking for something short, dynamic, dark, and well-written, Nick's selections at Clarkesworld are a good place to get a quick 4000-word hit.

Not to put down Nick's taste at all but if I would judge by percentage I doubt I'd like any higher percentage of the stories Nick picks than I do for many other venues I cover ;-)

From out of everything I read for YBFH, I hate most of it. And a lot of it I like ok but don't think is either good enough or appropriate for the horror half of YBFH...

But that doesn't mean that I don't like enough of what is published annually in and at the edges of the genres to think that there's "plenty" of good fiction out there.

You don't like those, I don't see any reason why you would like this one, either. Not much different, maybe a little more of the 'not really quite genre', if that is your sort of thing.

Well, my reasons for disliking all of those are fairly similar to Nick's stated and/or implied ones.

Well, he has failed to be much different.

No old-fashioned guys talking like they are from 1959 tooling around the asteroid belt in any of those stories though, as far as the Analog sort of thing goes, and not much core sf except one massive blast of a story.

Other than that, and the odd pretty mainstream story (although that happens elsewhere, nothing that you wouldn't find in a bunch of other places.

Dragon hoards, girls turning into mice, zeppelins and sorcery, dead wives, fantasy princesses, conquering overlords, writing/book references, body part removal, etc., etc.

Subject matter is not necessarily the problem.

Same sort of writers, too. Not like he has a bunch of new Vietnamese or Latvians or Guatemalans producing stuff for him, here.

Oh? Who of the Analog Mafia has Clarkesworld published?

Mafia?

I thought already said there wasn't any Analogesque stuff in there? Might have been a reply elsewhere.

If Analog is what you detest, then no, it isn't like that. Or if it is a particular bunch of writers you don't like, then you can pretty easily see if they are in there. :)

If you detest Asimov's and FSF and Strange Horizons etc. etc. then you can avoid this one, too.

Mafia?

Google it.

I thought already said there wasn't any Analogesque stuff in there? Might have been a reply elsewhere.

You did say there wasn't any Analogesque stuff in there, but then you said it was the same sort of writers. If there aren't any Mike Resnick impersonators, that's a step up.

If you detest Asimov's and FSF and Strange Horizons etc. etc. then you can avoid this one, too.

All of them publish stuff I like from time to time. But as Nick pointed out, they have a lot of slots to fill and a lot of reasons for filling them.

No, nothing I would call Resnick-like I think, from what I have read of his. One close, perhaps, and there's a woman goes into the past mysteriously to an earlier time that is a bit similar in tone (perhaps) to a recent decent Resnick JBU story about a guy stranded on a planet. That is about it, though.

Same sort of Northern Hemisphere Western usual thing, barring one Filipino angle story, was what I meant, really, sorry. Nothing different to see.

More diversity would certainly be nice, but again, I refer you to Nick's actual complaints up-thread.

Sure, he has complained about it, and done nothing different that I can see, apart from 'Analoglessness', if you want to call it that. Although a story or two would probably fit there. Eyecam implant voyeurism perhaps not their thing though? :)

No elves, dwarves, or knights in armour, or farm boys going to get rid of dark lords?

So chance of broad appeal, given it is all similar to what is out there (and he isn't publishing happily ever after romance or Star Wars stories) would seem to be practically none.

Again, what the stories are about is not necessarily the problem (http://ellen-datlow.livejournal.com/12643.html?thread=219491#t219491).

Then what?

The impressiveness of the writing? It isn't that great in general. The people you have heard of aren't going to suddenly become heaps better just because they are on Clarkesworld website. There was one good story by someone I think I wasn't aware of, and some of the standard quality were as well.

If not writing or content, then what are you looking for? Given the flat and old fashioned type of thing we have already dismissed.

Amazing new ideas? Politics? Nasty horror (probably not if you are intersted in SFF mainly)? Has to have old people/young people? . Can you pin that down?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Vote vote vote--and rec rec rec rec

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

interrupting

Re: interrupting

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject