Review of YBFH#20

[ellen_datlow]

A review by Paul Kincaid:
Sfsite

I rarely argue with reviews. When I have on one or two occasions is correct a review, which I will do here--this is what Kincaid says:

"Just about all of them pay reverence to the ghost stories of the past, perhaps most blatantly in Gene Wolfe's "Sob in the Silence," a nasty but inconsequential tale that, I suspect, would not have been included here if it didn't have Wolfe's name attached to it."

I object to this most strenuously.

Perhaps Kincaid didn't care for the Wolfe story, but I found it creepy and scary. I don't know what what he means by "inconsequential" --perhaps it's not a socially instructive moral tale such as Geoff Ryman's "Pol Pot's Daughter (a Fantasy)" which Kincaid considers the best story in the book. But IT DOES WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO.

However, that is not what annoys me. What I do object to (and I hope someone sends him over here to read this) is the idea that I included the story because of the presumed marketability of Gene Wolfe's name. Sorry, but that's not how I edit YBFH.

I have NEVER taken a story for YBFH for the name value. I've NOT taken plenty of stories by writers whose names have a much greater impact on the marketing of a book than Wolfe's.

I have no interest in responding to the rest of the review but to say that Kincaid seems not to understand horror vs fantasy. Horror is usually better served in traditional forms/structures --which isn't to say that occasional experimentation isn't sometimes effective in evoking horror. But I'd say that too much structural fooling around can dissipate the mood.
Comments most welcome.

Comments

[ellen-datlow.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah.
Just skimming I'm finding some incorrect assertions:
Talking about how many Year's bests there were in 06:

"Getting on for 10 or more, I suspect, certainly far more than there are original anthologies of any kind, probably more than there are single-author short story collections."

****I count over 80 collections of sf/f/h(I didn't count those of the dead, like Kipling)and 50 original anthologies

"One of the most persistent impressions presented by all Best of the Year anthologies is that a sizeable chunk of the content is there for the lustre of the author's name rather than for any intrinsic merit in the story. Any such collection these days, for instance, must include something by Kelly Link and by Neil Gaiman...Of the other writers who are here because their names look good on the cover of the book, Bruce Sterling... Esther Friesner... Gene Wolfe's "Comber."

***Again, the assumption that the above "star names" as he calls them are in the Hartwell/Cramer antho merely for their names.


"With the number of best of the year anthologies now around double figures, and most of them seeming to get fatter with each passing year, the number of stories singled out as being the "best" is now probably around 150+ (there are 31 alone in the Hartwell and Cramer and the Strahan anthologies reviewed here). Throw in the "Honourable Mentions" that both Dozois and Datlow, Link & Grant include and the number probably goes up to around 1,000."

***No. He's assuming that Honorable Mentions are equal to "best"--Nope. They are what they are. Occasionally, I'll mention a few novellas or a couple of stories I would have taken if I'd room. THOSE were "Best" stories (in addition to those chosen for reprint) and only those.

He also doesn't seem to have a clue as to how many genre short stories are published annually, nor does he distinguish among the three subgenres covered in the various Year's Bests (I may be incorrect, but I don't think he's counting mystery or mainstream Year's bests).

While there is sometimes overlap, they generally cover different areas. So if you count up the sf/f/h stories published per year, I'd guess there are several thousand..of those, perhaps 200 tops make it into any of the year's bests.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

What kind of nut thinks Esther Friesner sends books flying off the shelves!

[livia-llewellyn.livejournal.com]

No offense to Esther Friesner, but... who the hell is Esther Friesner?

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

A dandy, award-winning fantasy writer, and editor of the "Chicks in Chainmail" anthology series.

[livia-llewellyn.livejournal.com]

I've heard of that series, but I had no idea she was its editor - it's not an antho I've read, so her name isn't familiar to me. And, she may be a phenomenal writer, but IMO I don't consider her the kind of big "name" that Paul Kincaid thinks is required for anthologies to sell.

(And, yes, I'm sure many people will think me ignorant and flat-out wrong. The fact that I'm a nobody/wannabe should tell you exactly how much my opinion is worth. :P)

[realthog.livejournal.com]

You've got a treat in store if you haven't yet discovered Esther Friesner's work.

[benpayne.livejournal.com]

His numbers certainly don't sound right to me either, as evidenced by this quote: "Where one in a hundred stories may genuinely warrant the clamour and attention of being picked out as the year's best, one in ten has to be selected to stock all the year's best anthologies".

I'd say each individual Years Best operates closer to the 1/100 ratio. Between them all, that ratio might decrease slightly, but I'd be very surprised if it approached anywhere near 1/10.

His assertions that the short fiction market is dramatically shrinking seems way off the mark too. It reads to me like he has preselected an argument and then used the books to support it.

[bluetyson.livejournal.com]

Here's what he said at the start of his review of 'The New Weird'

"I'm sure I remember a time when anthologies were basically just a bunch of similarly themed stories brought together: the best time travel stories, the best Eskimo stories, or whatever. No more. These days it seems that barely a week goes by without another anthology that has an agenda, that is meant to work as propaganda. "

Anyone seen a propaganda anthology a fortnight?

He clearly has a problem with being able to do simple things like count. :)

[ellen-datlow.livejournal.com]

He seems to consider themed overview such as The New Weird, Rewired, and Steampunk etc as "propaganda"--a narrow view perhaps but certainly they have an agenda. So maybe three in two years?

[golaski.livejournal.com]

Let me start by saying that Wolfe's story is excellent, but its excellence is easy to miss--in spite of the very direct telling of the tale, and in spite of the clear violence described, what *actually* happens is only whispered. That whisper is--I believe--what makes the story so good. This is not to excuse slopping reading. Nor to excuse the leap the reviewer apparently makes (I haven't read the review). Perhaps this is a reviewer--as Ellen you suggest--not familiar enough with the genre to review the story properly, but I'd suggest that the real problem is not reading the story well, because the story is one of those stories I would proudly give to someone who doesn't read genre, but who is a serious reader.

And now a question: I once attended a panel with several big name genre editors, and one of the editors explained that for their original anthology to be published by the big house they worked for they had to use publisher-generated checklists when choosing authors. The lists were described like this: your antho must include one author from these two huge names, three authors from these ten big names, and five authors from these fifteen mid-list names. After that, the editor said, they had maybe six slots they could fill with whomever they pleased. Are those sorts of requirements common, or did I just attend a panel starring the unluckiest editor in the world?

[ellen-datlow.livejournal.com]

I've been lucky enough to have sold most of my anthologies without having to make such promises, although I am currently working on one anthology for which I had to extract promises from about three big names.

The thing is, there are very few sf/f/h writers whose names on anthologies will sell those anthologies. Maybe: Stephen King, Laurell Hamilton, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card, George R. R. Martin. To get BIG money you might have to guarantee certain names. For a decent advance, no.

[pm-again.livejournal.com]

It would be abominable in a Years Best volume for an editor/publisher to mandate certain authors.

But we all have our favorites :)