Patterns in the Nebula finalist list

25 Comments

I had mentioned in the comments section of my announcement of the Nebula finalists that I thought recent shifts in the makeup of the SFWA membership had led to changes in the ballot. To clarify, this is the sudden appearance of indie press military/hard SF on the finalists list when it had been recently trending (as in most awards) to primarily female and fantasy nominees. As it turns out, some other people noticed this pattern shift, too. In the last few days, there has been a huge and embarrassing battle raging on Twitter about a recommended reading list posted before the vote at 20booksto50K a self-publishing writers co-op. Although the post stated that this was NOT intended as a slate, it was still taken that way by some readers who claimed it had unfairly influenced the results.

Annie Bellet and Marko Kloos (apparently still suffering from PTSD acquired from their experience with the 2015 Hugos) challenged the list on Twitter and demanded that the finalists whose stories had appeared on it withdraw. Author of the post Jonathan Brazee immediately issued an apology and offered to withdraw his novella from consideration. Other nominees hunkered down in horror and kept their mouths shut, as did the SFWA Officers and Board of Directors. However, Sri Lankan writer Yudhanjaya Wijeratne, angered by racist accusations that he cheated because he couldn’t otherwise make it as a POC, stepped up to fight it out. Welcome to the SFF community Yudhanjaya Wijeratne. Bellet and Yudhanjaya eventually kissed and made up on Twitter, but not before fairly serious damage was done to both their reputations.

I’m sure no one knew who Yudhanjaya was before his name appeared on the Nebula finalist list. For folks still in the dark, he is an established novelist and a hybrid writer, with both traditional and self-published works. His novelette “Messenger” with R.R. Virdi appeared in the anthology The Expanding Universe 4, and scored 15 recommendations on the 2018 Nebula reading list, plenty of votes to get the nomination without any slate. So, this comes off like another case of bullying successful POC writers.

See File 770 for a roundup of posts on the issue here and here. See Yudhanjaya’s blog here about this enlightening experience with the Nebulas so far.

Moving on to some other observations, once you get to looking for patterns in the Nebula finalist list, then there are at least a couple more that show up. I had meant to discuss this after the reviews, but since it’s been pointed out on other venues, this seems to be a better time. The dominance of certain traditional publishers on the list is troubling, for example, Tor. In the categories where Tor publishes (novelette, novella, novel) about half of the finalists this year were released by Tor. I’ve discussed this issue in the past, and the most likely explanation is the system of promotion, which includes give-aways, recommended reading lists, and reviews and recommendations in elite publications. I really almost think I could predict the finalists from a review of these promotions, and the same choices tend to appear in the Hugo Awards. The promotions determine what books everyone has read, so they become the award-winners, too.

The last pattern that shows up in the Nebulas is the inclusion of SFWA insiders on the list. This year, four members of SFWA Board of Directors out of five appear on the list of finalists, including: Sarah Pinsker, Andy Duncan, Lawrence Schoen and Kelly Robson. According to the rules, officers are ineligible for Nebula nominations because of their administrative access, but board members remain eligible. Mary Robinette Kowal, in line for president next year, is also a finalist. When asked about this on the SFWA forum, board members brushed it off as inconsequential.

There are also some patterns in the themes and styles this year, but I’ll get to that in my wrap up after the reviews.

Advertisements

Diversity versus cultural appropriation—Best current practice?

12 Comments

Here’s a current report on the subject from professional writers in the field.

Thursday night after Halloween, I went to a program at the local writer’s guild that included African American poets and musicians. Excellent program. Then afterwards, some of us went across the street for a couple of brews and had a great conversation about art and marketing your work. One of the gals in the guild is an established novelist who writes research-based historical-type fiction, and she mentioned that she’s having trouble finding a publisher for her latest work: a story about a civil rights riot that took place in 1919 and includes African American characters.

Far be it from me to judge the racial heritage of others, but the writer looks pretty German. Her agent has told her the problem is the African American characters in her book. According to Agent, major US publishers are no longer interested in works from Caucasian writers that feature African American characters—not just lead characters, mind you, but any kind of prominent characters at all. Presumably this is based on the recent movement to call out cultural appropriation from “privileged” white writers.

