science fiction & fantasy

Back when the Hugo Awards were "pure"

When a certain high-profile author and others organized a vote-campaign to place certain stories on this year's Hugo Award ballot, one complaint I heard from people across the ideological divide is that stories were no longer being considered for the Hugo based solely on their merit.

Which, of course, was total BS. Most Hugo voters vote for what they consider to be the best stories. In addition, as Rose Lemberg so amazingly said, the controversy was about much more than simply which stories "merit" being on the award shortlist.

But another issue which didn't receive a lot of discussion back then was how truly "pure" the Hugo Awards selection process actually was in the olden days. 

Well, here's an interesting tidbit which definitely casts doubt on the awards ever being a paragon of SF/F purity. On October 18th File 770, a six-time winner of the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine, published an article titled "How The Lucite Was Won."

The article discussed the 1967 Worldcon and raised a fascinating point about how the Hugo Award finalists were selected that year. The history lesson was presented by Andrew Porter, who was the 1967 Worldcon Secretary.

Want to read about this fascinating bit of genre history? Well, you can't, at least not on File 770. The article was published on Oct. 18 and removed later that same day, with the following note being published instead:

"1967 Hugo Story Withdrawn. The story from Andrew Porter I published earlier today about the 1967 Hugos was denied by Ted White, chair of Nycon 3 and will receive no further attention here."

Fortunately, Google cached the page here. Check the page out before it disappears

I can't vouch for the accuracy of what Andrew Porter said. But since he was an active participant in that year's Worldcon, his account obviously merits some attention. And if his account is true it would call into question any belief that the Hugo Awards were ever "pure."

2014 storySouth Million Writers Award notable stories

Here they are: the 2014 storySouth Million Writers Award notable stories. Thanks to all the editors and readers who nominated stories, which storySouth's preliminary judges then used to create this list. All of these stories were originally published in online magazines and journals during 2013. 

Right now the three final judges (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are reading through the stories below, so expect the top ten stories—and the public vote for the overall winners—in a few weeks.

If you'd like to donate to this year's prize money, click on the "donate" button on the main Million Writers Award page. Obviously this award doesn't work without everyone who supports it.

And that brings me to something I want to throw out to the literary world—the notable list below first emerged through nominations from readers and editors of online magazines. If you're wondering why your favorite story or favorite online magazine isn't listed, it's likely because no one nominated them. So next year nominate stories for the award!

2014 storySouth Million Writers Award notable stories

Update: The following stories were added to the notable list on Oct. 17: "Dirwhals!" by Ethan Rutherford, "Distance" by Susan Tepper, and "Melt With You" by Emily C. Skaftun. A year ago these three stories were accidentally named to the MWA notable list of 2012 stories even though they were actually published in 2013. At that time it was decided they'd be added to this year's notable list.

SF/F good person of the day: Charles Tan

The hate continues to consume the science fiction and fantasy genre, including cross-over hate from our gaming cousins. So I've decided to continue my fight against this hate and intolerance by highlighting another good person who gives me optimism for the future of our genre: Charles Tan.

This is my first pick of someone I've yet to meet in person. But I've interacted with Charles so many times over the years through Twitter and online that it's easy to forget we haven't met. And it's simply impossible to imagine our genre without him.

For those who don't know Charles, he's edited Lauriat: A Filipino-Chinese Speculative Fiction Anthology, the Philippine Speculative Fiction Sampler, and the Best of Philippine Speculative Fiction 2009. He's also a fiction writer whose stories have appeared in Philippine Speculative Fiction and the anthology The Dragon and the Stars while his nonfiction has appeared in places like Fantasy Magazine, The World SF Blog, and SF Signal. 

One of the things I love about Charles' writing is he's very outspoken about the issues facing our genre, as in his most recent post "Understanding #Gamergate and Why it's Problematic." Charles' posts and essays are also extremely detailed and analytical, laying out the evidence until you understand exactly why he's making his larger point. When you combine this approach with his deep love of our genre, well, amazing things happen.

And Charles' deep love of SF/F is infectious. For example, a while back I discussed why I thought science fiction was more of a worldview than a genre, and asked others to share their SF worldview with me. Which was when I discovered that most people don't share my passion for deep analysis of genre issues. In fact, the general reaction from people was that it was irritating to even consider issues like this.

Not Charles Tan. He emailed me his insightful thoughts of the issue, which have stuck with me ever since. Here's what he said:

My world view is that fiction — whether you call it fiction, science fiction, speculative fiction — isn’t unique. In fact, I think the division between fantasy and science fiction is a lie — and often perpetuated by Western paradigms.

The value of fiction is that despite its conceits, despite its contrivances and window dressings, is its ability to convey a certain truth. One advantage of science fiction is that you have access to every tool, whether it’s metaphor, elements of romance and mystery, or the extremes of ‘what if?’. That’s not to say a writer successfully uses these tools, or that they should use ALL of them, but it is a useful option to have, unlike, say, Realism, which is confined by the tropes of what is mimetic.

Those are the words of someone who loves our genre and loves fiction and fully sees the true potential of all science fiction and fantasy can and could ever be.

Thank you, Charles, for all you do. And I hope one day to meet you in person.
 

Don't forget to check out my previous good person picks: K. Tempest Bradford, Maurice Broaddus, and Jim C. Hines.

The love-hate relationship between science fiction and Kurt Vonnegut

You can read my new essay "So goes the love-hate relationship between science fiction and Kurt Vonnegut" over on Medium. The essay explores ... hell, the title sums it up perfectly. If you want to learn more then read the essay.

The essay was originally published in the Czech SF magazine XB-1 but this is the first English-language publication. Which is amusing, considering that I write in English. But so it goes (to quote Vonnegut's famous phrase).

About Writing by Samuel R. Delany is the best writing book most people shouldn't read

Yes, I'm in love with this book.

Yes, I'm in love with this book.

My writing is changing. Not that my writing ever stopped changing—hell, nothing in life is capable of not changing. But I'm contemplating a bigger change than normal. I've reached a point where the stories I've written until now will absolutely not be the stories I keep writing from here on out.

This explains why I've been obsessing lately on science fiction and worldviews, and asking people for their different SF worldviews. But it's also obvious that most people hate talking about theoretical constructs around literature. And I totally understand this hatred. The route by which literature reaches the mind and soul is through being read, not through being analyzed.

I say all this because I'm about to recommend a book which most people shouldn't read—Samuel R. Delany's About Writing. This is the best writing book I've ever read. I can't recommend it enough.

Except that most people probably shouldn't read it. If you're not a fiction writer, don't read it. If you're a new fiction writer needing to learn the basics, don't read it. If you're an established fiction writer who doesn't give a fictional crap about the theoretical side of what you're writing, don't read it.

But if you're a fiction writer who knows the basics, and who wants to discover what's holding your stories back from the ideal in your dreams, this is the book for you.

I am now rereading this book. I expect I will reread it on a regular basis. This is writing book I'd like to be buried with when I die so archaeologists of the future can see what I tried to do with my fiction.

About Writing by Samuel R. Delany is the best damn writing book around. But most people shouldn't read it.