2017 Asimov’s Readers Awards Finalists

The top five choices for Asimov’s 31st Annual Readers’ Award Poll are online. There are links that will allow you to read all the finalists.

The winners will be revealed in May.

NOVELLAS

NOVELETTES

SHORT STORIES

POETRY

COVERS

[Via SF Site News.]

71 thoughts on “2017 Asimov’s Readers Awards Finalists

  1. I haven’t read any of these stories yet, but will have to try to get to them before the Hugo deadline.

    Of the covers, I prefer the February by Alejandro Colucci and the August by Maurizio Manzieri — although I liked the June by Dominic Harman a lot, but it’s not a finalist.

  2. Congratulations to the finalists.

    I didn’t have much success with my votes though. I particular miss seeing The Visitor from Taured by Ian R. MacLeod in the list.

    If you’re only going to pull out one of these to read, I’d recommend Ten Poems for the Mossums, One for the Man by Suzanne Palmer. In many ways it’s a standard style of story for Asimovs – a man is alone on an alien planet with mysterious flora and fauna, and he has to problem-solve his way through the situation – except that he is a poet who has volunteered for the station in the hopes of getting his creativity flowing again.

    As a twofer, you can also read Lazy Dog Out, again by Suzanne Palmer, which is a much more fast-paced and exciting story about shenanigans on a space station.

    I’d also suggest White Dust by Nathan Hillstrom, which is about a rather nasty way to explore in the depths of space. (The author is eligible for the Campbell if you’re looking for possibilities in that category)

  3. I only read the January and December issues. Both “Where There Is Nothing, There Is God” and “Einstein’s Shadow” were fine but neither scream “Award Winner!” to me. I think I might give the edge to “God” just for its goofiness.

    “They Have All One Breath” was surprisingly not nominated for a Nebula – maybe it’ll get a Hugo nod at least. I can’t speak to the other four but that one’s award-caliber in the abstract, at least.

    I didn’t really like “White Dust” myself – it felt like it was trying to be a high-caliber story (serious intent) but didn’t pull it off. I actually preferred Ted Kosmatka’s “Chasing Ivory” from that issue but that’s not even on the Poll list and I will grant that it’s a relatively modest little thing – I just thought it was very successful. Gave me a “wow!” chill in a spot.

    As far as covers, I liked the January. 🙂

  4. Cross-referencing with the Locus Recommended Reading List, there’s only one on both:

    “The Mutants Men Don’t See”, James Alan Gardner

    For those who have read it, what are your thoughts?

  5. I really disliked “Where There Is Nothing, There Is God”. It seemed to be unfunny black humour, an unpleasant read.

  6. Correction: We did recommend one short story:

    White Dust, by Nathan Hillstrom

    I should know better than to do this kind of thing by hand.

    Only four of the 15 Asimov’s Readers Award finalists turned up in any of the big 4 SFF anthologies:

    They Have All One Breath, by Karl Bunker
    Ten Poems for the Mossums, One for the Man, by Suzanne Palmer
    Lazy Dog Out by Suzanne Palmer
    All That Robot… by Rich Larson

    (Eric generated this list, so I’m sure it’s right.) 🙂

  7. @Laura

    “The Mutants Men Don’t See” didn’t get scribbled on my longlist, but a quick scan reminds me that it was fun if perhaps a bit slight. Teens acquiring superpowers.

    @Jason

    I don’t think White Dust was top class, but an interesting idea and good work for a fairly new writer IMO.

    @StephenfromOttawa

    Didn’t really appeal to me either. It’s in a series that I hadn’t read anything else in, so that may have been a factor.

  8. Laura & Greg: that regarding the Locus recs/year’s bests vs. the reader’s poll is fascinating to me. There really does seem to be an ever-widening disconnect between readers and… I don’t know how to put it – the “big pro” critics or something.

    On the lists, RSR and FF 🙂 at least partially agree on the Nelson and the Bunker but I’m missing the boat on the Hillstrom. Mark: on “White Dust,” I agree with all that. It seemed muddled to me but it doesn’t mean I don’t think the author could do something special.

    StephenfromOttawa: I understand that reaction. I enjoyed some of the humor and some of the darkness but, even so, I didn’t find it an always successful mix and I could certainly see it repelling some folks. No Asimov’s novella was nominated for the Nebula and it would mildly surprise me if any got a Hugo nod.

  9. Jason: No Asimov’s novella was nominated for the Nebula and it would mildly surprise me if any got a Hugo nod.

    It’s not as if the Nebulas traditionally ignore Asimov’s stories; last year 1 novella and 3 novelettes from that venue made the final Nebula ballot.

    But certainly this year I would say that any venue which published novellas last year will be facing a real battle with Tor.com’s Novella line, which published a significant number of what I would consider to range from excellent to very good entries last year.

