?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A Rocket For The Editor, Part Two

For all those who have been waiting for the t'other shoe to drop... I talked about some worthy choices for the Hugo for Best Professional Editor (Long Form) down below, so it behooves me to say a few words about Best Professional Editor (Short Form) as well.

This is the second category that was created when "Best Editor" was split in 2007, but in some ways it feels more like a continuation of the older category. Magazine editors almost always won Best Editor before the split, and of course magazine editors have dominated the new Short Form category as well... though not to the same extent. Anthologists, who were always eligible even before the split but almost never won, have been holding their own in recent years, mostly in the person of the redoubtable Ellen Datlow. Datlow has won Short Form three times since the split. Sheila Williams of ASIMOV'S has won twice, Gordon Van Gelder of THE MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION has won twice, and Stanley Schmidt of ANALOG has won once... in his final year of eligibility, after his retirement was announced.

The "usual suspects" syndrome is strong in this category. Since the division, a whole new phalanx of bridesmaids has come forth. Jonathan Strahan, Neil Clarke, and John Joseph Adams have all been nominated multiple times, but none of them has ever taken home a rocket. Unlike Long Form, which has become a de facto lifetime achievement award thanks in large part to the example set by David G. Hartwell, none of the Short Form winners have ever retired themselves from the competition. Of course, some have been retired by, well, retirement... Stan Schmidt and Gordon Van Gelder, for instance, no longer edit ANALOG and F&SF, respectively, and are no longer eligible.

Last year, this was another category completely dominated by the Puppies. All five of the finalists were first-time nominees... which was good. But all five were from the slates, which was not so good. Four of the five were nonetheless legitimate nominees worthy of serious consideration: anthologists Jennifer Brozek and Bryan Thomas Schmidt, Edmund R. Schubert of ORSON SCOTT CARD'S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, and Mike Resnick of GALAXY'S EDGE. (Schubert subsequently withdrew his name from consideration, which was commendable, but he did it too late to be replaced on the ballot).

Conspicuous by their absence from the ballot were a number of past winners and runners-up, including Datlow, Strahan, Adams, Clarke, Williams, Anne Vandermeer, Gardner Dozois, and others, all of them pushed off the ballot by the Puppies. Which made the final ballot a bit of a joke. You're going to give a Best Editor, Short Form award, but you're going to exclude the most prominent and distinguished short fiction editors in the field? Sure. That's like starting the NFL Playoffs by excluding the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks on the grounds that they've won too much lately. Hey, maybe those teams get eliminated along the way... as they did this year... but you have to at least let them in the tournament. To be the champ, you need to beat the champ... and in our field, the champion short fiction editors are folks named Datlow, Williams, Dozois, etc.

All that being said... the slates, by whatever means, did throw up some legitimate Hugo-worthy nominees in this category last year, though not as many as in Long Form. One of those stood well above the others, IMNSHO. The Hugo really should have gone to MIKE RESNICK. Resnick has a long and distinguished career as an anthologist, one stretching back decades, and while he has plenty of rockets on his mantle at home, and even more crashed upside down rockets on the shirts he wears at worldcon, he had never been recognized for his work as an editor before. In addition, Resnick had founded a new SF magazine, GALAXY'S EDGE; in an age when the older magazines are struggling just to keep going, starting up a new one is a bold act (maybe a little insane) that deserves applause. But even more than that, Resnick has been a mentor to generations of new young writers, featuring them in his anthologies and now his magazine, advising them, nurturing them, teaching them, even collaborating with them. His "writer babies," I have heard them called. In a way, Resnick is a one-man Clarion. Finding and nurturing new talent is one of an editor's most important tasks, and Resnick has been doing it, and doing it well, for decades. He got my Hugo vote.

He got a lot of other Hugo votes as well. But not enough to win. As with Long Form, this category went to No Award. The work that the Sad and Rabid Puppies began to wreck this Hugo category was completed by Steve Davidson of AMAZING, Deirdre Saoirse Moen, and the rest of the Nuclear Fans. Resnick was never part of the slates, fwiw. He took no part in the Puppy Wars on either side, preferring to stay above the fray. And he did deserve a Hugo. But guilt by association prevailed, and he was voted down with the rest. A real pity.

((FWIW, at my Hugo Losers Party at Sasquan, I presented an Alfie Award to John Joseph Adams, who had the highest number of nominations of all those pushed off the ballot by the Puppies. And some other folks, whose identity has yet to be revealed, later sent Mike Resnick something called a 'Jovian Award,' for having the most votes of those who lost to No Award. Both Adams and Resnick were robbed last year; the former by the Pups, the latter by the Nukes.))

Which brings us to this year. When I hope we do not make the same mistakes. Let us hope that we won't need more Alfies or Jovians. Let's give a Hugo to the best short fiction editor in our field.

There's certainly no lack of worthy candidates. Starting with the magazine editors. SHEILA WILLIAMS is still at ASIMOV'S. At ANALOG we have a new editor, Stan Schmidt's successor, TREVOR QUACHRI. There's no new editor at F&SF as well: CHARLES COLEMAN FINLAY. Beyond the Big Three, we have the newer magazines and their editors: NEIL CLARKE of CLARKESWORLD, EDMUND SCHUBERT of ORSON SCOTT CARD'S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, WILLIAM SCHAFER of SUBTERREANEAN, and, yes, MIKE RESNICK of GALAXY'S EDGE.

Oh, and we must not forget the e-magazines. Especially not TOR.COM, which has become one of our field's most important venues for short fiction. Tor.com has a legion of editors, though, so it's a little harder to determine which one should be nominated.. if indeed you think the stories they've published are Hugo calibre. (Maybe someone from Tor will come and tell us?)

And then there are the anthologists. JOHN JOSEPH ADAMS, last year's Alfie winner, stands at the forefront of that group, together with ELLEN DATLOW, GARDNER DOZOIS, and JONATHAN STRAHAN. But, hey, there are lot of good anthologies published every year, so plenty of other editors are eligible. It is hard to know who to nominate in Long Form, as we've discussed, hard to know who edited what. It is easy in Short Form. What was your favorite magazine? What was the best anthology you read last year? The name of the editor is right there.

Oh... and it would disingenuous of me not to mention that I am eligible for nomination myself in this category, on the basis of OLD VENUS, the original anthology I co-edited with Gardner. Now, I'm very proud of OLD VENUS, and I think there are a number of wonderful stories therein worthy of Hugo recognition that I hope you'll remember when time comes... but I don't really regard myself as a serious contender in Short Form. Maybe some other year, when I've had several anthologies published... but there was no new Wild Cards book in 2015, so OLD VENUS was my only qualifying work, and I only did half of that. If you really really loved OLD VENUS and think it was worthy of Hugo recognition, well, nominate the stories, and nominate Gardner Dozois... he deserves just as much credit for the book as I do, and he did lots of OTHER editing besides, including his mammoth and long-running BEST OF THE YEAR anthology, the assembly of which is a task that would make lesser men weep.

Gardner Dozois will certainly be on my ballot. So will Mike Resnick, and... some others.

If you agree, you should nominate them as well. If not, nominate someone else.

But nominate.

Comments

catsittingstill
Feb. 10th, 2016 02:10 pm (UTC)
I realize I am not as important or as noticeable as Mr. Davidson and Ms. Moen (I assume misspelling her name was an accident--but one it would be gracious to correct, whatever disagreements you might have with those of us who advocated No Award.) But I was also a strong voice for No Award from the beginning.

I am not upset; it is perfectly understandable that nobody remembers me, because I was one voice among many many people–here alone and also elsewhere–who realized early that slates poison the nomination process to the point they cannot be tolerated. Nobody could possibly list all of us, and I don’t expect you or anyone else to try.

But that being said, singling a couple of us out for disproportionate credit or blame was ill-done. And while you are free to disagree with all of us about the wisdom of rewarding behavior you don’t want repeated, I think you are playing right into Theodore Beale’s hands by trying to take some supposedly higher “middle ground.”

However I am grateful to you; your post reminds me of last year’s resolution that behavior we reward is behavior we get more of. It doesn’t matter during nomination time, but when voting time comes around “don’t reward the Puppies” will be one of my considerations.

