Anonymous Blog’s Rankings Draw Protest By Hugo Finalist Short Fiction Editor

Cartoon by Teddy Harvia

When the Hugo voting deadline closes in a lot of bloggers write posts about how they’re filling out their Hugo ballots. It’s some of the most-read material they’ll put out all year.

The SF Insiders began publishing in June, produced by an anonymous “small group of writers who’ve known each other for years”, and most of their posts so far have been about the Hugos, Lodestar or Astounding Awards given at the Worldcon.

Their second post appeared on June 20, “Blogging the Hugos #1 – Editor Short Form”, where they say “With one exception, six of us independently ranked the six finalists in the same order”. Assigned last place was —

6. Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki

Ekpeki is a promising new editor and first-time finalist (and writer-finalist in novelette), but his only work for 2021 was The Year’s Best African Speculative Fiction, a reprint anthology showcasing the work of other editors. There is some merit to assembling a reprint anthology, particularly one that shines a light on another part of the world, but all the other editors contributed original fiction they selected and edited.

Jason Sanford tweeted on August 5 that he regards this as a “smear”.

The SF Insiders decided they were being accused of racism: “Being Seen Again”.

…Someone decided they disagreed with the criteria we used for editor short form and, in true Twitter fashion, decided to make insinuations about our character to promote their own choice, which happened to be our last. In short, a white man called us racist….

While the tweets must stand on their own, Jason Sanford, responding to a question from File 770, said these were his reasons for speaking out: “Just saw the post being passed around and discussed in the genre community and figured I’d add my view. In addition, Ekpeki did a ton of hard work to create the first Year’s Best anthology focused on African speculative fiction, and faced obstacles many editors from the USA and Europe don’t have to deal with. So for that groundbreaking work to be dismissed with as merely ‘a reprint anthology’ really rubbed me the wrong way.” 

And in their “Editor Short Form” post the SF Insiders had not been reluctant to compliment the work of a Black American-born editor:

3. Sheree Renée Thomas

Thomas started as editor of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction in 2021 and has previously edited anthologies. Her first year was a step up for the magazine, but a transition year is bound to be a bit uneven and that’s how it felt to us. This is where we had some disagreement. One of us ranked her as #2 simply based on the difficulty of such transitions and how well she’s handled it. All of us have high expectations for the magazine under her leadership.

There still remains the issue of the SF Insiders‘ given reason for ranking Ekpeki last, that in their view assembling a reprint anthology is less worthy of being recognized than editing original short fiction.

Hugo finalist Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki was incensed by this idea and wrote a 3,000-word Facebook post to dispute it. The full text is at the link. A couple of his key points are:

My “only” work was a reprint anthology “showcasing the work of other editors”. All the other editors contributed original fiction they “edited & selected”.

Essentially saying that I didn’t do enough. What I did do, was no work, or not my work. & finally, not really editing.

Do they realize that this discredits the work of respected icons in the SFF editing world? People like Gardner Dozois, Jonathan Strahan Neil Clark, Ellen Datlow, Paula Guran, Ann & Jeff Vandermeer, & many more who also do reprints & Year’s Bests? It discredits their work. & what is a valid component of anthologies, editing and the genre itself, just to remove from the value of my work. On the other hand, I haven’t heard anyone refer to those other Year’s Best anthologies as showcasing the work of other editors. So what’s different btw me & them?

So that mine is “showcasing the work of other editors?” That’s what reprints & Year’s Best anthologies boil down to now someone’s done the first Year’s Best African Speculative Fiction anthology? Strange And I really really really want to disagree. Strongly but hopefully, coherently. I get that reviewers have to do their thing thing, and we should leave them alone and all that. But all things have limits & exceptions as my fellow Law students who went on to practice will tell you. This isn’t reviewing, so much as redefining.

If you say my compilation is bad, the works I choose don’t work, I have no Introduction, all of which has been mentioned in different tones going from positive inquiry to not so positive, I wouldn’t have made a fuss. But this is redefining what editing work is. And I have to disagree and make known my disagreement, strongly. Because not doing so would be agreeing with this faulty, problematic and dismissive, not to mention undermining, if not sabotaging definition. By editing the Year’s Best African Speculative Fiction anthology I did not “showcase” the works of other editors. The works were created by writers, not editors. That’s the first thing. Editing is its own work of selection and compilation you do whether for originals or reprints. It’s the same thing irrespective of the state of the works.

…So when you say it showcases the work of other editors, you miss the fine point of this. Is it any more rigorous reading an original work than reading a reprint? Are the words easier or harder to read? I don’t get how it’s less work or entirely the original editor’s work.

Does energy leave them every time the work is reprinted so that the reprinting editor loses nothing? Like doesn’t incur costs, charges, spend time, energy, etc? Is all that billable to the original editors so that the reprint merely “showcases” it?

…We need to work on the quality of our allyship in the genre space. Esp white, male, older writers. Generally anyone with a level of privilege. I wish we were more careful about the kind of things we give oxygen to, and unwittingly support. A bit more responsible allyship. Things like not putting out or boosting things that denigrate marginalized people or members of a minority class, vulnerable people. The people we claim to and even actually support in the community. It’s undoing and making nonsense of that work. If you are an authority in the industry, your acquiescence or even silence emboldens or ratifies these people. Is taken as approval. If you can stand by now and watch a member of a minority group be bashed, what says you won’t do the same when it’s a physical lynching?

I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen reasonable, responsible, kind, cool people we all like posting or sharing or boosting things that deliberately and obviously denigrate or demean me & other marginalized people in a racial or other marginalizing and bigoted way. Society, systems are a makeup of all of us. The way that you are and how you receive issues, react to, respond or don’t respond to them contributes to the society or system we have. So you have to ask yourself what kind of society or system your action or inaction is creating. Not just continue criticizing a system you prop up or contribute unwittingly to creating or sustaining. I am no stranger to criticism. You’ll be surprised the kind of things I’ve heard or had said to and about me. The majority of which I don’t share with anyone because it would make my feed very unpalatable….

Ekpeki has merged a defense of his work as a reprint editor with a counterattack on anyone who “demean[s] me & other marginalized people in a racial or other marginalizing and bigoted way” which indicates what he thinks are the motivations of the SF Insiders.

The SF Insiders wrote a response to Jason Sanford’s tweets (“Being Seen Again”), probably before Ekpeki’s Facebook post went live, for they tried to create division between the editor and his ally:

If the editor in question happens to be reading this, please know we enjoyed your anthology. Congratulations on your nomination! Your supporter, while admirably passionate about your work is, however, misguided and causing harm. We hope you don’t sanction such things. (That’s a criteria too.)

The mysterious SF Insiders like to agitate but sound offended when the inevitable pushback arrives. And while Ekpeki’s work should be respected and he is entitled to be proud of being a Hugo finalist, unleashing a three-thousand-word thunderbolt against a group of anonymous bloggers anoints them with a level of prestige they did not previously have.

40 thoughts on “Anonymous Blog’s Rankings Draw Protest By Hugo Finalist Short Fiction Editor

  1. Mur Lafferty and S.B. Divya included reprints in their packet. Jonathan Strahan put his reprint anthology at the top of his list of eligible work.

  2. I stand with Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki. Because a a person who has been bullied and trolled for a goodly portion of my life, I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.

    And if I were in Mr. Ekpeki’s position, I would not let such an egregious and deliberate slight slide at all. Writers, editors and artists have a tough enough time trying to create works worthy enough for public consumption AND fighting our own fears and self doubts about the quality of the work.

    So when anonymous critics, who don’t have the courage (or decency) to put their names on criticisms that libels your very sense of creativity, that cannot go unanswered without comment.

    They all owe Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki nothing less than an apology…

  3. Most anthologies consist of reprint material, often exclusively. Ellen Datlow has won Hugos for her editing work of anthologies where there was absolutely no original work.

  4. Chris M. Barkley Correctly says They all owe Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki nothing less than an apology…

    Yes, they do. And one signed with their actual names. Being anonymous in this situation is not acceptable.

  5. Ellen Datlow has won Hugos for her editing work of anthologies where there was absolutely no original work.

    Are you sure about this? I checked her ISFDB records, and while Datlow has won Hugos for years that she edited reprint anthologies, in each case in those same years she also edited original fiction in other places — so the Hugos were for reprint anthology + additional editing of original fiction.

    (And I don’t think it’s a “smear” to assert that editing an anthology that includes original fiction requires all of the selection, compilation, and curation of short works into a coherent anthology that a reprint anthology does, plus the work of editing the original pieces of fiction that are being newly published. One is more than the other.)

  6. And I don’t think it’s a “smear” to assert that editing an anthology that includes original fiction requires all of the selection, compilation, and curation of short works into a coherent anthology that a reprint anthology does, plus the work of editing the original pieces of fiction that are being newly published. One is more than the other.

    Well I don’t know if “smear” is a right word but then my editor is a cat but it is certainly an odd criteria. We don’t typically judge Hugo finalists by the amount of work that they did.

    Mind you I have a vested interest in judging Best Related Work based on word count – never mind the quality, feel the width! Also, did those other BRW people make their own covers? I think not!

  7. @bill: You can say “one is more than the other”, but only for imaginary original anthologies that somehow represent the very best in the field and provide a comprehensive overview while not including any previously published work. That is an impossible bar to clear. Back in the real world, even Damon Knight did some underwhelming original anthologies. One is not more than the other. Editing is editing.

  8. On the other hand, maybe the new standard should be that a truly great editor makes up the author from whole cloth, including all their output. Like Terry Carr did with Carl Brandon in fan writing. Anything less is insufficient.

  9. I don’t understand how putting together an anthology is not editing. You’re selecting a balanced mix of writing to exemplify a particular time, or a particular theme, and that takes time, effort, and talent. This is surely true whether the stories are reprints or not, isn’t it?

  10. I would prefer to not have an award for editor, but instead an award for anthology. This would partly solve this (but instead cause other issues).

  11. I think the anonymity strongly suggests that their comments be dismissed out of hand or categorized as deliberately provocative and inconsequential, at least as it relates to the commentary on editing.
    The way that they have chosen to express their political views – anonymously, passive-aggressively – tells us all I think we need to know about their ideology.
    Anonymous critiques or reviews are worthless. The anonymity prevents us from being able to evaluate the credentials of the reviewers. We can’t judge how knowledgeable or experienced the source is. Not even on a secondary basis (like, the editor of the magazine choosing someone to write reviews under a pseudonym), where we rely on the expertise of the named editor to have made that choice.
    No, this is theater, and bad theater at that. We’ve got enough bad actors willing to write under their own names and stand behind their (lousy) words – we do not need (more) anonymous trolls who think playing with people’s careers and futures is entertainment.

  12. I feel this shows that generally people aren’t sure how to evaluate the editor categories. And that the anonymous blog writers, as they’ve shown in other comments, are new to Hugo participation.

    Apology? Don’t feel it’s my place to say. Give real names? No. Just no.

  13. Steve Davidson: I think the anonymity strongly suggests that their comments be dismissed out of hand or categorized as deliberately provocative and inconsequential

    I’m not going to comment on the validity of the opinions expressed by the bloggers in the main post here.

    But I will comment on the validity of the people who insist that anonymity = bad = illegitimate = non-credible.

    And I hate to have to point it out, but every goddamn time someone comes here to complain about people posting under nyms, saying if they’re not willing to post under their real names, that they have no credibility, it’s almost always older white men who say “I’ve always posted on the internet under my full real name and I’ve never had a problem, so clearly if this person isn’t posting under their real name, their opinion is worthless”.

    Steve, when you receive rape and death threats simply for having the audacity to express a legitimate opinion on the internet, then you might — just might — be able to get just a glimpse of what a lot of the rest of us deal with.

    I post here under a nym, and I challenge anyone who has read any of my numerous reviews to claim that my opinion is meaningless because I don’t post them under my real name. Sometimes my opinions are gushing, sometimes they’re harsh — but they are always legitimate and valid.

    If any of you want to challenge the opinion of the bloggers based on the content of their opinion, and substantiate those challenges with well-reasoned logic, go right ahead.

    But fuck right off with your claims that anonymity = lack of credibility.

  14. The Hugo awards is given based on votes on Worldcon members. No other background or creditability is needed to be allowed to have an opinion on the ballot. Anonymous or not, criticism should come from reasonable arguments and not speculation or accusations.

    It is pretty clear that these bloggers are 6 writers and/or fans. And they apparently value publishing new fiction the highest and their rankings perfectly reflect that criteria. Some might have other criteria for their votes and that is also perfectly fine. The Hugo does not set specific rules for how people should vote.

    But there is no reason for accusing people of all kinds of things merely based on their own subjective criteria for their rankings, which they explain and argue for in a consistent manner.

    Also, their top vote for best semiprozine is “FIYAH Magazine of Black Speculative Fiction, publisher Troy L Wiggins”, so any accusations of racism makes absolutely no sense.

  15. I’m glad Steve always posts under his real name because I’m usually pretty clear on what weight of validity to give his comments.

  16. It might also be useful to read their summary post of their ballots.

    6 had FIYAH Magazine as their first choice.

    1 had Chris Barkley as their first choice. The rest were split between Cora Buhlert and Paul Weimer.

    2 has Far Sector by N.K. Jemisin and 2 for Monstress Vol. 6

    Sure it’s easier to just call a group racist than actually engage with their perspective about what it takes to get their votes for Short Form Editor. They seem to prioritize (in no particular order) new/original stories, engaging with new and/or international authors, and quality story-telling.

    They have a personal standard for their ballots. Whether or not that standard is valid ought to be up for discussion. But their expressed standard isn’t malicious.

    Engaging with their prioritization of editors presenting anthologies with new stories is hard. Arguing that Mr. Ekpeki did a ton of extra work that is not expected of most other editors is hard. Mr. Sanford is a one-trick pony.

    FTR, I don’t agree with their preferences.

    Regards,
    Dann
    When I was 14, I thought, ‘How wonderful to be a science fiction writer. I’d like to do that.’ I have never lost touch with that ambitious 14-year-old, and I can’t help chuckling and thinking, ‘You did it, and you did it right.’ – Robert Silverberg

  17. The mysterious SF Insiders like to agitate but sound offended when the inevitable pushback arrives.

    I don’t have a problem with SF Insiders choosing to publish anonymously, because there are many valid reasons for be anonymous or pseudonymous, but I do think they’ve fallen into the common trap of using anonymity as a license to be a bit insufferable.

    Instead of responding to pushback of their tiara comments, they ignored them by suggesting it was abusive to criticize them and justifies their anonymity:

    We knew some of you would disagree and we were fine with that. Our problem was with how. Thank you for proving some of our concerns about this community accurate.

    Now Jason Sanford’s critique is also being called an abuse that proves their anonymity necessary. Instead I’d call this a situation where both sides — SF Insiders and Sanford/Ekpeki — are equally comfortable throwing elbows. The vociferous disagreement they’re having is worthwhile and helps promote the category.

    Leaning on SF Insiders to identify themselves is no better than the puppies being so obsessed with outing Camestros Felapton that they widely spread a false identification about the writer’s real name. Most of those real-name users cared so little about their own credibility they’ve kept their accusation online! (Won’t name names, but one rhymes with Tad Brorgersen.)

    Knowing who writes SF Insiders is becoming increasingly irrelevant as they make a name for themselves through their blogging — just like Camestros did.

  18. Is Ekpeki actually eligible for the Best Editor – Short Form Hugo in 2022?

    The official WSFS criteria require that a nominee have edited four anthologies, collections, or magazine issues, with at least one appearing in the eligibility year. According to ISFDB and my reading of Ekpeki’s own web page, only three such items had been published by the eligibility cutoff date — two fiction anthologies and one issue of Invictus Quarterly. Three additional items were published or are scheduled for publication in 2022, but those wouldn’t make him eligible for 2021. (And I’m not sure Invictus qualifies, since it’s a comics/graphics publication, and I don’t see any editors of such as prior year nominees)

    So which works qualify Ekpeki for the 2022 Hugo / 2021 work? There likely won’t be any question about 2023, unless something is delayed.

    JM

  19. There’s nothing in the rules that would exclude a comic or graphic novel from counting towards Best Editor Short Form eligibility. His four editing credits prior to 2022 are Africa Risen, The Year’s Best African Speculative Fiction, and issues of Invictus Quarterly and Interstellar Flight Magazine.

    Also, the wording of the eligibility clause doesn’t exclude his 2022 works from being counted:

    3.3.10: Best Editor Short Form. The editor of at least four (4)
    anthologies, collections or magazine issues (or their equivalent in
    other media) primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy, at
    least one of which was published in the previous calendar year.

  20. @rcade —
    I would read

    3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.

    to mean that any work in in 2022 can’t be considered for an award ostensibly for work from 2021. YMMV.

  21. Maybe, but the credits from 2022 aren’t being considered for an award. They’re being considered for an award given to a person, and the only year-based part of that clause says at least one work must be from 2021.

    Common sense would be that at least four editing credits had to be published by 12/31/2021, but if I was conducting an eligibility ruling I’d be as generous as possible in my interpretation of the rules before excluding a nominee.

  22. @bill

    Wikipedia’s profile suggests that Mr. Ekpeki has only edited (3) works. I cross-checked with isfdb and only saw those three works/collections.

    Best Editor (Short Form): To be eligible the person must have edited at least four anthologies, collections or magazine issues devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which must have been published in the year of eligibility.

    Emphasis added.

    There might be a fourth publication that he edited that isn’t properly documented in the isfdb or Wikipedia.

    Regards,
    Dann
    I’ve loved reading all my life. – John Wayne

  23. I looked at the 14-year history of the Short Form Editor and found the following:

    10 of the years the winner had a magazine or equivalent (Tor.com) in their portfolio.
    1 of the years was No Award for the whole puppy thing
    1 of the years was when Gardner Dozois passed and was used to honor him

    The only 2 years that didn’t meet those criteria were 2009-2010 with Ellen Datlow. In 2009 she published 1 anthology with 16 original stories and in 2010 she published 2 anthologies of new stories in addition to 3 best-of anthologies.

    In short, nobody has ever won without editing new stories. Jason Sanford said in his tweet that “Note also that there have been a bunch of famous editors who have been finalists or even won that editing award for editing … reprint anthologies. I never saw similar criticism of those editors.” I have included the list of all winners and the work they edited the previous year. I cannot find any factual evidence where only the editing of reprints won an award much less an instance where someone won with a single anthology of only reprints.

    2007 Gordon Van Gelder – The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction – 2006 (2006)
    2008 Gordon Van Gelder – The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction – 2007 (2007)
    2009 Ellen Datlow – The Del Rey Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy (2008)
    2010 Ellen Datlow – The Year’s Best Fantasy & Horror 2008: Twenty-First Annual Collection (2008) with Gavin J. Grant and Kelly Link, Poe (2009), Nebula Awards Showcase 2009 (2009), Troll’s Eye View: A Book of Villainous Tales (2009) with Terri Windling, Lovecraft Unbound: Twenty Stories (2009), The Best Horror of the Year: Volume One (2009)
    2011 Sheila Williams – Asimov’s Science Fiction – 2010 (2010)
    2012 Sheila Williams – Asimov’s Science Fiction – 2011 (2011)
    2013 Stanley Schmidt – Analog Science Fiction and Fact – 2012 (2012)
    2014 Ellen Datlow – Tor.com – 2013 (2013), Hauntings (2013), Queen Victoria’s Book of Spells (2013) with Terri Windling, Telling Tales: The Clarion West 30th Anniversary Anthology (2013), The Best Horror of the Year: Volume Five (2013), Some of the Best from Tor.com: 2013 Edition (2013) with Claire Eddy and Melissa Frain and Liz Gorinsky and George R. R. Martin and Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Ann VanderMeer and Noa Wheeler
    2015 No Award
    2016 Ellen Datlow – Tor.com – 2015 (2015), Some of the Best from Tor.com: 2014 Edition (2015) with Carl Engle-Laird and Liz Gorinsky and David G. Hartwell and Peter Joseph and Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Marco Palmieri and Paul Stevens and Ann VanderMeer, The Doll Collection (2015), The Best Horror of the Year: Volume Seven (2015), The Monstrous (2015)
    2017 Ellen Datlow – Tor.com – 2016 (2016), Some of the Best from Tor.com: 2015 Edition (2016) with Claire Eddy and Carl Engle-Laird and David G. Hartwell and Beth Meacham and Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Marco Palmieri and Ann VanderMeer, The Best Horror of the Year: Volume Eight (2016), Children of Lovecraft (2016), Nightmares: A New Decade of Modern Horror (2016)
    2019 Gardner Dozois – The Year’s Best Science Fiction: Thirty-Fifth Annual Collection (2018), The Book of Magic (2018) – Note: Gardner also passed away this year and many may have voted for him in a “Lifetime Achievement” manner.
    2020 Ellen Datlow – Tor.com – 2019 (2019), Tor.com Publishing Editorial Spotlight #3: A Selection of Novellas (2019), Echoes (2019), The Best Horror of the Year: Volume Eleven (2019)
    2021 Ellen Datlow – Tor.com – 2020 (2020), Final Cuts: New Tales of Hollywood Horror and Other Spectacles (2020), Edited by (2020), The Best Horror of the Year: Volume Twelve (2020)

  24. I like discussions of the work that a Best Editor Short Form nominee did in the year the Hugo Awards are awarding, but in practice it seems like everybody votes based on multiple years and overall reputation. I have no idea how much actual editing is done by Ellen Datlow and the other big names who win this category.

  25. My point in my original tweet thread was that many of the finalists and winners are best known for their work with so-called reprint anthologies. I missed until reading the post above that Datlow had an original anthology in 2008 in addition to her Year’s Best, which is my mistake.

    But again, Gardner Dozois after he left Asimov’s Science Fiction along with Ellen Datlow and Jonathan Strahan are known to a great many Hugo voters for their Year’s Best anthologies, along with other works collecting already published fiction. These types of anthologies are extremely important guideposts to the SF/F genre and help authors attain attention and respect for their work.

    And the idea that there’s something lesser in editing reprint anthologies or that it’s less work is really silly. As Jeff VanderMeer said today, these types of reprint anthologies are “objectively more important than most original anthos” and that the reprint anthologies he and Ann did “took more work than our originals.”

  26. @rcade

    His four editing credits prior to 2022 are Africa Risen, The Year’s Best African Speculative Fiction, and issues of Invictus Quarterly and Interstellar Flight Magazine.

    I don’t think Africa Risen has been published yet (Tor says it will be released in November.)

    Does Interstellar Flight even have “issues”, per se? From looking at their website, it’s not at all obvious that whatever Ekpeki edited for them was “an anthology, collection or magazine issue (or its equivalent in other media).”

    Given that Baen is often beat up here for the lack of copy-editing, I would have to say that the way Ekpeki copy-edits his own informal writing (blog posts, social media, prose from his web site, etc.) does not build a strong case that he is an award-worthy editor.

  27. — As has been mentioned above, people can pick their own reasons for how they vote.

    — Gardner Dozois regularly edited original anthologies as well as reprint anthologies, not that it really matters.

    — I love a well-curated reprint anthology. I have bought anthologies full of stories I have mostly already read simply because it’s a pleasing collection. However, in Hugo voting, I personally would weight editing new stories over editing reprint stories. Just my preference. Although, historically, I would rank them a) magazine/original anthology editors, b) reprint editors, c) no award, d) Roger Elwood.

  28. rcade on August 8, 2022 at 7:09 am said:
    Knowing who writes SF Insiders is becoming increasingly irrelevant as they make a name for themselves through their blogging — just like Camestros did.

    I broadly agree in that pseudonymity is something I would recommend for multiple reasons. However, there is a difference here and it is the Mamatas Principle: if you are pseudonymous you can’t appeal to real-life authority/experience and have anybody take that seriously. Camestros Felapton’s reputation is Cam’s not the guy’s who does the typing 🙂

    SF Insiders (semi) claim to be insiders in the world of science fiction publishing* and speak (supposedly) on the basis of their skills and experience in that domain. That has broader implications in terms of networks they may have within publishing.

    *[they also say that the name is ironic in that they really aren’t “insiders” but they are writers.]

  29. @JJ

    In this particular instance, which is what I was referring to, anonymity is acting as a shield for trolls.

    And fuck you too for not being civil.

  30. Does Interstellar Flight even have “issues”, per se?

    Tor.com doesn’t but we all recognize it as a place where short-form editors do their thing.

    Interstellar Flight calls itself a magazine and has content going back to October 2020. It has calls for submissions, including one for short story collections where Ekpeki was the guest editor.

  31. @rcade

    It has calls for submissions, including one for short story collections where Ekpeki was the guest editor.

    Works for me as far as a fourth editing effort goes. The world is forever new in ways that don’t always conform well to prior expectations.

    Regards,
    Dann
    The true delight is in the finding out rather than in the knowing. – Isaac Asimov

  32. I don’t think Africa Risen has been published yet (Tor says it will be released in November.)

    Hmm. You are correct.

    Add these credits: Dominion: An Anthology of Speculative Fiction From Africa and the African Diaspora (2020) and an issue of Selene Quarterly (2020).

  33. I asked Chicon 8 Hugo Administrator Kat Jones for help in answering this question. Jones said in an email to me —

    Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki was found eligible to be a finalist in the 2022 Best Editor, Short Form Hugo Award category. The four works used to confirm his eligibility were:

    The Year’s Best African Speculative Fiction Anthology (2021) – 2021
    Dominion – 2020
    Invictus Quarterly volume 1 – 2020
    Selene Quarterly volume 3 issue 1 – 2020

    The criterion is that a finalist should have edited at least four eligible works in their entire career by December 31, 2021, of which at least one must have been published in the calendar year 2021. That criterion is clearly satisfied.

    It is clear that a reprint collection/anthology is no different from a collection of original fiction, or a collection that mixes both, in terms of eligibility.

  34. Certainly Gardner Dozois was awarded his many Best Editor Hugos (except for his last, posthumous award) for his work in editing Asimov’s. But his annual Year’s Best Science Fiction reprint anthologies were hugely influential; I credit the first ten or so (mid-80s to mid-90s) with changing my idea of what science fiction is capable of. If not quite as voluminously, Jonathan Strahan has also produced a number of fine original anthologies of SF, but it’s his best science fiction of the year reprint anthologies that I’ve found most memorable. (It’s very disappointing that Saga decided to cancel his series for them after the second volume.)

    @Tom Becker: On the other hand, maybe the new standard should be that a truly great editor makes up the author from whole cloth, including all their output. Like Terry Carr did with Carl Brandon in fan writing. Anything less is insufficient.

    Or you can cut out that whole time-consuming middle step and skip directly to writing reviews of the imaginary books produced by your imaginary authors, as Lem did so brilliantly in A Perfect Vacuum.

  35. I suppose it is moot, given that Chicon has judged Ekpeki to be eligible, and accepts Ekpeki as having edited Dominion, but in the _Bridging Worlds_ anthology (also edited by Ekpeki), Joshua Uchenna Omenga says that Ekpeki paid him (Omenga) to edit Dominion (see p. 87).

    @rcade

    Tor.com doesn’t [have per se issues] but we all recognize it as a place where short-form editors do their thing.

    But is Tor.com being used to establish eligibility?

    Interstellar Flight calls itself a magazine and has content going back to October 2020. It has calls for submissions, including one for short story collections where Ekpeki was the guest editor.

    For Interstellar to count towards eligibility, there has to be something like an issue that Ekpeki edited — a work. The fact that he did editorial work for them is not sufficient, in and of itself. That labor would have to result in a publication of some sort. If there ended up being a short story collection that he edited, that would obviously count, but I can’t find such. (and again, moot, since Chicon isn’t counting it as an eligibility work.)

  36. For Interstellar to count towards eligibility, there has to be something like an issue that Ekpeki edited — a work. The fact that he did editorial work for them is not sufficient, in and of itself. That labor would have to result in a publication of some sort.

    I think his guest editor assignment was comparable to editing an issue regardless of whether the magazine groups its articles into issues. If anything from that stint hit the web by Dec. 31, 2021, it could’ve helped meet the four-work requirement.

  37. Steve Davidson: And fuck you too for not being civil.

    I look forward to the day when you start holding yourself to the same standards that you expect of other people.

  38. I’m not sure I would be interested in running this blog for very long if there weren’t comments, however, a day like today tempts me to find out.

    There’s the crude exchanges between regular Filers, of course.

    And today’s there’s yet another example of somebody screencapping the worst part of some troglodytic comment and offering that up for people to feel sorry about. But at least that commenter didn’t tell somebody to fuck off.

Comments are closed.