  10. Thanks to all for the thoughts on “The Mutants Men Don’t See.”

    @Greg
    Thanks to you and Eric for the list of which ones made the anthologies.

    @Jason
    Yup, fascinates me too. I suppose it’s not that surprising that those who are always reading with a critical/editorial eye and those who are reading more for pleasure would have different top choices.

  11. @Jason

    There really does seem to be an ever-widening disconnect between readers and… I don’t know how to put it – the “big pro” critics or something.

    Actually it’s about as much as the critics agree with one another. 30% to 40% is what I got when I analyzed it last year. (Using the Sørensen–Dice coefficient.)

    So don’t be so sure there’s a big disconnect. There are just different ways to define quality.

    For example, at RSR, I try to evaluate stories strictly based on how good they are in isolation. (I was inspired by the Puppy’s claim to want “good stories, well told.”) So I explicitly don’t reward stories for originality or diversity, and I never compare one story with another except for classical ones. E.g. “this is like Asimov’s Nightfall.”) I avoid saying things like “Joe Blow has done better than this in the past” (i.e. using different rules for different authors), and I try hard not to tell the author how he/she should have written the story.

    Other reviewers put a great deal of weight on novelty. One reviewer told me that he valued novelty above plot. (Some editors clearly do this too.) But most readers haven’t read nearly as much stuff, so what seems like a tired old idea to a reviewer may seem fine to the average reader.

    Less controversially, I prioritize strong plot above strong characters, and emotional charge is icing on the cake. Others seem to value the emotional impact so much they’ll even excuse bad writing for it. Readers might go either way on that.

    So it’s not a surprise to see relatively low overlap between different reviewers and different lists. That’s what we think that a story that was recommended by many different sources is likely to be super strong.

  12. Pingback: AMAZING NEWS FROM FANDOM: 3-5-2017 - Amazing Stories

  13. Greg: Actually it’s about as much as the critics agree with one another. 30% to 40% is what I got when I analyzed it last year. (Using the Sørensen–Dice coefficient.)

    But isn’t an overlap of one item on lists of 15 and 124 about one and a half percent? Even if we just consider the nine Asimov’s choices on the Locus list, it’s still about 9%.

    So don’t be so sure there’s a big disconnect. There are just different ways to define quality.

    I agree with that. I started to detail some of my own criteria but couldn’t be as concise as you so decided to spare everyone a multi-page essay. 🙂 I still think there’s something that goes beyond “variety is the spice” and on to “disconnect,” though. I was talking there about your and Laura’s points about the editors/critics vs. the readers but there’s also an extreme disconnect if you look at the SFWA-portion of writers vs. the general year’s best editors. I got curious and looked it up and it turns out that, of the nineteen Nebula nominees from 2016, Dozois’ 39 annual picks include none of them (interestingly, this looks to be the best Dozois annual in years); Clarke’s 27 and Horton’s 30 include one, and Strahan’s 28 include two. (Bizarre note: Guran, whose remit is supposed to be novellas and dark fantasy/horror picked four. Still not much connection but doubling Strahan.)

    I looked up a couple of random samples for comparison. In 1985 Dozois’ 24 annual picks included thirteen of the 21 Nebula nominees and his list of honorable mentions (admittedly over a hundred) named seven of the remaining eight. In 1977 Carr’s nine picks included four of the twelve nominees and his sixteen honorable mentions added three of the remaining eight.

    Anyway – so my point here is that Carr/Dozois and the Nebulas used to have significant overlap and now Clarke/Dozois and the Nebulas have no or almost no overlap. I feel like this goes beyond a healthy variety of taste and into either a complete disintegration of the field or readers, author-nominators, and/or editors failing to recognize the good for the good’s sake. Or both.

  14. Jason: my point here is that Carr/Dozois and the Nebulas used to have significant overlap and now Clarke/Dozois and the Nebulas have no or almost no overlap. I feel like this goes beyond a healthy variety of taste and into either a complete disintegration of the field or readers, author-nominators, and/or editors failing to recognize the good for the good’s sake. Or both.

    I think that you’re making it more complicated than it actually is, and I don’t think that there’s any evidence that the field is “disintegrating”.

    The Nebulas are SFWA’s award. Only SFWA members get to nominate and vote on them. There are around 1,900 members of SFWA. I am guessing that maybe 500 of them nominate. It is hardly surprising that a self-selecting group of 500 individuals would have differing tastes from 1 editor.