Also if I decide someone would have had a nomination anyway and also that their work is worthy, and vote them above No Award, I won’t be angry or bitter if the Hugo Voters in general overrule me and No Award them; I will remember that they too, are trying to refrain from rewarding bad behavior as best they can.
grrm
Feb. 10th, 2016 08:02 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the spelling correction. I will go back and fix that.

Obviously, there were hundreds of No Award advocates, not just two. Sorry I did remember you to give you your share of the credit and/or blame (as the case may be)... but, ah, to tell the truth, I am still not sure who I am talking to. 'Catsittingstill' means nothing to me. The two voices I mentioned were the two most loudly advocating the Nuclear Option.

"Not rewarding bad behavior" is something that most people would agree on... when there has actually been bad behavior. I did not see any evidence that Mike Resnick engaged in any bad behavior, however. No more than Sheila Gilbert, Anne Sowards, and many others. They look to me like innocent victims here.

"Don't reward the Puppies" will be one of your considerations, you say... but that requires a determination of who actually IS a Puppy. "Don't reward the Puppies, people the Puppies like, neutrals standing on the sidelines, and anyone who remained silent on the controversy" is a far different proposition.

I applaud the courage and conviction of people like Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet and Edmund Schubert who refused their nominations... but I don't think we have the right to DEMAND that people do so. "I don't want to get involved in this crap" is also a legitimate stance, I think... especially for people who may not be a big part of the fan community and had no idea what was going on until it was way too late. Believe me, back in April when all this blew up, I gave long and serious thought as to whether I should get involved myself. In the end I did, but if other writers and editors decided they would rather remain above the fray, I understand that choice, and am certainly not going to punish them for their decision.

It seems to me that YOU are the one playing into VD's hands, not me. You are giving him veto power over your vote, letting him dictate who you will NOT vote for, irregardless of how worthy they may be. He has already thrown up Andy Weir as a Campbell nominee this year, does that mean you're crossing him off? What if VD pups Naomi Novik and Kim Stanley Robinson and Gene Wolfe on his slate this year, will you cross them off your ballot?
catsittingstill
Feb. 10th, 2016 08:58 pm (UTC)
You are quite welcome for the note about the misspelling. I figured it was an honest accident, since you are not usually prone to name-calling. Unlike the Puppy leaders.

As I said I don't expect anyone to remember me, because I was one voice among dozens, or hundreds. The No Award result was not coordinated by two or even a handful of people. It was the outraged shout of hundreds of fans angered by cheating.

It is perfectly okay that you don't know me; I didn't expect you to. (Though if you are trying to imply that the use of a persistent pseudonym is in some way lacking in integrity or courage, I'll just say that I have been Cat Sittingstill on the internet for quite some time, in a number of places, but don't reveal my real name because blameless women on the internet are sometimes are targeted for the sort of real world abuse I don't have the resources to defend against.)

At any rate, my point was that you are blaming two people for the spontaneous and uncoordinated (and in my opinion fully justified) outrage of thousands of fans.

The 3,500 people who voted No Award did not need coaching, beyond the handful of first-time voters discovering that No Award existed and how it worked, which was (and quite rightly so) the sort of thing they could learn by querying more experienced voters or the patient Hugo Administrators who went out of their way to explain, over and over, how Australian Rules voting works and how to use No Award, should a voter choose that option.

Regarding "don't reward the Puppies," the question is not who is a Puppy but what was going to constitute a reward.

Giving Resnick a Hugo would have been treating slate-born nominations as if they had been honestly made. That struck me as rewarding bad behavior. Not on Resnick's part (as long as he didn't agree to be on the slate, which I don't recall hearing about either way, but which but I'm willing to assume for the sake of charity.) It would be rewarding the Puppies' bad behavior in slate nominating.

It is a shame that a personal friend of yours got caught up in this, of course. The neutrals, meaning the handful of people who were slated without their knowledge, have my sympathy, and I will be happy to consider nominating any excellent work they may have done this year, though I expect that will be useless since the Puppies will be slating again, and thus the honest favorites of the nonPuppy fans won't have much chance. But for what it is worth.

I'm not demanding anything of anyone except to stop slating. But yes, I think it is better that no Hugos be given out than that the Hugo become a Puppy door prize, to be handed at the Puppies' pleasure to the friends and mentors of whoever is giving the Puppies their marching orders this year. The award is supposed to be for "best work of SFF" not "best friend of Brad Torgersen."

I am sure this is a bit of a disappointment to people who created something excellent in the field this year and that is a pity, but most of those people were deprived by Pups rather than Hugo voters. Five of them, by my count, were deprived of that opportunity by John C. Wright alone.

As for those handful of worthy people who lost out to No Award, it wasn't me who took the chance of an honest Hugo away from them--a "Hugo" that the Puppies hand you not because of your excellence but because of who your friends are, or your politics, or to show they are in charge, isn't much to be proud of.

Furthermore this year I can see perfectly well that the Puppy strategy has shifted. Now they are nominating some people who would have gotten nominations anyway, so they can claim to be nominating on the basis of quality. Okay, sure, if in my opinion someone would have gotten a nomination anyway I'll treat them as a non-slate nomination.

But one thing I won't do is turn on my fellow non-Puppies--disparate crowd that we are--for using a different coping method than the one I am using. We are all doing our best to follow our honor.

[edited to remove a double word; sorry about that]

Edited at 2016-02-10 09:01 pm (UTC)
grrm
Feb. 10th, 2016 09:44 pm (UTC)
I think we have a fundamental difference here.

You don't like the slates. I don't like the slates.

But "slating" seems to be your main grievance, while for me it was secondary. For me the larger problem was that the Puppies filled the ballot with a lot of mediocre work and crap. I want the rocket to reward great work and significant contributions to the field.

What happened last year is history, alas, and I don't think we gain by rehashing it endlessly. The important thing is how we behave going forward. That is the point of these Hugo posts of mine -- to try to draw attention to all the great work that was done in 2015, and the people who did it.

Adopting the stance that "if a work is on a slate, it will not get my vote" gives the slate-makers a control over my own vote that I am not willing to cede them. Looking ahead, for instance, I see that Gene Wolfe has a new novel out this year. I have not read it yet, but I certainly intend to... Gene Wolfe is one of the greatest talents ever to work within our genre, a giant in the field, a Nebula and World Fantasy Award winner who has never won a Hugo. If he has written a great novel, then I will nominate it (if I don't like it, I won't, which should goes without saying)... regardless of who else likes it. What will I do if I love the book and VD puts it on his slate? I will follow my own judgment, nominate the book if I love it, refrain if I don't. I will certainly not leave it off because it is on a slate... nor will I expect Gene to come forward to make a statement on this controversy (I think it highly unlikely that he will say anything, one way or the other, if he is even aware of these issues).

I don't mean to single out Gene Wolfe alone here. The same issue could arise with Kim Stanley Robinson, Naomi Novik, Neal Stephenson, and any number of other leading Hugo contenders.

You are using "would have gotten a nomination anyway" as the basis for decision here, but that's impossible to know. Looking at last year's ballot, and the nomination totals, it seems clear to me that while many nominees were put there by the slates alone, there were others that "might" have gotten a nomination anyway... especially (thought not exclusively) in the editor categories. Sheila Gilbert and Toni Weisskopf in Long Form, for sure, and Mike Resnick in Short Form being the most obvious examples to my eyes. And certainly in both of the Dramatic Presentation categories, most all of the nominees could have gotten their nominations anyway; it is the rare producer or studio in Hollywood who knows what the Hugo Awards are, let alone the Sad Puppies.

Edited at 2016-02-10 09:47 pm (UTC)
catsittingstill
Feb. 11th, 2016 02:26 pm (UTC)
I agree that we have a fundamental difference, and I think I understand what it is. Here is my best guess in a nutshell:

You want the Hugo process to reward great SFF. Honest and fair would be nice, but is secondary. So as long as the Puppies can reward great SFF, handing the award to their personal friends and mentors is acceptable.

I want the Hugo process to be honest and fair. Rewarding great SFF would be nice, but is secondary.

I think an honest and fair Hugo process is also more likely to choose great SFF to honor, but I admit this is something of an article of faith on my part.

I agree that Theodore Beale is now attempting to pin fans in a "vote against work that would have gotten a nomination anyway and that you love, or admit that I am your Leader" fork and I don't intend to be suckered in. While I agree that there is no way to absolutely know "would have gotten nominated anyway" until the nomination figures are released, you and I both know that nominations and number of people saying "gosh I loved this book" are reasonably well correlated, and a nomination is rarely a big surprise. There is at least one website about this (Chaos Horizon.)

And the problem with the Editor categories is that it borders on impossible for even an assiduous reader of SFF to know who did good work last year, or over a lifetime if you prefer that metric. I don't want to hurt your feelings here because I know you mean well, but if I just take your word for it, I don't see that as substantially different from Beale's minions nominating as he directs. You are at least supporting your honest favorites, but the drawback of eliminating the wisdom of crowds is still fully present. I'm supposed to nominate *my* favorites based on *my* knowledge, and I'll do that or not nominate at all. And the same goes for voting--No Award at least treats all nominees equally, and in a year when 500 people have all been told who to put at the top of their ballot, there is much to be said for that.

Last year I No Awarded everything on a slate. If that makes me a Nuclear fan, color me blue and glowing. This year I may--may--follow a different path. Call me a Mutant fan.
grrm
Feb. 11th, 2016 10:43 pm (UTC)
Yes, you are supposed to nominate your own favorites based on your own knowledge... but there is nothing wrong with increasing that knowledge. That is the whole purpose of recommendation lists, which I maintain are fundamentally different from slates. I have been making Hugo recommendations for years, long before the Puppies. I am not trying to say, "hey, vote for these people / books." I am trying to say, "here's some people who have done good work/ here is a book I loved/ take a look."

Take, for example, the two British editors I've recommended, Malcolm Edwards and Jane Johnson. Major major editors. But in the entire history of the award, only American editors have been nominated. Some voters may not even know British editors are eligible. My post may have corrected that misapprehension. Perhaps it made someone think, "Oh, Gollancz, I buy lots of Gollancz SF, Orion too, but I never knew who edited those. Now I do."

As a reader, and a voter, I appreciate recommendations. The LOCUS list never fails to bring to my attention some excellent work that I might otherwise have overlooked. No one expects you to take my word, or anyone's word... but making your own judgments does not require your living in an isolation booth and cutting yourself off from the thoughts, opinions, and recommendations of other fans. Hell, talking about books and stories is part of the fun. It does not make the Hugo process any less "honest and fair."

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy between honesty and excellence. There is no reason we need to choose between the two. But I have to admit, it boggles me to hear you say that the quality of the work is "secondary" to you. The prestige of the Hugo award rests on the excellence of the past winners. To become a Hugo winner is to be part of the same exalted company as Heinlein, Zelazny, Bester, Ellison, Willis, Le Guin, Silverberg, and so many other greats... the true SF hall of fame. If instead the Hugo list was composed of mediocrities, no one would give a damn about the award, regardless of how "fair" it had been over the years.

As for which editors did good work last year... well, I am trying to fill in some of those blanks by asking editors for lists of the books they worked on in 2015. And some are replying. Will all of them respond? No... but then, when you nominate for Novel, do you have to read every novel published in the previous year? If you read one novel that you love, nominate it... even if you have not read all the others. And if you see one editor whose work you think is Hugo worthy... nominate her, even if you don't know all the rest.
catsittingstill
Feb. 12th, 2016 04:10 pm (UTC)
Sure a recommendation is fine. I'm just pointing out that I can't just take one person's word for it or I'm acting like a Puppy.

You write: I think you are setting up a false dichotomy between honesty and excellence. There is no reason we need to choose between the two.

In a sense you are right.

The Puppies converged on a set of acceptable second bests to increase their political power over the nomination process. This produced a slate of nominees with little to offer in the way of excellence either. This is because a process that is first and foremost dishonest has no natural incentive to produce excellence.

I believe, as I said above, that a process that is first and foremost honest will also result in higher quality nominations. But for that to happen the process must be honest first.

You say it boggles you to hear me say the quality of the work is secondary to me. If it helps, I mean that I accept that many of the nominees will not be to my personal taste.

And I must admit it boggles me to hear you talk as if the honesty of the nomination process is secondary to you.