So what am I doing today? I’m going back through my marketable works to remove anything that might identify characters by race or ethnic heritage. Sure, that really cuts down on the diversity, but that’s the end result of the cultural appropriation and/or “own voices” movement, isn’t it? A curtailment of ally-ism in support of minority issues (e.g. my friend’s novel on civil rights riots)? Less diversity in the works available for sale? Greater segregation of the market?

Horror infesting the awards ballots?

9 Comments

As I was doing reviews for the awards cycle this year, I got some comments about the popularity of works recently that lean to horror. I’ve just never really understood horror as a genre, though I’m better at managing to be less disturbed by it now than I used to be. Part of the problem is that I have tendencies toward depression and anxiety myself, and I really don’t like wallowing in it—there are better ways to deal. Reading about boiling babies in hot water, for example, just doesn’t help me to cope. No offense to people who like that kind of thing, of course.

Various people have made statements recently about the political content of SFF literature reflecting the interests and viewpoints of readers. So, I guess we can say the same thing about horror, right? It’s infiltrating science fiction and fantasy awards ballots because that’s what the majority of fans want to read? All right. So why?

One possible theory is that this reflects the mental health state of the readers. Supposedly the mental health status of teens and young adults in the 21st century (not to mention that of older adults) has seriously declined. About 50% of teens between the ages of 13-18 now have at least one diagnosed mental health disorder, and about 17% suffer from depression. I’m suspecting this is about average for most generations because of changing hormones and the tendency of the current mental health system to want to diagnose and medicate you if at all possible, but still that’s what the articles say. So maybe people with mental health disorders find horror strikes a resonant chord?

It turns out there is some research on the subject. A 2005 study by Hoffner and Levine found that people respond to horrific stories according to levels of three variables: empathy, sensation seeking and aggression. In other words, individuals with low levels of empathy and high levels of sensation seeking and aggression really like those stories about baby torture. There are also gender and age splits, as teens and men are more likely to enjoy horrific works than older fans and women.

Another researcher, Zillman (1980, 1996), developed a paradigm about excitation transfer. According to his theory, readers or viewers experience “fearful apprehension about deplorable events that threaten liked protagonists” and then feel relief when the threats are resolved. However, he doesn’t say what happens when everybody dies. Worse mental health?

Hm.

Making A List of Anthologies Edited by Women and POC for 2018

Leave a comment

Okay, following up on the last blog, I’ll try to compile a list. If you’re a woman or POC who has edited an anthology that will be released in 2018, send me your info. If you know of a woman or POC who has edited an anthology in 2018 that’s not listed below, let me know. Also, let me know if I’ve made a mistake anywhere below. I’ll also be happy to include non-binary editors/publishers. This is for promotional purposes only, and it’s unlikely I’ll be able to review all the entries. Here’s what I found with just a few minutes of searching:

  • The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2018 (The Best American Series) Oct 2, 2018 by John Joseph Adams and N.K. Jemisin
  • Blacktastic!: Blacktasticon 2018 Anthology Jun 25, 2018 by Linda Addison and Sheree Thomas
  • Fell Beasts and Fair: A Noblebright Fantasy Anthology Mar 20, 2018 by Leslie J. Anderson and C.A. Barrett
  • The Colored Lens: Winter 2018 Jan 2, 2018 by Michael Best and Michelle Kaseler
  • New Voices 004: July-August 2018 (Short Story Fiction Anthology) by C. C. Brower
  • The Attractive American Science Fiction and Fantasy: Classic Science Fiction Stories For New Generation Reader in Future Aug 30, 2018 by Annie Corol
  • The Best of the Best Horror of the Year: 10 Years of Essential Short Horror Fiction Paperback – October 2, 2018 by Ellen Datlow
  • Beyond the Stars: Unimagined Realms: a space opera anthology Aug 22, 2018 by Patrice Fitzgerald
  • Worlds Seen in Passing: Ten Years of Tor.com Short Fiction Kindle Edition Sep 4, 2018 by Irene Gallo
  • Great American Science Fiction Short Stories: Stories from the Golden Age (Science Fiction & Fantasy Stories Collection) Aug 19, 2018 by Kimmy Hammond
  • Hues of Hubris: Stories from the Age of Turbulence (2018 Bay Area Teen Writers Anthology) (Volume 4) Mar 7, 2018 by Shu-Hsien Ho and Royd Hatta
  • Flash Fiction Online March 2018 Feb 27, 2018 by Maria Haskins and Samantha Murray
  • FTL, Y’all! August 28, 2018 by Amanda Lafrenais
  • The Best & Attractive Science Fiction Stories of the Year: Amazing & Greatest Science Fiction Stories Collection for All Time Aug 3, 2018 by Connie Lawley
  • The Colored Lens: Summer 2018 July 17, 2018 by Dawn Lloyd and Daniel Scott
  • Mystery!: The Origins Game Fair 2018 Anthology Jun 18, 2018 by Chantelle Aimée Osman and Donald J. Bingle
  • The Colored Lens: Spring 2018 Apr 3, 2018 by H. Pueyo and Imogen Cassidy
  • Terra! Tara! Terror! (Third Flatiron Anthologies Book 24) Sep 30, 2018 by Juliana Rew
  • Galileo’s Theme Park (Third Flatiron Anthologies Book 23) Jun 15, 2018 by Juliana Rew
  • Monstrosities (Third Flatiron Anthologies Book 22) Mar 10, 2018 by Juliana Rew
  • Flash Fiction Online January 2018 by Suzanne Vincent
  • The Future Is Female! 25 Classic Science Fiction Stories by Women, from Pulp Pioneers to Ursula K. Le Guin: A Library of America Special Publication Oct 9, 2018 by Lisa Yaszek
  • Nebula Awards Showcase 2018 Aug 7, 2018 by Jane Yolen