    Notice, also, the difference between the 1985 Dozois and the 2016 Dozois:

    Dozois, 1985
    Asimov’s – 8
    Fantasy & Science Fiction – 6
    Omni – 5
    Amazing Stories – 2
    Analog – 1
    Playboy – 1
    Anthologies – 1

    Dozois, 2016
    Asimov’s – 6
    Clarkesworld – 6
    Fantasy & Science Fiction – 4
    Lightspeed – 4
    Tor.com – 3
    Analog – 2
    Beneath Ceaseless Skies – 1
    Interzone – 1
    NewCon Press – 1
    Slate – 1
    Anthologies – 9 (in 5 anthologies)
    Collections – 1

    The difference is that there are vastly more SFF short fiction venues to read from now than there were then (and Dozois has only included stories from some of them) — and there has been something of an Anthology renaissance in recent years, as well (ISFDB shows 123 anthologies in English in 1985, and around 650 anthologies in English in 2016).

    That there should be a divergence in taste amongst small groups of readers, authors, and editors is hardly surprising; there is such a wealth of short fiction from which to choose.

    I think that you’re trying to find meaning in the tea leaves that just isn’t there.

  15. Perhaps so. But I’m not sure the increase in venues is a sufficient explanation. It seemed there was far more consensus in the 50s which was also a period of multiplying markets. And you don’t find it strange that a major editor shares absolutely none of the taste of those 500 authors? Especially when there used to be almost 60% overlap with that same editor and a comparable group of authors? That all the various editors combined hardly overlap with those authors and neither overlap with, e.g., the Asimov’s readers? I’m not expecting or desiring even close to a total overlap, hardly even a majority, but these groups are practically not even in the same genres. And what will happen in the future? I’m wary of canons (which the recently mentioned James Gunn addresses in the Jan/Feb Analog) but “the classics” do provide us with a common language and those stories are long-lived. One of the things that made SF different from “mainstream” fiction is that, relatively, while we always looked to the future, we preserved the past. Of the stories being produced today, each strongly appealing to, say, 2% of the total readership, what’s going to last, what’s going to form the common language, what’s going to bring in future generations of avid readers? One of the things that brought me into SF and resulted in the filling of many shelves, aside from the Good Doctor’s own writings, was the set of Hugo anthologies and the annuals. The annuals seem to be doing well but, since 1997, they couldn’t even sell enough of the Hugo anthologies to keep making them. I don’t know how the Nebula anthologies keep getting printed but I don’t think it’s because they sell a lot or are widely read. And I don’t think this is good.

    But, again, maybe you’re right and these numbers are fluky or don’t mean anything even if they’re substantial or maybe it’s a good thing even if they do mean something. I don’t believe there’s an absolute objectivity in literature and I fully expect and embrace variance. I just like there to be enough common ground to stand on but see very little of it.

  16. Also the contributors to the Locus List and the various year’s best editors will be looking to make their own list unique from the others. Whereas, Asimov’s readers responding to the poll won’t be worried about that at all.

  17. @Jason

    Anyway – so my point here is that Carr/Dozois and the Nebulas used to have significant overlap and now Clarke/Dozois and the Nebulas have no or almost no overlap. I feel like this goes beyond a healthy variety of taste and into either a complete disintegration of the field or readers, author-nominators, and/or editors failing to recognize the good for the good’s sake. Or both.

    The Dice similarity of overlap of 1 given 15 vs 124 is just 1.4%, so, yeah, that’s very very low. Wow. I hadn’t realized it was that bad. I’d only computed it between different reviewers, where it tended to be between 25% and 40%. Your numbers from 1977 for Carr and 1985 for Dozois would imply similarities of 38% and 58%, respectively. (38% and 28% if you count honorable mentions).

    Yes, the greater number of venues has an effect. Another effect is that the anthologies rarely contain novellas. But even including all of that, this is a surprising result.

  18. I just took at look at Rocket Stack Rank’s Annotated 2016 Nebula Finalists list, and the situation looks a bit better from that perspective. There we track stories that got recommendations from the anthologists even if they didn’t end up in their anthologies. By that measure, all but three of the 15 stories in the Nebula Finalists lists got at least one recommendation. If you ignore RSR’s recommendations, all but 5 got recommendations.

    There are a number of reasons a story might not get into an anthology. Length, I already mentioned, but also there can be problems getting the rights to reprint a story. That’s still not enough to account for there being just a single overlapping story, I don’t think, but it makes it easier to argue that it was a fluke.

  19. Out of the ten novelette and short-story Nebula finalists, these five appear in at least one of the four anthologies.

    “Blood Grains Speak Through Memories” by Jason Sanford (Horton)
    “Sooner or Later Everything Falls Into the Sea” by Sarah Pinsker (Clarke)
    “You’ll Surely Drown Here If You Stay” by Alyssa Wong (Strahan)
    “Seasons of Glass and Iron” by Amal El-Mohtar (Strahan)
    “Things with Beards” by Sam J. Miller (all four)

    (I think you missed the last one.)

    So, ignoring the novellas, half of the nebula nominees appeared in at least one of the “best of the year” anthologies.

    Now take a look at the three Nebula finalists that no one recommended:

    “The Long Fall Up” by William Ledbetter
    “Our Talons Can Crush Galaxies” by Brooke Bolander
    “This is Not a Wardrobe Door” by A. Merc Rustad

    Do you seriously think that any of those three belongs in the Nebula finalist list? Or that any of them really corresponds to most people’s idea of “the year’s best?”

  20. @Greg

    Do you seriously think that any of those three belongs in the Nebula finalist list? Or that any of them really corresponds to most people’s idea of “the year’s best?”

    I haven’t read any of them yet so I can’t say what I personally think. However, of course they belong on the Nebula list since, for whatever reason, they are there. And it doesn’t matter if they are most people’s idea of year’s best — most people don’t get a say in SFWA’s award.

    —————————————————–

    Another thing I was thinking is the readers who are responding to Asimov’s poll will naturally be somewhat biased toward the more typical Asimov’s story. Whereas editors/pro-critics (besides Sheila Williams!) might favor things that Asimov’s wouldn’t usually publish. It is still surprising that there’s this little overlap, but I don’t find it worrisome.

  21. @Greg

    Forgot to say that I appreciate the number crunching. I do find it all fascinating.

  22. Laura: Another thing I was thinking is the readers who are responding to Asimov’s poll will naturally be somewhat biased toward the more typical Asimov’s story.

    The only stories the Asimov’s Readers’ Poll ranks and awards are stories which appeared in Asimov’s.

    Expecting a huge overlap of this Award with other awards and year’s best books would be silly — because all of those other awards/anthologies will be selecting works from a huge range of short fiction venues, and not just Asimov’s.

  23. Jason is trying to make the argument that the four big anthologies are out of touch with what readers like. Since Asimov’s is (arguably) the best SFF magazine today, you’d expect more than just four of the 15 readers-choice stories to appear across all four best-of-the-year anthologies. He then pointed out that the Nebula finalists also have a low overlap with the anthologies. Since the anthologies contain over 100 different stories, it’s not unreasonable to expect the the best stories from the best magazines should all (or mostly) be represented there.

    I think the mistake is in assuming that the reader’s-choice and the Nebula short lists do a better job of representing what readers actually like than the anthologies do. They’re going to represent the tastes of whoever actually voted on them, and that may not be a very large number and can be influenced by slates (intentional or not).

  24. @JJ

    The only stories the Asimov’s Readers’ Poll ranks and awards are stories which appeared in Asimov’s.

    Of course. I’m merely saying that this poll favors the more typical Asimov story, and the Asimov stories on the Locus List and the year’s best anthologies might tend to favor those that are somewhat less typical for it. As I said earlier, there was only one Asimov story in common between the Locus List and this poll. And Greg pointed out that only 4 here appeared in the year’s best anthologies.

  25. You can definitely detect a “typical Asimovs story” vibe from many of these selections, although I do think Sheila Williams does a good job of pushing at her readership’s boundaries.

  26. Ah, that’s what I was speculating…poll takers favoring stories that exemplify what they read Asimov’s for. The other lists possibly favoring stories that are pushing the boundaries for Asimov’s.

  27. @Greg Hullender

    Now take a look at the three Nebula finalists that no one recommended:

    “The Long Fall Up” by William Ledbetter
    “Our Talons Can Crush Galaxies” by Brooke Bolander
    “This is Not a Wardrobe Door” by A. Merc Rustad

    Do you seriously think that any of those three belongs in the Nebula finalist list? Or that any of them really corresponds to most people’s idea of “the year’s best?”

    Well, I for one liked “Our Talons Can Crush Galaxies” a whole lot and it’s on my Hugo longlist. I haven’t read the other two, but I have enjoyed other stories by A Merc Rustad. I’ve never even heard of William Ledbetter.

  28. @Cora

    Well, I for one liked “Our Talons Can Crush Galaxies” a whole lot and it’s on my Hugo longlist. I haven’t read the other two, but I have enjoyed other stories by A Merc Rustad. I’ve never even heard of William Ledbetter.

    Yes, “Our Talons” provokes a strong emotional response in a lot of people, which is doubtless why a number of people like it. But emotion is all it has going for it. Beyond that, it’s a self-indulgent revenge fantasy. No plot. No character development. The sort of thing you almost never see in print because experienced editors kill it in the slushpile. (In fairness, the typical Mary Sue story also has a host of other writing problems, which “Our Talons” does not have.)

    As for the other two, there’s nothing seriously wrong with them; there’s just nothing great about them. They look rather sad when compared to the stories that did earn recommendations.

  29. Greg: Jason is trying to make the argument that the four big anthologies are out of touch with what readers like. Since Asimov’s is (arguably) the best SFF magazine today, you’d expect more than just four of the 15 readers-choice stories to appear across all four best-of-the-year anthologies. He then pointed out that the Nebula finalists also have a low overlap with the anthologies. Since the anthologies contain over 100 different stories, it’s not unreasonable to expect the the best stories from the best magazines should all (or mostly) be represented there.

    Just a slight correction: I’m not so much arguing that the anthologies are out of touch with the readers as that the readers (exemplified here by the Asimov’s readers poll but you’d probably find similar things in any zine poll) and the editors (exemplified here by the big four annuals) and the writers (SFWA noms) are all out of touch with each other. (I haven’t read enough of the Asimov’s choices to say and probably not even enough the Nebula noms but my feeling is that the annuals actually represent what is “best” in this year’s short fiction – more than particular reader’s polls or the awards – but that’s just my own opinion and not really my point.) It’s not “who is right” or “who is in or out of touch” but just that there’s very little common ground.

    A key point I am making, that you get, is that I’m not talking about 100% overlap and I’m not denying that there are many reasons which would reduce the likelihood of overlap – especially that some of these are a little apples and oranges. I’m just saying that many of the metrics and comparisons we’re making produce 1-10% overlap (with at least one in the ballpark of 40-50%) and my only point is that, as you say, 1% is pretty shockingly low and that the 40-50% should be more the norm than the exceptional peak. I think that point should be pretty uncontroversial.

    Then there’s a second point which is more speculative, regarding its significance, if any. I do think it represents a widening gyre in the field where the center is not holding but I understand that’s kind of a shot in the dark and might be arguable. Maybe it is just some sort of meaningless anomaly. Still, it’s kind of like climate change. You can get two feet of snow locally while the global temperature rises. If someone did a historical breakdown and found the Carr 70s/Dozois 80s were pretty solidly in majority overlap and this millennium was generally not, I think that would be significant. But I don’t have the energy to do the comprehensive number crunching.

    Greg? 🙂

  30. It’s the data entry, not the number crunching, that makes it unappealing. You could figure it all out from ISFDB, but, short of automating the UI, it’d be tedious.

    Here are all the Dozois Anthologies: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?8258

    From each book, you can get the table of contents. You could do the same with other anthologies.

    And here are all the Nebula Awards (click on a year, not a category):

    http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/awardtype.cgi?31

    Likewise, you could do the same with the Hugo Awards, or any other award that you think represent readers views.

    But it would definitely be a chore, and we’d probably want to ask ISFDB’s permission before digging that much stuff out of their site. Might be a fun project during the summer, when volumes are low.

  31. Jason: I think that would be significant

    Significant of what? I still can’t make sense of what it is that you’re claiming this signifies — but it looks to me as though you’re claiming that, ideally, only a very small segment of SFF fiction should be universally regarded as “The Best”.

    To me it pretty clearly signifies that the SFF genre is much deeper and broader than it was 50 years ago. I think that’s a positive thing.

    If the choices are apples or oranges — and that’s it — all the fruit eaters are, for the most part, going to identify one or the other as their favorite (or just quit eating fruit entirely and concentrate on the variety of vegetables which are available).

    But now that peaches and plums and nectarines and grapes and pomegranates and passionfruit are all available too, it’s natural that each fruit claims a much smaller percentage of the fruit eaters who favor it. I don’t see why that is a problem. It means that now a lot of people aren’t being forced to quit fruit and go eat vegetables.

    Because of this expansion, I can find a lot more in what’s being published now that I truly enjoy than I could in the stuff which was considered “classic SF” when I was a child. I think that’s true for a lot more people, and I’d call that a “win”.

  32. Like JJ, I don’t see a problem with there being less overlap and agree that it’s actually a very positive thing. I’d rather see more differing opinions about what’s “best” as opposed to more consensus.

  33. @Greg Hullender

    Do you seriously think that any of those three belongs in the Nebula finalist list?

    Apparently they do in the opinion of a significant cross section of Nebula voters, which is all that counts. This is de gustibus territory. Neither your personal criteria, nor that of the anthologists, matters. I’m glad we have anthologies but using them as a basis for an argument from authority when the field had grown larger than any four anthologies can reasonably encompass seems absurd; as does trying to make a handful editors suddenly the arbiters of quality for the entire field.

    (Personally I didn’t like Talons but wouldn’t rate it lower than Blood Grains either. At least Talons didn’t bore me senseless.)

  34. Stoic Cynic: Personally I didn’t like Talons but wouldn’t rate it lower than Blood Grains either. At least Talons didn’t bore me senseless.

    I wasn’t bored by “Blood Grains Speak Through Memories”, but… I thought it started out really strong, and I was ready to love it. I wanted to love it. And then I thought the last third of it just lost its way. I was really disappointed that I couldn’t love it. 😐

  35. “Blood Grains” is on my long list. I’m still reading frantically so I don’t know if it will make it to my short list yet.

  36. @JJ

    It’s been awhile since I read it but, to my recollection and taste: I think the tragedy of Blood Grains was it had a really interesting idea but wooden execution and prose. I think in the hands of say a Vernon it could have knocked my socks off. Then again my taste is mine alone (as it should be) 🙂

  37. @Stoic Cynic

    Do you seriously think that any of those three belongs in the Nebula finalist list?

    Apparently they do in the opinion of a significant cross section of Nebula voters, which is all that counts.

    Strictly speaking, I wanted Jason’s opinion as a reviewer, since he’s worrying about the disconnect between readers, writers, and reviewers. Since reviewers generally didn’t like this story but at least some readers and writers seem to be passionate about it, it makes a good test case.

    If you look at the Nebula Suggested Reading List, you’ll note that Talon’s wasn’t the choice of a significant cross section of SFWA members but only of 14 people. Now it’s possible that more people than that actually nominated it, but I think that highly unlikely.

    I think this may be a case where a small but passionate minority love a story so much that they can get it nominated for awards if they rally around it. (This is the “accidental slate” problem but for just a single story.) Whether it can win is a different matter entirely.

  38. JJ: Significant of what? I still can’t make sense of what it is that you’re claiming this signifies — but it looks to me as though you’re claiming that, ideally, only a very small segment of SFF fiction should be universally regarded as “The Best”.

    You aren’t one of those people who got a lot of trophies for “participation” are you? Because, yes, as hard an idea as it is to make sense of, I think only a very small segment of SFF should be universally regarded as “the best.” But that’s actually not “the significance.” First, I’m partly using “significant” simply as a distinction from “statistical anomaly” or “fluke” – I don’t have to mean any particular significance. That’s part of the question for everyone – if you think it means anything, what do you think it means? Second, my own “what I think it means” relates to a couple of things, one of which Greg nails and which I’ll discuss in a moment. A second thing is that I just think it’s bad for a genre when editors, writers, and readers aren’t on the same page (loosely speaking). I’m worried that we may be speaking different languages and participating in different genres. I feel like I’ve already expressed all this but maybe I’m just not being clear.

    Again, I’m basically interested in three things here: what are the numbers? If there’s nothing statistically interesting then there’s nothing to talk about. If the numbers do indicate something weird, is it (generally) significant? If it’s a fluke, there’s nothing to talk about. If the numbers are weird and they are significant, then what does it all mean and is it good or bad? That’s something to talk about.

    To me it pretty clearly signifies that the SFF genre is much deeper and broader than it was 50 years ago. I think that’s a positive thing.

    I would agree that deeper and broader is positive except that I don’t see that at all. I see the number of venues and tales as not yet as impressive as the 50s (and, actually, the webzines may be shrinking in a non-fluky way and the printzines certainly have) and I see more similarity in today’s short fiction than ever before, really. (I even said something about it recently.) It is possible to cite a story here and a story there to create an impression of (literary) diversity today but the idea of a genre with Larry Niven and Poul Anderson and Samuel R. Delany and Ursula K. Le Guin writing about the same number of stories received about as popularly by comparable fan bases (which actually overlapped) and all winning awards (at the same proximate time that factions were taking out ads in Galaxy in support or condemnation of the Viet Nam war) being a shallower, narrower field than today is insupportable.

    Laura: Like JJ, I don’t see a problem with there being less overlap and agree that it’s actually a very positive thing. I’d rather see more differing opinions about what’s “best” as opposed to more consensus.

    But we’ve always had that. It’s called the table of contents. Again, I completely agree that, if we had one arbiter of taste saying, “Thou shalt read these three stories; no more, no less,” then that would be very bad, far worse than what seems to be the case now. But when several “professionals” and dedicated readers can’t agree on anything then it’s what I’m saying: it’s looking at tables of contents and giving out trophies for participation.

    Greg: Strictly speaking, I wanted Jason’s opinion as a reviewer, since he’s worrying about the disconnect between readers, writers, and reviewers. Since reviewers generally didn’t like this story but at least some readers and writers seem to be passionate about it, it makes a good test case.

    I’m sorry – I started to answer but took it as a general question, myself, so ducked it. 🙂 To answer, I haven’t read any of the three. I can’t access the Ledbetter or I would read it; being focused on 2017 (yet still reading a distressing number of 2016 stories), Rustad hasn’t impressed me enough to go back to read a 2016 story I missed; and Bolander has impressed me negatively to make me avoid going back to read a 2016 story I missed. Terrible answer but there it is. I’ve read all five of the short nominees you don’t ask about and three of the novelette nominees and I honestly find none of them to be in my top five – where’s “They Have All One Breath,” “Cold Comfort,” “Fifty Shades of Grays,” “Successor, Usurper, Replacement,” “Seven Birthdays” and so on? Ironically, I think the winner among the nominees, had it stayed in either category, probably should have been the withdrawn “Red in Tooth and Cog.” I didn’t even recommend that when I reviewed it but I liked it.

    If you look at the Nebula Suggested Reading List, you’ll note that Talon’s wasn’t the choice of a significant cross section of SFWA members but only of 14 people. Now it’s possible that more people than that actually nominated it, but I think that highly unlikely.

    I think this may be a case where a small but passionate minority love a story so much that they can get it nominated for awards if they rally around it. (This is the “accidental slate” problem but for just a single story.) Whether it can win is a different matter entirely.

    Careful. 😉 But I happen to agree with that theory. This belies the “500 writers” number earlier (which should itself be considered a small number). This is what I think is going on with many zines – heads barely above water, they try to appeal to very small audiences who will be passionately loyal much like cable television networks. And it may not be a stupid short term strategy (though likely fatal in the long term). Network audiences have shrunk to near cable-size while cable has risen to that shrunken number. So hundreds of thousands no longer read Amazing but some webzines survive on a few hundred hits a month, I guess. This is not breadth and depth but may be the disintegration I was wondering about earlier.

  39. Jason: You aren’t one of those people who got a lot of trophies for “participation” are you?

    Back to the nasty sneering again, I see. As long as you keep doing this, I will consider you a troll. If you want to be taken seriously and treated as an intellectual equal here — at least by me — then I suggest that you grow the hell up.

    I will point out the Horton, Dozois, Clarke, and Strahan are all straight white men of a certain age range. I find it hardly surprising that their tastes converge so much. I do not think that means that they should be considered the final arbiters of what is excellent in the SFF genre.

     
    Jason: I just think it’s bad for a genre when editors, writers, and readers aren’t on the same page (loosely speaking). I’m worried that we may be speaking different languages and participating in different genres.

    I am mystified as to why you feel that it is important to impose some sort of strictures on the SFF genre. This seems like a very authoritarian sort of point-of-view, and I find it dismaying.

    I think the “disintegration” to which you’re referring is actually “diversification”. And I’m wondering why that seems to scare you so much.

  40. @Jason

    You aren’t one of those people who got a lot of trophies for “participation” are you?

    That was entirely unnecessary. How about you drop the ad hominem and engage in the reasonable discussion you’re otherwise clearly capable of?

  41. (Cross posted with JJ there, who’d already made a rejoinder – note to self to actually refresh the page first!)

  42. @Greg Hullender

    I hadn’t seen that it was 14. That said, it’s the same problem as the Hugos though – with a small enough nominating base: 14 does become a significant number. We’ve both pawed through the Hugo long list numbers and know this.

    @Jason

    I think you and Greg are both posting as if there is an objective measure of quality to assert here. There isn’t.

    You listed off five stories you thought superior to the Nebula nominees. Great! Personally though, not one of my top five for the year has made either the Nebula list nor your list.

    Writing is neither a science, nor craft, but an art. As an art ultimately taste is the governing factor. The best you can hope for, if you are looking for recommendations, is finding a critic, anthologist, or award that closely aligns with your tastes. That your taste is not aligning with this award nomination list is underwhelming.

    Is the field disintegrating as it broadens? I’m not sure. If so, so what? If a generation from now it isn’t SFF fandom but some constellation of smaller more focused fandoms what does it matter? (That’s not rhetorical – I’m interested in why you see this as a problem)

  43. No, not an absolute measure of quality, but definitely a stochastic one. It’s difficult to express this without using math, but the point is that people’s likes and dislikes are highly correlated with each other. Not perfectly correlated (then there really would be an absolute measure) but highly correlated. This means that out of the vast number of stories published in any given year, there’s really only a fairly small subset that’s worth talking about–maybe 10% or less. Within that subset, there will be a lot of arguing, but outside of it, there’s broad agreement that those stories aren’t great.

    This is why you see a power-law distribution whenever you look at tallies like the Hugo longlist.

    It’s possible to look at those stories (and at the ones no one likes) and get a feeling for what sort of things people do and don’t value. People like characters that are strong enough that we can feel emotional about them. They like plots that are exciting. They like settings that are cool and thought-provoking. They like writing with smooth narration and natural dialogue. A story that hits all five of these tends to win lots of praise, and at least some awards.

    But very few stories do. Most have some defects, and there’s a lot of variation in how serious a given reader finds a particular defect. That doesn’t mean that I’m right because I think lack of a plot is a fatal defect or that you’re wrong because you think a powerful emotional impact (at least in one story) outweighs other flaws. It’s just a difference of opinion. It is not, however, a random difference.

  44. @Greg

    If you look at the Nebula Suggested Reading List, you’ll note that Talon’s wasn’t the choice of a significant cross section of SFWA members but only of 14 people. Now it’s possible that more people than that actually nominated it, but I think that highly unlikely.

    Can you still see the number of recommendations made? That column disappeared at least a month ago for me. I figured out how to keep sorting by that column by adjusting the url, but I can’t see it.

  45. JJ: Back to the nasty sneering again, I see.
    Mark: That was entirely unnecessary.

    Jeez, guys, take a chill pill. Do I have to put winky smiley things after everything? Yes, the comment expressed my disdain for participation trophies and that general mentality and indicated that you sounded like that but there was nothing “nasty” about it. It wasn’t intended as a mortal blow but a gentle rib. Buck up. I’ll ignore the rest of what you said on the assumption that it was as a result of that misapprehension. (Careful of being “the boy who called troll” though. If you use it so loosely no one’s going to believe you if a real one shows up.)

    JJ: I am mystified as to why you feel that it is important to impose some sort of strictures on the SFF genre. This seems like a very authoritarian sort of point-of-view, and I find it dismaying.

    I think the “disintegration” to which you’re referring is actually “diversification”. And I’m wondering why that seems to scare you so much.

    Okay – watch me not blow up at your “nasty” innuendo and take it lightly. 😉 It’s funny to me that you are mystified about the imposition of strictures on the genre. It’s because without them there is no genre. The very concept of genre requires it. That said, I’m one of the last people on earth to call authoritarian. That part’s actually hilarious to me but I guess you can’t know that. Similarly, I’m not “scared” of “diversification.” As I mentioned, in literary terms, I’m seeing homogeneity. But I’m also seeing mediocrity. And this is probably part of the reason there’s little consensus on “the best.” Disintegration scares me for the same reason that a disintegrating boat should scare a sailor. I sail the seas of mainstream literature and mass entertainment on my skiffy skiff and I want it to hold together. It must sail between the Scylla of becoming mass entertainment itself and the Charybdis of being a dead genre with two writers and three readers, two of whom are the same people.

    Me: I don’t believe there’s an absolute objectivity in literature and I fully expect and embrace variance.

    Stoic Cynic: I think you and Greg are both posting as if there is an objective measure of quality to assert here.

    *sigh* I agree with almost your entire post, which basically reiterates, rather than rebuts, much of what I’ve been saying. And I agree with Greg’s entire, well-said, post as well.

    Is the field disintegrating as it broadens? I’m not sure. If so, so what? If a generation from now it isn’t SFF fandom but some constellation of smaller more focused fandoms what does it matter? (That’s not rhetorical – I’m interested in why you see this as a problem)

    I agree (granting the broadening as a hypothetical) and I’m not sure either. I just raise it as a possibility and I think the skiffy skiff above covers why I think it matters. I also agree that it’s quite possible there could be a sort of redefinition of micro-genres and that could be fine (it’s an interesting idea). I just suspect that’s an optimistic take and that such things would fade into insignificance.

  46. but the idea of a genre with Larry Niven and Poul Anderson and Samuel R. Delany and Ursula K. Le Guin writing about the same number of stories received about as popularly by comparable fan bases

    If this is your argument for the genre of the past being more diverse than the genre of the present, I think your argument is extremely weak. Listing four authors and claiming this is representative of anything concerning the shape of the genre as a whole is simply silly – especially since two of those authors were active until very recently.

    This sort of question is not really one can resolve by personal memories – you’d have to go back and actually provide data about the status of the genre in the 1960s to be able to make your case – just handwaving and naming a couple of authors doesn’t provide the needed context. For example, people like to cite the handful of female authors who were prominent in the 1960s as evidence that the field has not been biased against women, but the blunt reality is that those women were exceptions, not the rule. In fact, McCaffrey and Le Guin accounted for the entire range of female writers who won Hugo Awards prior to 1974, and that streak was only broken because James Tiptree, Jr. won an award that year. To get to the point where a woman writing as a woman who was not Le Guin or McCaffrey won a Hugo, you have to go all the way to 1977, with Kate Wilhelm. To get to the point where a black (or otherwise minority) author not named Samuel R. Delany won a Hugo, you have to go substantially past that. Science fiction in the 1960s and 1970s was not nearly as diverse as your glib claim implies.

Comments are closed.