Vote vote vote--and rec rec rec rec

[ellen_datlow]

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!

Comments

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, how can we forgot the informed critical opinion of an lj commenter fuming about "literary fetishism", Tolstoy, and semi-colons. (Forget the fact that you don't seem to know which stories I've edited.)

[bluetyson.livejournal.com]

No, why would I know (or bother looking up), what you edited? You already told me that one of the best stories you didn't, so you are behind there to start with. :)

I do have the most informed opinion of what is good to me.

No-one else anywhere that I know of has said you are the best. So doesn't that leave you versus everyone else? Or, in all likelihood, best you not be.

Fuming? No, I just mentioned that because there are people that won't deign to judge writing, but happy to have a movie review that says X is 3/5 and go along with it. Amused is the actual feeling. :)

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

When I review a book or publication, I make a point to actually make myself familiar with it.

For example, were I reviewing Clarkesworld, I'd note that the masthead has two editors, and that the submission guidelines reflect half the published work, and note that half the work is via solicitation to the other slot.

But, of course, I'm a real reviewer (in that people solicit my reviews and pay for them).

No-one else anywhere that I know of has said you are the best. So doesn't that leave you versus everyone else?

Have you spent any time looking? No-on anywhere that I know of has said "Yeah, that bluetyson fellow doesn't ever fart in the tub and eat the bubbles," thus...


Fuming? No, I just mentioned that because there are people that won't deign to judge writing, but happy to have a movie review that says X is 3/5 and go along with it.

Actually, you mentioned "literary fetishism" unbidden in one comment, elitism in another, and then Tolstoy and semi-colons in yet another. And even now you ironically use the word "deign". Seems to be a rhetorical twitch you have. It's a common one, actually. That it comes over repeatedly even when not all that important or in context is pretty clear evidence of long-term fuming over the possibility that, garsh, "five stars!" isn't really a review.

[bluetyson.livejournal.com]

Yes, I have read quite a few places, none of them have said 'Clarkesworld is publishing the best stories, easily.'

Tolstoy was mentioned as someone I read as a kid that I wouldn't bother to read again, actually.

You being a 'real reviewer' has nothing to do with how good the Clarkesworld stories are. Hopefully you actually read what you are reviewing, not just make yourself familiar, too, otherwise you wouldn't be much use.

Do real editors, who have produced lots of work, abuse their readers, as a general tactic? :)

To readers, the submission guidelines and all that junk mean zero, they do not care. Never seen someone in a broadsheet newspaper mention that, ever, in a book review. If you do, that will be rather boring, to start with.

Five stars isn't a review? Thanks for clearing that up for the one guy down the pub and his bulldog that didn't know that. :)

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Track This
Yes, I have read quite a few places, none of them have said 'Clarkesworld is publishing the best stories, easily.'

If you really checked, you'd say that many places said what I've been saying all along: Clarkesworld publishes quality, ambitious fiction.


You being a 'real reviewer' has nothing to do with how good the Clarkesworld stories are.

No reason to put "real reveiwer" in single-quotes. It's true. And it has everything to do with my estimation of your critical abilities.


Do real editors, who have produced lots of work, abuse their readers, as a general tactic?

Aaaaw, are you feewin' abyoozed? Gee, and all you did was pick a fight and carry it on for two days.


To readers, the submission guidelines and all that junk mean zero, they do not care. Never seen someone in a broadsheet newspaper mention that, ever, in a book review.

And here we play another round of "coy or stupid"? Which is it. Did I say that anyone should mention guidelines in a review? No. I said that recviewers should familiarize themselves with the publications before reviewing them, which does involve looking at, oh, the masthead of the publication.

But you wouldn't know that, as you're not a real reviewer.

[bluetyson.livejournal.com]

Feeling Abused? No. Amused at the 'professionalism' on display? Absolutely.

Again, reviewers are not relevant to reading the stories, or how good they are.

I a not a 'real reviewer'? Someone buy the bloke a Captain Obvious t-shirt.

Next you will tell people I am not a real editor, a real author, a real publisher, or a rock 'n roll star.

As to this: "if you really checked, you'd say that many places said what I've been saying all along: Clarkesworld publishes quality, ambitious fiction."

That sentence does not mean the best stories published anywhere.

Are you finally agreeing with me then that your Clarkesworld stories aren't the best on the planet? :)

Like anywhere else, you have some quality stuff, some excellent, a lot of mediocre and some bad. There are other places that have a higher percentage of quality. Glad you finally realise that.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Feeling Abused? No. Amused at the 'professionalism' on display? Absolutely.

What would you know about professionalism? I know you'd like to claim to be a CW reader now (or for that matter, a synecdoche for ALL readers) but we know that you're not. You're the equivalent of the guy who spends seven hours in a bookstore, nursing a single coffee and getting brown rings all over the books and magazines you've pulled from the shelves, except that you also piss in the corner and then claim to have determined, mathematically that Britney Spears has better tits than Angelina Jolie.


Are you finally agreeing with me then that your Clarkesworld stories aren't the best on the planet?

Nope. Pretty basic fallacious thinking here.


Like anywhere else, you have some quality stuff, some excellent, a lot of mediocre and some bad.

How would you know? You haven't demonstrated an ability to read carefully for comprehension.

I give your comment a 0.3.

[bluetyson.livejournal.com]

Oh, and you should feel free to point out a 'real reviewer' or 'informed opinion' saying that your Clarkesworld stories are the best published anywhere. No, it can't be you. That should be clear to a 'real editor'.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Best published anywhere? Way to move the goalposts! Where did I say that critics say that? I did say that I consider the stories the best published, and that reviewers and readers who are interested in quality and ambitious fiction have recognized that Clarkesworld produces the same.

Of course, "reviewers" of writing who consider judging writing to be something one might only "deign" to do may not get that, but hey, that's why we make distinctions in matters of opinion.

[bluetyson.livejournal.com]

No, you said you consider them the best published.

I said no-one else believes this, or has said so.

So, we finally agree that you are the only person that thinks this is the case.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

There's no finally here. I responded to your ridiculous claim by pointing out that many readers and reviewers acknowledge the quality and ambition of the stories published. You responded with a string of arbitrary numbers and nonsense about bell curves.

So, when did you stop raping your neighbor's poodle?