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]

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.