Wrap up of the 2018 Hugo Reviews

11 Comments

Now that I’ve reviewed all the works, it’s time to take a look at the Hugo finalists, and how they fell out this year. Most notable is the absence of Vox Day’s Rabid Puppy inputs, which in the past couple or three award cycles has provided the male diversity. That means ordinary cis men were totally shut out of three of the four Hugo fiction categories for 2018, with Best Short Story, Best Novelette and Best Novella featuring only women, trans and non-binary authors. The Best Novel category also featured two finalists who are possibly political appointees meant as a slap-in-the-face to Vox Day, these being his nemeses N.K. Jemisin and John Scalzi. That leaves the white-male-masterful-crusader Kim Stanley Robinson as the really big wild card in the whole thing.

The next notable feature was the high rate of correspondence between the finalists for the Hugo and the Nebula Award. For the Best Short Story category the only difference was that two men nominated for the Nebula were replaced by women or trans writers. In the Best Novelette category, the same thing happened, but one additional woman was nominated. The most significant difference was in the Best Novel category, where only two of the finalists were the same. This strongly suggests how the same limited system produces both sets of nominees.

Next, the Hugo Awards drew from the same restricted number of publishers as the Nebula. In the novel category, this included: 4 from Orbit, 1 from Tor and 1 from Solaris. In the novella category: 5 from Tor.com and 1 from Uncanny. The novelette and short story categories showed slightly more diversity, drawing from Uncanny, Clarkesworld, Tor.com, Asimov’s, Beneath Ceaseless Skies and Apex. Looking at these results, it’s clear why Rocket Stack Rank only reviews particular magazines. This is pretty much the list of shorter-than-novel publishers with inputs into the Nebula and Hugo Awards. Print magazines are doing so poorly, RSR can probably leave Asimov’s, Analog and F&SF off pretty soon without missing anything important.

Looking at what’s normally counted for diversity, the Hugo has done reasonably well. Best Novel includes 3 women, 2 men, 1 trans, 1 Asian and 1 African American writer. Best Novella includes 5 women, 0 men, 1 non-binary, 1 Asian and 1 African American writer. Best Novelette category includes 4 women, 0 men, 2 trans and 3 Asian writers. Best Short Story includes 6 women, 0 men, 3 Asian and 1 Native American writer. Those who recall my comments from last year will know I’m glad to see a Native American writer appear in the finalists, but we’re still short of Hispanics. These figures work out to be 75% women, 12.5% trans, 8% men and 4% non-binary. Looking at the counted racial categories, it works out to be 55% whites, 33% Asian, 8% African American and 4% Native American. Clearly the preferred finalists are young white and Asian women, while men, African Americans and Hispanics are all hugely underrepresented based on their population demographics. The one finalist works out okay for Native Americans, who are about 2% of the US population.

