Open vs closed anthologies

[ellen_datlow]

Jay Lake posted about the process and an interesting conversation has ensued:

Discussion on open vs closed anthologies

I, Jeff VanderMeer, John Klima, and others discuss...you can too.

Comments

[david-de-beer.livejournal.com]

I've deviated enough from Jay's post about the process to talking about the concept:)
But that's what I'm interested in, although I don't have anything more to add.
I did read your last comment there, but nothing more to add.

[ellen-datlow.livejournal.com]

We'll see if anyone else does!

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

But it's James who makes the best comment.

[mtrimm1.livejournal.com]

Open, closed -- means nothing to me, as long as I'm invited...;p

[pm-again.livejournal.com]

One of the posts made the excellent point by mentioning what the publisher wants. Whether it's open or closed it has to have saleability.

And then there's the editor. Some may not want to work with you irregardless of whether it's open or closed.

An obvious anthology idea though would be to do an annual anthology series comprised by new writers.

Because JeffV argues that having an open anthology will lead to publishing new or different voices. I'd say not necessarily. The editor could have an open anthology and still pick the existing big names.

[ellen-datlow.livejournal.com]

Yes. Publishers will want at least some recognizable names in order to sell a book, although there have been original anthologies showcasing new writers exclusively (not necessarily first stories but early stories: The Berkley Showcase edited by Victoria Schocket and John Silbersack (and # 5, the last, co-edited by MElissa Singer) and the Roy Torgusen Chrysalis series, which ran for ten volumes did just that. I read some of those anthologies at OMNI and contacted writers in them like Pat Cadigan, Howard Waldrop, Jack Dann, Ronald Anthony Cross, Tom Monteleone, Somtow Sucharitkul, and others.

[pm-again.livejournal.com]

And I assume that there aren't new author anthologies now because they don't sell.

JeffV has his heart in the right place as far as the end goal but the books have to sell. And if the readership is convinced, the books will sell, publishers will buy, and editors will try to grab a piece of the action.

[david-de-beer.livejournal.com]

in the short term, you're correct. In the long term? No, I saw this time after time after time when people bought books from me.
I wish I'd taken photos, maybe then people would understand the necessity of Jeff's point more.
There is a look on a customer's face when he finds a new book by a Name, and is delighted by it.
And then there's the other customer; will spend an hour browsing the shelves and finally buy the Names he knows. But his face is the very definition of resigned; he's not buying because he wants to read more Name, he's buying because he wants to read and can't find anyone new.
But that face is the beginning of an acceptance of disillusionment with Name (this falls straight into Jeff's post about complacency on his blog), and in the long term disillusionment with genre reading as a whole.
In the last couple years before I quit, that second customer was on the increase. (and yet, there is a definite increase in the desire to read; it's finding product that satisfies that's harder).
People want new writers, they want new blood as much as they also want more product by the writers they know and love.
Novels on the floor are dicey; most of my customers became wary about simply buying Names they don't know. At least 70% made their choices after talking to me first, and that did work to sell no names.
And it's not a matter of my liking the writer even, it's a matter of customer asks "I like Martina Cole", and me saying "Have you tried Mandasue Heller?"
It is that simple to build a readership for an author.

Anthos can cross that bridge of desire for old and new, more effectively even than magazines. Names are needed to pull and lend validity to the product, but including a few slots for no names is that golden opportunity genre, whether short or long, needs in the long term to keep the readership vital.

Insofar as new author anthologies - an editor or publishing house with a respected enough reputation can sell that book too.
I've found that I like Jonathan Strahan's selections for the YB; so if he were to put together an antho of no names, I for one would take an interest.
The problem with new author anthos is simple - a lack of editors who can command that much respect to sell the book, or at least get people interested.

[ellen-datlow.livejournal.com]

No one is saying that new names aren't vital to the field (and publishing in general), David.

The important thing to any anthology is a good mix of stories. A few "name" writers may sell the book but that doesn't mean that the book must be stacked with all well names. Most of my original anthologies have at least a couple newer writers in them and writers whose work I'd never published previously. Even in INFERNO, which has no brand new writers in it, does has four writers I've never worked with before--so somehow they managed to get into a "closed" anthology.