(Yes, I’m in it, but I think it’s an interesting project independently of that! Particularly with reference to your ongoing conversation about atomisation, it’s interesting to think about what sort of snapshot of the field a book like this offers. It’s going to have different editors each year, so hopefully different snapshots will emerge…)

And like the guy above says – All the best.

I do think the field and readership has atomized, or at least the various magazines and anthologies have. Instead of a broad, unified pangaea of genre, we have islets of subgenres, some of which are pretty far from each other–like Jonathan’s example of the Beagle and the McAuley being in the year’s best.

When the Nebula Award commenced I looked to that as an award based on literary merit. I figured if a novel was on both nomination lists it would be worth reading as it had both entertainment and literary merit.

At some point I began to doubt the judgement of the SFWA. I guess as it developed and grew the choice of best novel began to be influenced by factors other than straight literary merit.

I’ve often thought it would be a good idea for the Nebula Nomination list to be chosen by a panel that would select the works but then for the nominations to be voted on by the full membership (with no write-in choice). Sort of the best of both worlds.

Many thanks for providing that additional perspective. It’s true some of the dramatic category nominees do care very much. I think it may be more true to say that Gary and I, as participants in the nominating process, are less interested in those categories.

Best,
Jonathan

Growing up in late 70s and 80s, my first encounter with SF was in the media, both good and bad. While getting into Trek, I had heard about the Hugo and then discovered Asimov’s Hugo anthologies. There are many members of the 13 and 14 Generations (aka Gen X and Gen Y or Millennials respectively) that maybe coming into the field the same way. I don’t think it is a good idea to disparage the categories.

Here’s an idea for treating the short story problem. As part of Last Short Story, set up a kind of Goodreads rating and reviewing website for short stories, so people can see what others have read and loved. We’re a bit depressed about the Amazon takeover of Goodreads and now might be the time to pounce! Or is this already happening with the link-sharing on Twitter?

On the issue of sequels: I’ve been saying for a decade that the ending of The Lord of the Rings sets up a series of “Eowyn and Faramir: Monster Hunters in Love” adventures that Tolkien was not commercialized enough to follow through on. Probably for the best, all told.

Lyda Morehouse (under her pen name Tate Hallaway) recently wrote a “Secret Pierre County South Dakota novel” : Precinct 13

Also, Doyce Testerman recently wrote a “Secret American Midwest novel”: Hidden Things.

(I’m acquainted with both writers, which is why I am able to speak to this obscure point :) )

The answers to your questions are “probably not” and “not yet”.

Gary: Seven Beauties did indeed get put forward for an extension under the limited availability rule. The point that was made there was that, although the official publication date was 2008, it didn’t actually get sent out until 2009. In the case of Benchmarks Continued it would be difficult to argue that a book that was easily available for purchase over the internet and was reviewed on io9 was in any way of limited availability.

Jonathan: The book is officially published in the UK, so it could benefit from an eligibility extension if it is subsequently published in the USA. However, it needs to get that US publication first. And of course that particular rule is required to be ratified annually, so I can’t guarantee that it will be in force should a US publication happen.

While I’m here, Gary seemed to be a bit confused about movies. There has never been a Hugo for Best Script, though scriptwriters are often the only people who care to collect the award. There used to be a Nebula for Best Script. That was last awarded in 2009. The Bradbury, which is apparently Not A Nebula, was first awarded in 2010.

I can’t speak for SFWA, but as far as discussion within WSFS goes, while there are still die-hards who insist that the Hugos are only for writing, most people accept that voting on movies, TV, etc.is done on the basis of the total package, not just the script. The influence of the director, actors, special effects team and so on has an enormous effect on the perceived quality of the production, and it would be wrong to give the award just to the script.

I’ve read enough ebooks to know my reading speed. So if I am 30% through a book, I know how long it took me to get there, so I know the “heft” of that 30 done and 70 percent remaining,

Details are at http://swordssorcerysandalsspace.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/sff-masterclass-2013/

Love the mention of Richard Powers. Big fan of his work.

Had never considered how authors’ work might have looked in the pulps from a respectability perspective but that is fascinating to think about and makes me think differently about the classic works that I like that started out in the pulp format.

I’m confused (not surprising)…I have a hard cover copy of Blue Remembered Earth that I bought mid-year last year off the shelf in my local Kansas City area Barnes and Noble so I don’t understand the discussion of it not being released here until recently.

During your podcast, I assume you went to the link from TheHugoAwards.org that led you to a badly out-of-date version of the Constitution. When it was pointed out to me how badly outdated that link was, I pointed the link from TheHugoAwards.org to the 2012-13 version hosted on the current Worldcon’s web site.

1. Blanket extensions, which apply to anything published outside the USA (and by the way, Canada is not part of the USA, so Canadian publication gets extended just like UK or Australian — I’ve had people ask me about this). If passed by the Business Meeting, everything published outside the USA gets an additional year of eligibility when published in the USA.

2. Specific works extensions. In the case, the Business Meeting has to pass an extension applying to that specific work, on the grounds of limited distribution. For example, if a book was published in the USA on December 31, someone could make a case that it had too little 2012 distribution and if the Business Meeting agreed, that work would get an additional year of eligibility. This requires someone to bring the specific exemption up before the Business Meeting.

To my recollection, no specific work given a special one-year limited-distribution extension has ever made the ballot.

With regard to the eligibility of Empty Space and Blue Remembered Earth, you are correct in thinking that an eligibility extension is generally applied for works first published outside of the US on first US publication. However, this is renewable annually at the WSFS Business Meeting. For it to apply in 2014, it will have to be approved at the meeting in San Antonio.

Having said that, Gary is quite right that this splits the vote. Experience suggests that British fans will vote for books in the year that seems natural to them, and then ignore them the following year. I’m pretty sure that The Quantum Thief, which missed the ballot by just 1 vote last year, would have made it if more of the 48 people who nominated it in 2011 had done so again in 2012. I’m hoping that lots of US voters will have read Empty Space already, and I note that it is available on NetGalley.

As to semiprozines, the main expert on this is Neil Clarke, but I think your question can be answered by reference to the description of “professional work” in the page on category descriptions from the Hugo Awards website: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-categories/.

But it was entirely my pleasure to read Edge of Infinity. Terrific stuff.

Also, some unexpected. Ellen Klages is not exactly the sort of author I’d expect in a volume like this–but that’s the sort of trick you’ve done before, as I recall. :)

I would have included: James Blish’s Black Easter; James Morrow’s Towing Jehovah; Rachel Pollock’s Godmother Night; Michael Swanwick’s The Iron Dragon’s Daughter and Sheri S Tepper’s Beauty.

I vaguely remember an essay by Norman Spinrad in Asimov’s (maybe 20 years ago?) on contemporary fantasy set within the modern era that covered some of the same territory as the podcast.

Interestingly there’s a lot of crossover between your list and the one I drew up for my partner. Mine had Little, Big on it (sorry Jonathan) and Ian MacLeod’s The Light Ages or House of Storms (I haven’t looked at either in a while but loved them when I read them), but I also suggested Margo (although I think I might have plumped for Tender Morsels over Rollrock – although the latter is a more accomplished book Tender Morsels has a charge and sense of discovery and newness that’s really exciting). I’d have had no compunction at all about including Pullman, but I probably would have included American Gods, which despite its prolixity, is still a terrific book IMHO. I also suggested Graham Joyce, Elizabeth Hand, Guy Kay (although I suggested Tigana or Under Heaven), and Geoff Ryman’s Was. I didn’t suggest Wolfe or Lavinia but I should have. But all that said there are several writers on the list I’ve not read at all (Sean Stewart in particular) all of whom I’m going to seek out.

As everybody seems to acknowledge though, the question of definition is really tricky. As Gary points out in Evaporating Genres, of all the genres Fantasy is the most difficult to pin down, and the one that blurs into others the most, and you really see that here. Much as I love The Prestige for instance I’m not clear it actually is a Fantasy novel. After all, its fantastic elements are all “scientific”, and it could very easily and reasonably be read as science fiction (indeed if it was a century older it might look rather a lot like a Wellsian scientific romance). Likewise I wonder how useful it is to describe the Bas-Lag books as Fantasy: I suppose they are but all the scientific glitter and weirdness means I’ve never thought of them in that way (I was interested to hear Gary suggest a Leiberian influence, which I’d never thought of, although now he’s said it I think he’s right).

In a way what interests me is the degree to which most of the books Jonathan and Gary (and indeed me) nominate seem to be actively engaged with exploring or subverting the traditions they inhabit. As Gary says in the podcast that’s partly a matter of taste, and no doubt at least partly to do with us all being people who are actively engaged with the work at a critical level. But it’s also a quality that’s much more pronounced in Fantasy than in almost any other genre: obviously being new or fresh usually implies an awareness of the tradition that’s being subverted or broken with, but only in Fantasy is newness and energy so powerfully associated with interrogating its own history.