Try a thought experiment: if you personally chose the Hugo finalists and let the rest of us decide which of your top five was the best, would that lead to greater excellence than an honest Hugo season? Or do you think it would be better to let the other nominators have a say?

When I say excellence is secondary, I'm saying we should accept the risk of a [fill in popular work you consider un-excellent] to have a chance at a [fill in excellent work you overlooked until it was nominated by others].

You seem to think the way to get excellence is to concentrate on whatever remnants of excellence the slate has condescended to leave you on the Hugo Ballot. Last year I tried to get excellence by concentrating on honesty and only voting for honest nominees. As I recall you ended up pretty happy with how that worked out.

This year I had been thinking about assuming any slate nominees with a bunch of buzz behind them deserved to be treated as real nominees. But the more I think about it the more I wonder if that would be the right decision. Because you are quite right; I can't really be sure they could have made it on their own.

And an honest nomination process is the most reliable way to excellence, even if it is painful in the short term.
grrm
Feb. 12th, 2016 07:36 pm (UTC)
I think I can safely say that we both want honesty and we both want excellence. We differ, however, in how we define those terms and how much importance we attach to each.

The Puppies gamed the awards last year, and caused major and (I fear) lasting damage. No one disputes that... well, except the Puppies. Nonetheless, there was still some Hugo-worthy work on the ballot. You can say these were "remnants of excellence" that the slate "condescended" to leave on the ballot... but my belief is that the quality of the work should speak for itself.

Take, for instance, editor Sheila Gilbert of DAW. In my opinion, and those of many other fans and pros, she is an excellent editor whose long and distinguished career in the field makes her worthy of a Hugo. She was a nominee in 2013 and 2014, without the benefit of slates, losing to PNH one year and Ginjer Buchanan the next. But she finished well ahead of No Award both years, and ahead of some of the other nominees. I don't think anyone can question that she was an "honest" nominee, by your terms, and also an "excellent" one, by name.

Then, last year, the Puppies add her to their slates. Without her knowledge, permission, or consent, so far as I know. It seems clear to me that she would have been on the ballot anyway; the fans who nominated her the two prior years were likely to nominate her again, and so they did. Did that make her less excellent? Less honest?

I put people like Gilbert in the same category as GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and all the other nominees in the Drama categories, both long and short; these were people and works who were seized on by the slates, but would have been nominated anyway; people who may have had no inkling about any aspect of the kerfuffle until it was too late. And I don't believe in punishing such people.
catsittingstill
Feb. 13th, 2016 01:41 pm (UTC)
I have no doubt that Sheila Gilbert is personally honest and an excellent editor and would be a worthy Hugo winner.

That is not what I mean by "honest nominee" however. An honest nominee is someone who was nominated by an honest process. Someone who is on the ballot because a number of people consulted their individual tastes and nominated their honest favorites.

And as you point out above, how can we know who would have been nominated under those circumstances? Some people are nominated one year and not nominated the next--it happens.

If we can know, then my proposed method for this year--No Award everything that only made the ballot because of a slate, but consider slate candidates that would have made the ballot honestly the same as the non-slate candidates--is perfectly viable. If we can't know, then No Award everything that was on a slate is the next logical step for anyone who, like me, is not willing to bend the knee to to the Puppies.

It is unfair to characterize resistance to a dishonest process, whatever form that takes, as "punishing" particular people who were caught up in it without their knowledge. It is not a punishment to not receive a Hugo. If being nominated is an honor, they've been honored. If being nominated is not an honor when it happens due to a slate, then we both accept that the nomination doesn't mean anything, and thus I maintain it doesn't need to be treated as if it did.
grrm
Feb. 13th, 2016 07:07 pm (UTC)
You can argue that such exclusions are not punishment -- but it sure feels like punishment to those affected. Some of whom I know. Real human beings are involved here, and these things can be hurtful.

Mind you, punishment is appropriate when someone does something wrong.

But I don't believe in punishing the innocent as well as the guilty. And I do believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty. Or in this case honest until proven dishonest.

I think there is a vast difference between those who were active and knowing participants in the slates, and those who were simply going about their business and doing their jobs until they found themselves caught up in all this, often without their knowledge and consent.

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner