For those following the discussions that have surrounded my Eclipse anthology series, there’s a very good summary on Abigail Nussbaum’s journal (which I appreciated). In retrospect, I would have engaged with the discussion about the first book in the series, Eclipse One, very differently if I had the opportunity to do so. I would also have avoided some of the further discussion, in retrospect. But you cannot undo the past. I’m not entirely sure what to say about the current discussion. I don’t want to be defensive or dismissive or belligerent. There are legitimate points being raised, and they deserve to be discussed respectfully and intelligently. I hope they are. If I’m queried directly, I’m happy enough to discuss it. Otherwise, direct queries aside, I think I’m going to do my best to sit this one out.
Yeah, I’m kind of tired of this whole bologna argument. I’m terribly sorry that Mr. Strahan didn’t like every single story that happened to be written by a woman. Would they like it better if you threw women a bone and just put more stories in to make them feel better? No, they would be throwing a complete conniption over that too. This is why I don’t read the Feminist SF blog anymore. Because you’re a man, you’re automatically evil and biased, which is in itself a biased argument as well.
If anything, this just makes me want to buy Eclipse Two even more.
For future reference, I suggest that you solicit more women and more authors of color.
There are lots of fantastic authors out there, so you will get good stories; and you will be able to avoid being the center of controversy, which will be good for you. It’s a win-win situation.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of sf, fantasy, and horror authors to consider soliciting for your next anthology:
Ekaterina Sedia, Elizabeth Wein, Sonya Taaffe, Catherynne M. Valente, Cherie Priest, Lisa Mantchev, Cat Rambo, Samantha Henderson, K. Tempest Bradford, Marissa Lingen, Walter Mosely, Cecilia Tan, Poppy Z. Brite, Storm Constantine, Caitlin R. Kiernan, Pat Califia, Drew Hayden Taylor, Melanie Tem, J.D. Robb (Nora Roberts’ SF nom de plume, Sherman Alexie, Steven Barnes, Elizabeth Bear, Holly Black, Lois McMaster Bujold, Emma Bull, Pat Cadigan, Suzy McKee Charnas, C. J. Cherryh, Ted Chiang, Susannah Clarke, Pamela Dean, Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni, Diane Duane, Tananarive Due, Doris Egan, Jewelle Gomez, Barbara Hambly, Nalo Hopkinson, Nicola Griffith, Diana Wynne Jones, Nancy Kress, Ellen Kushner, Tanith Lee, Yoon Ha Lee, Ursula K. LeGuin, Megan Lindholm, Kelly Link, Marjorie Liu, Sarah Monette, Elizabeth Moon, Haruki Murakami, Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu, Tamora Pierce, Nisi Shawl, janni Lee Simner, Vandana Singh, Sherwood Smith, Megan Whalen Turner, Jo Walton, Leslie What, Connie Willis, Jane Yolen, Banana Yoshimoto.
(Yeah, yeah, good luck getting Yoshimoto or Murakami, but what a coup if you did!)
Rachel: Thank you for your comment. I actually had solicited several people on your list, received stories from a couple, and even have one in Eclipse Two. The problem with a list like yours is that I adore the work of many of the writes you’ve listed, and some not so much. Part of the solicitation process is one of personal taste. I want to work with people who’s work excites me. I’ll definitely give it very careful consideration, though. – Jonathan
Oh, I’m not suggesting that you have to love everyone; I’m suggesting that you cast a wider net, and use lists and deliberate consideration to remind yourself to think a little more outside of the box.
That probably would include checking out some writers you’re not yet familiar with. Hey, it’s sf: we’re supposed to be adventurous and push our comfort zone into uncharted territories.
I definitely can keep it more overtly in mind, and I’m certainly looking at how best to do that. One of the reasons that I edit a year’s best is because it makes me read very widely, which I do. Taking your list, which I know is just a suggestion for discussion, I’d say I’m familiar with all but six of the writers you name. I have invited a number of them to be involved in projects, and certainly will invite many more.