I suppose you could read this as a kind of decadence or insularity but I think that would be a mistake. Instead it says something about the way Fantasy as a genre largely inhabits a set of invented traditions, traditions that need ot be reinvented or made new over and over again (horror is a bit the same).

But, getting back to suggestions I’d probably nominate Lev Grossman’s Magicians books (which are brilliant deconstructions of both the tropes of Fantasy and the desires it embodies), and from outside the field I’d probably also argue Chabon’s Kavalier and Clay deserves a guernsey, as does Hilary Mantel’s simply extraordinary Beyond Black (although both underline how fuzzy the boundaries are). Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians should be there as well. I’m sure more will occur to me as I think about it.

The same sorts of books when written for adults fall into paranormal romance, though, which I’m guessing you are NOT looking for…then again, it occurs to me that Theodora Goss writes paranormal romance in such a gorgeous literary way that she gets to be classified a fantasist or a magical realist.

I also wonder about books like “Beauty” by Sheri S Tepper – have either of you read it?

Glad to hear Gary no longer coughing his lungs out, and now I have to listen to the last 10 minutes to make sure Jonathan has desisted with his talk of chucking in the podcast :)

* Which sidesteps the Steampunk categorization discussion nicely.

Of course there are the authors usually put into the magic realism box that might fit on the list, but I would expect there is some urban fantasy (by modern usage) that would fit as well, a shame I cannot think of any right now.

Danielewski – House of Leaves

In terms of recommendations, it’s great to get some Australian books added to the discussion. I’ve heard fantastic things about the Forsyth, but not read it.

Best, Jonathan

But I’m pleased to see Strange&Norrell already on the list, it really was outstanding. For Guy Kay, I like ‘Lions of Al-Rassan’ better than Ysabel, but there must be a decade between them, so it’s not counted as contemporary? :-)

Authors that make good candidates are Walter Moers (the City of Dreaming Books), Zoran Zivkovic who might have multiple good candidates to choose from. And of course as already mentioned in the podcast Terry Pratchett, again with multiple good examples of what can be done with fantasy.

I think Steven Erikson actually would make a good candidate, but has the big drawback that his best work is hidden inside the big series he has written.

You could also mention Sunset Boulevard, though that’s a film rather than a novel.

Hmm…would Robert Silverberg (still alive, mind) be a good choice to have the NY Times tackle. He’s written an awful lot of stories that are often overlooked in favor of a few of his novels

Great Work of Time was on Mark Kelly’s “short stories” list. It is novella-length and was originally published as part of a short story collection (Novelty). It was published separately later, after it won the World Fantasy Award, as part of Bantam/Spectra’s ill-fated experiment in publishing standalone novellas in the early 1990s.

I would list as my #1 sf novel (favorite, definitely; most influential, not so much; most important, probably) The Book of the New Sun. Yes, it came out while I was in my mid-teens (I’m Jonathan’s age), but I think it stands as brilliant summary of the first 50 years of the science fiction genre and a signpost toward the next 50.

Wolfe is also excellent at novella length, but I think I would be hard-pressed to name a shorter work that impressed me more than Bester’s “Fondly Fahrenheit”, for all the reasons that Silverberg discussed in Worlds of Wonder. (Even Asimov didn’t think that “Nightfall” was *his* best story, let alone the best sf story ever.)

The 1998/1999 Locus All Time Poll produced pretty convincing results (“convincing” as in “representative of what readers like”), and I hope these are the same.

I complete agree with the idea that Connie Willis was influenced by Heinlein as the future stuff in Blackout is a clear example of show-don’t-tell now that I think of it. In fact, that may well go some way to explaining why I found those sections of the book so thin.

I’m afraid I don’t buy Gary’s argument that SF criticism has not yet had the time to develop its own critical arsenal as film is about as old as SF and the critical language surrounding film is immeasurably richer than that surrounding SF. In fact, as I quoted in my piece, the first generation of post-War film critics were using quite a complex technical patois to describe films. Gary may well be correct that time will make the emergence of this type of thing more likely but I think serious SF criticism could be more highly evolved than it is.

The psychic powers stuff is really interesting. I get the impression that that set of tropes featured quite heavily in SF of the 40s, 50s and early 60s as a lot of people believed that it was only a matter of time before scientists discovered hard evidence of ESP. However, as that possibility was ruled out and ESP became increasingly the preserve of cranks, the trope moved across the aisle to fantasy and horror. This, along with the fading popularity of FTL, shows how scientific thought interacts with the field.

Wyatt Clay, “Paradise Lost and Fan Fiction”, NYRF #266, October 2010.

He did, I thought, a quite good job of exploring the ways that Paradise Lost expressed the same desires that many modern fanfics do. Maybe we should try to get that up on the web site.

It’s funny that you like Mists of Avalon, Darkover and The Once and future king – I started reading Darkover when I was a young teen because the books were on Mum’s shelves. I bought Mists of Avalon in a beautiful hardcover that was then stolen by a ‘friend’ :*( but I was SO BORED by Once and Future King. I read it when I was 16, and haven’t gone back.

Sadly The Paladin isn’t in Baen’s free library, I checked.

And for those interested in Finnish sf I recommend The Dedalus Book of Finnish Fantasy edited by
Johanna Sinisalo.

Jonathan, Gary: As to the question of the Young Adult Hugo, the majority of the opposition (to my eye) seemed to fall into 2 camps:

1. The bigger objection was that it’s a logistical nightmare because there’s no way to cleanly segregate YA works from works that would be eligible in other categories. One of the guiding principles of the Hugos categories is not just that no work should only be eligible in multiple categories, but that *the category should be as clear as possible for the person making the nomination*.

2. The lesser objection was that it seems unnecessary. Ben Yalow made the point–somewhat ham-handedly–that YA books are capable of winning the awards outright. He cited Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire and Coraline, but an even stronger case would be the Best Novel slate from 2009, when 3 of the 5 novels were YA (Little Brother, Zoe’s Tale, and the eventual winner, The Graveyard Book).

There was one person who spoke in opposition to the award on the grounds that the material was unworthy of consideration. He was actually booed and hissed, and I don’t think his opinion held much sway.

I myself am deeply ambivalent about the idea, because I see the benefits of such an award–to YA SF, to the Hugos, and to traditional fannish fandom. But I also see the difficulties involved–it took the Semiprozine Reform Committee 2 years to come up with a set of definitions that we could mostly agree to, and that seems like a calm stroll through a meadow compared to the minefield of sorting out the issues involved in the YA category.

There’s real concentrated wisdom, both about the award idea and the reaction to its rejection, in Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s blog post here: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/014324.html#014324

However, a recent comment (episode 117) from Gary Wolfe (and he has made similar comments in the past) raised my hackles enough to post a reply here. I know it seems incredibly quaint to some that there are current citizens of the United States who believe in supernatural realities like God, angels, or miracles. But I can assure you that there are such and that many of these people are intelligent and educated. I believe in the existence of God and such, and am personally pursuing a Phd in philosophy. In my local faith community we have people who are doctors, computer technicians, and engineers. Moreover, some of these people actually enjoy science fiction and other speculative fiction. I’m sure that we (those who believe in the supernatural and are intelligent and educated) might be in the minority in the “community” that Jonathan and Gary speak so much about, but we do exist and would appreciate not being referenced in such a snide way.

I hope the tone of this email does not sound “snippy”. I just thought you should know that you have at least one regular listener who fits this bill.

You don’t pronounce it either way. It’s actually
Strahhhhn, with an ahhhhh sound in the middle,

Best
J

The discussion was also often contradictory, on one hand Hugos are a popularity contest, while on the other, juried awards are no better either, so what do we do? (Actually, I think that while getting onto the final ballot has an element of popularity contest, I credit the voters with the collective intelligence to chose wisely when assessing the final ballot. The work with the most nominations doesn’t always win. I guess the hard part might be getting the best works onto the final ballot in the first place which is a whole other topic)

Not everything is for everyone, nor should it be, but variety is good – and there is enough there for everyone to find something they like; I wouldn’t like a reading consisting solely of challenging SF, in the same way I wouldn’t like a diet consisting solely of unchallenging fun adventures either.

SF is a big tent encompassing a multitude, it’s not unitary. The idea of “Where should the field go from here?” assumes the field could ‘choose’ what to do next, when it’s more the emergent properties of a bunch of writers, editors, publishers trying to produce & sell works that maintain an ongoing income.

This was a thought-provoking discussion. Thanks.

So basically, variety is the spice of life?

That was a very roundabout (dare I say it, rambling) way to get to that point!

What might be happening in (part of) SF is people realizing that 1) lots of people were never represented well in older SF and their stories ought to be written as well, even if that means reusing older stories; 2)people realizing that the amount of people that understand modern technology beyond ‘it is magic’ is tiny, which again means that older stories can be told with that in mind.

Both factors that also seem to be important in the Kiernan and Mamatas stories you discussed.

Of course in addition to the different interpretations of what SF actually is, should be, and who writes it (how much of the SF’nal exploration of modern society actually takes place in the techno thrillers?).

If no money changes hands then it is a fanzine.

If the contributors get paid but the staff of the magazine do not, then it is a semiprozine.

If the staff of the magazine get paid then it is professional.

For those who are still confused, here’s some elaboration.

The basic fan ethic is that you do what you do for the love of it, not to make money. The only “payment” fans should expect for what they do is that fans who benefit from their work should also do things on a volunteer basis to pay back for all of the free stuff they have received from others.

However, as with all artistic activity, not all creativity is commercial. Our writers need money to support them. Fans can help by creating publishing companies and magazines that take in money to pay the writers, and cover costs. Provided that the fans themselves don’t take payment, they are still operating within the fan ethic.

If, on the other hand, the staff of the magazine get paid, then clearly they are running the magazine as industry professionals and should be judged as such.

There are, of course, inevitable wrinkles and complications, because real life is not as simple as award rules, but the above outlines the basic principles on which the split is based.

The story sounded more “Campbellian” in tone. Or maybe “Clementian”. Basic Hard SF. Which is much wider than just “The Cold Equations”.

Theme song…the next quest!

Also, I was interested in Malzberg’s assertion that some of the finest science fiction ever was written in the mid-40s to mid-50s (I think that’s the period he said), and that the short fiction was far superior to the novels. Can you name perhaps 5-10 quintessential science fiction stories of that period, and is there an anthology available where they can be found in one place? Yes, of course I realize I can ask Jonathan this later, but I’m thinking of it now so feel free to answer on the podcast.
xx
Marianne

I had an idea that science fiction is an archipelago of islands, all rising out of the same submerged seamount that makes it difficult to see that Campbellian science fiction and the SF of, say, Kij Johnson, really are more connected than people might first think

I just wanted to also say how much I agree with what you say about the Readercon issue. We do need to own this as a community, and that means admitting that the perpetrators are within our community – rather than assume, as Readercon seem to have done, that the perpetrators are peripheral assholes about whom we do not care too much, and then furiously backtrack when this seems to be the case. And yes, not applying the mandate automatic penalty as set out in the policies suggests that the Readercon Board consider themselves not bound by the con’s policies, and that is horribly anti-democratic.

Thank you for commenting. I appreciate it. I don’t particularly want to revisit the Readercon discussion that we had on the podcast, but I would re-iterate what I hope the podcast makes clear. The behaviour at the heart of the Readercon debacle is a cancer in our field. Both the behaviour that started it, which is contemptible and cannot be tolerated, and what certainly appeared to be a boy’s club closing of the ranks (I don’t know if it was, but it certainly looked that way, and in this instance that’s critical). The whole issue is something I feel passionately about, and something I feel every single member of our community needs to own.

As to the “Coode St Experience”: I can see how it could appear to be a dichotomy, especially for someone who is on the margins of the field or who might for whatever reason feel that they are. I’ll certainly remember it. I can only say that, for the most part, the field has been warm and welcoming to me, and my blind spot is that I tend to assume that it is to everyone else (and try to make it so).

Best,
Jonathan

I’ve listened to the Coode St Podcast from the start and, as someone who exists on the margins of SFF culture, I have often found the ‘Coode Street Experience’ to be quite alienating for reasons that relate to the whole Readercon debate.

There was one particular podcast (I forget which one) where you and Gary talked about the open and progressive nature of the field before moving on to discussing your experiences sitting on Charles N. Brown’s porch. I found it astonishing that you failed to realise the tension between these two visions of the field… how can the field by open and progressive when it’s all about the boy’s club of who gets invited to sit on Charlie Brown’s porch?

To me, this tension lies at the heart of the Readercon thing as Readercon is about the tension between the field’s stated values (openness, inclusivity, zero-tolerance of stalkers) and its actual values (closed social networks and preferential treatment for ‘our friends’). Had Rene Walling not been a well-known fan with ties to the Worldcon establishment then chances are that his lifetime ban would have stood but because he knew people and people knew him to be ‘a good guy’ the stated principles of Readercon went out the window.

As someone who has long existed on the margins of SFF culture, I found it very heartening to hear someone in as prominent a position as yourself speak out against the tendency to close ranks and hide these things behind a sort of bigfen omerta. The same omerta that has served as a barrier for non-white, non-male and non-straight people for so long.