A couple of things stood out in the themes. First, the list included several repeat appearances from previous years, and also followed the Nebula tendency to nominate the same author in multiple categories. These included Vina Jie-Min Prasad, Sarah Pinsker and Yoon Ha Lee. The list of Hugo finalists avoided the tendency the Nebula finalists showed for editors, publishers and other industry insiders, but included at least a couple of short works written by popular novelists within the universe of their novels. I took this as unduly promotional. Like the Nebulas, there seemed to be a strong preference for stories with non-binary or trans characters.

This list leans heavily to fantasy and soft science fiction, with a serious lack of ideas and/or hard science fiction. I don’t think Nagata’s work qualifies, regardless that it’s set on Mars. The real stand-out, different work here, again, was Kim Stanley Robinson’s New York 2140, which actually attempted to deal with hard science, real politics and real threats to humanity’s future. This is the kind of important work I’d prefer to see appear on the awards ballots.

patreon

Review of Down among the Sticks and Bones by Seanan McGuire

4 Comments

This novella is a finalist for the 2018 Hugo Award. It’s fantasy and a second book in the authors Wayward Children series, a prequel to Every Heart a Doorway. Beneath the Sugar Sky was also published this year. This runs 190 pages and was published by Tor.com.

Jack and Jill are twin girls born to indifferent parents that only want children for their prestige value. The two of them are forced into obedience and limited roles, Jack a princess and Jill an athlete, but they sometimes yearn to be something else. One day they open their grandmother’s old trunk in the attic and find steps inside that run down through darkness into another world. Taking the stairs, they emerge onto a moor with a red moon and find there’s a castle, its vampire master and a village protected by a palisade. The other power in this place is Dr. Bleak, a mad scientist who lives in a windmill out on the moor. The girls are given a choice of which to serve and how to live. How will they choose? Is there any way they can get home?

Good points: This book falls into the young adult category because of the age of the protagonists, who grow from 12 to 17 during their time in the alternate world. It’s presented as a fairy tale about Jack and Jill, with chapter headings that refer back to the nursery rhyme. McGuire uses a narrator to tell the story, who addresses the reader directly and makes comments on how the tale relates to real life choices as it unfolds. There’s an artful contrast between the vampire master, obsessed with death, and Dr. Bleak, obsessed with life. This is inclusive, touching on the different roles women can choose, including STEM. Jack’s lover Alexis allows the author to comment on the question of weight and body image. The rest of the world is adequately sketched in for the scope of the story. Although it starts out with a magical feel, this descends into a faintly horrific vibe as the story moves forward.

Not so good points: This moves very slowly and nothing much happens. It’s another one of those expansions that could have been written as a short story with about as much impact—although in that case it would have likely reached a much more limited audience than the novella. It’s clear this is written as instructional material for 12-year old girls. However, I thought the choices were too black and white–the development doesn’t account for the insidiousness of evil. Although I notice other reviewers have called this magical, I didn’t think it was uplifting or empowering. I was left with something of a depressed feel. You have to enjoy McGuire’s writing style to get the most out of it.

Four stars.

patreon

Review of “Small Changes over Long Periods of Time” by K.M. Szpara

Leave a comment

This novelette is a finalist for the 2017 Nebula Award, and was published by Uncanny Magazine. This review contains spoilers.

Finley is drunk and gets bitten by a vampire. He wakes up the next morning in Andreas’ apartment and the vampire tells him he’s dying. Finley is angry that he’s been bitten without his consent, but his only options now are dying and illegally changing to a vampire. The only question is, how will changing affect his trans body?

So, readers will need to know this is fairly explicit vampire erotica. I guess adding the trans element is what it takes to make this subgenre attractive to pro SFF magazines and respected awards—or maybe Vox Day has somehow managed to infiltrate the SFWA. 🙂

Good points: The trans element does add an element of interest, plus there are parallels to rape, and between transgender transitioning and rebirth as a vampire. We get clues in the narrative about how hard it is to live as trans, even with modern medical assistance. However, Finley can now get his revenge–he encounters a gay suitor, and bites the guy when he rejects Findley’s obviously trans body.

Not so good points: The high erotica content is a little much for a mainstream magazine. (Does Uncanny have controls to keep little kids from reading this?) Andreas is completely irresponsible, and is apparently indulging a fetish for illegal biting. If this were a thoughtful story, I’d expect more world-building and more discussion of the consent and morality issues it presents. Finley is a fairly well-developed character, but Andreas seems two-dimensional. There are plot elements, but no real Earth-shattering conflicts—just Finley trying to deal with ongoing hungers and changes.

Three and a half stars.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: