Roger Elwood published fifty-five anthologies with a variety of publishers in a six year period beginning in 1972. The view is held within science fiction circles that the large quantity and poor quality of these books led to low sales, which in turn so damaged the reputation of anthologies with both publishers and readers that it became near impossible for editors to place new anthologies.

Science fiction editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden has written a cogent and considered entry on Roger Elwood for wikipedia that addresses most of these issues. In doing so she makes some interesting observations. The one that struck a chord with me, as a novice anthologist (*), was that prior to Elwood “anthologies and collections were very popular with readers, and were considered by the publishing industry to be a surer bet than novels”. I don’t dispute the observation for a moment, but it does make pre-Elwood publishing seem like an impossible wonderland to someone whose experience with the business side of the field has been almost entirely within the past decade.

Teresa also goes on to say:

“What’s safe to say is that there are no very creditable explanations for his flood of anthologies in the mid-1970s; that the publishers who bought them would never have done so if they’d had any idea that he was carpet-bombing SF publishing with anthology projects; that many of his anthologies (if not all the stories in them) were well below par in terms of their quality; and that the subsequent collapse of the anthology and story-collection market did long-term damage to science fiction as a whole.”

The observation that Elwood did long-term damage is the one that interests me most. Teresa states more than once that the market for anthologies and collections has only partly recovered. It seems difficult to believe that, thirty years after Elwood published his final anthology, that the science fiction field is still suffering. But, so seems to be the case.

I did take a moment to look at some of the statistics in the The Locus Index to Science Fiction which, if not definitively accurate, at least provides the best readily available statistical information on such things, and it seems to suggest that things have been fairly steady over the past ten years, with, if anything, an increase in the number of anthologies and collections being published. Between 1984 and 1998, the Locus database records 11,576 novels and 3,929 anthologies and collections being published. This ratio of about three to one seems to have remained fairly constant up to 2004, when 842 novels and 332 anthologies and collections were published. I’d be interested to know the pattern for the ten years before Elwood, the ten years he was active, and the twenty years after he stopped publishing. Hmmm. Need to do some research.

(via David Moles, Chrononautic Log)

* I’ve been jokingly compared to Elwood, but I published my first anthology back in 1997, have published eight books in all since then, and am very much still learning my craft. It’s a long way from 22 books in a single year, and I’d like to think that the books that I have done have been of somewhat higher quality.

The folks over at Black Gate have posted Rich Horton’s annual Virtual Best of the Year. Rich’s selections are always interesting and worthwhile checking out. I don’t keep track of numbers the way Rich does, but the scariest thing I saw in his summary was this statement: “This year I read a total of 46 novellas, 311 novelettes, and 1400 short stories.” Gah! I know I looked at pretty much the same stuff, but I don’t remember reading that much. It all does blur.

I have just delivered Best Short Novels: 2006 to Andrew Wheeler at The SF Book Club (or, I will have when he checks his email in the morning). The book features nine stories, including work by Steven Erikson, Kelly Link, Ian McDonald, Cory Doctorow, Harry Turtledove, Connie Willis, Wil McCarthy, and Matthew Hughes. I love working on this series, and think the final book is a strong one. I’d loved to have snuck an extra story or two in, but the book can only be so long, and I’m very happy with what is in the book. If all goes to plan, it should be out in May/June.

Cory Doctorow makes some remarkably sensible points about Google’s Book Search service.

Should you and I ever be in the same place, and should you ever here me grumble about the editing life, remind me of this. First, I am incredibly lucky (and I know it). Second, there are two things that make all of it worthwhile. The first is the moment when, having thought up an idea and persuaded someone else that it’s a good one, you sell a book. There’s a real adrenalin rush to knowing that it worked, it was a good idea, and it was going to happen. The second, and by far the best thing, is the moment when a new story for a book arrives via post or email, you open it and read it, and it’s not only good, it’s so surprisingly, stunningly good that it makes you want to shout out loud, punch the air, and run around grinning like an idiot.

The reason I mention this is that I’m working on completing my first original anthology – all the others up till now have been reprint anthologies – and I’ve had at least four or five moments like that while working on the book. It’s been thrilling. The book, The Starry Rift, will finally be out in mid-2007 and I can’t wait to see what people think of it.