Rachel: I am sure there are many authors on that list that Jonathan would have been delighted to consider stories by. However, many of them are very far from prolific, especially at shorter length. The main thing is, though, that unless someone was actively involved in the commissioning of this anthology, they can’t know the full list of writers that Jonathan *did* approach. For all they know, he did “cast a wider net” and think “outside the box”. The fact remains, though, that a large proportion of the invited authors did not deliver stories. Jonathan was never in the position of being able to accept or reject them – the stories simply never existed.
But at which demographic demarcation do we draw the line, Rachel?
How many of the authors on your list, for example, are disabled? Around 20% to 30% of Australians and Americans consider themselves disabled. I’m one of them, so it’s a category I’m interested in. But I’m sure there are plenty of other categories people could choose.
Should there be criticism of editors if less than a fifth of their author roster is disabled? Is one demographic category more valid than another?
I am still failing to see a response to my question (in a comment here: http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006777.html), as to “What gives!” with Jeremy coming to Wiscon, sitting on the Eclipse One Cover Debate panel, and telling us that “things would go [our] way” for the second anthology. He made it very clear that Nightshade had not changed the way it determined which authors to put on a cover, but he ALSO made the statement of assurance that, for the second anthology at least, we would be “pleased” with the cover.
In my mind, this would mean at the very least that more than ONE AUTHOR would be female, or a person of color (or both!).
Could you please explain what he meant?
I think unless there is a clear indication that the editor is holding a gender or racial bias, it’s silly to make any sort of assumption that he or she is. I don’t think Mr. Strahan sat down and said “Ohhh, I’m going to get them this time…only one woman in this book now”. And he can’t be blamed for authors not delivering. If the women authors he approached didn’t give him anything, what do people want him to do? I can’t force writers to write. His job is to put together a book of good stories, and if it just happens that they’re mostly stories by men, so be it.
The problem now is that people that threw a fit over Strahan’s two anthologies are going to react badly to anything else he does because they are too narrow minded for their own good. They don’t want to accept that he is simply doing his job and happened to pick one woman this time or that his previous anthology didn’t highlight female authors on the cover. If his next anthology is 100% female, it won’t matter, because they’ll throw a fit over that too. It’s all pointless. Unless he were writing on here that he hates women, there’s just no basis for the criticism.
I’ve never seen so much controversy over a book that didn’t intend to touch on controversial issues before…
Mystickeeper –
I can’t comment on what was said or took place at Wiscon. I didn’t attend the convention, didn’t provide any material or information for the panel before hand, and have only seen comments about it online over the past few days.
I think it is reasonable for you to ask for some clarification on what was said at Wiscon, but I think you need to direct your question to Jeremy. In terms of what was likely to be IN the book rather than ON the cover: the book was due to be delivered to the publisher on 15 June. Contents were finalised at that time. I did provide the publisher with a *tentative* list of contents several weeks earlier, but it was only tentative, listing accepted stories, stories likely to be accepted, and a couple stories that were being worked on. I need to recheck the list, but from my recollection there were three stories on the list written by women, including the story by Nancy Kress (which was the first one accepted for the book).
— Jonathan
As I commented on another blog, I solicit about twice as many contributors as I need for every anthology I edit. If I’m lucky, half of those writers come through for me. There are writers (male and female)who I’ve asked for stories multiple times who have either not replied or have no written stories to deadline.
After awhile an editor gets tired of nagging and stops asking. We come to rely on those whose writing we love and who write what we can use for a specific venue and who actually finish the story on time.
This is known as developing a “stable” of writers. However, I know that I (and I assume most editor other editors) are also eager to add new writers to their stable. Which is what I do when I discover another writer whose work I love.
That’s consistent with what I do. Although I’ve been around the peripheries of the field for a while, I’ve only been editing original anthologies for the past three years. During that time I’ve learnt: you need solicit a lot more than you need. Life gets in the way and people often just can’t deliver, which is cool. I also get a lot of non-responses etc. When you come across a writer whose work you love, and who does deliver, you tend to go back to them regularly.