Trend in Short Fiction SF/F Awards

[Scott H. Andrews]

There's an interesting article by longtime SF/F reviewer Dave Truesdale (http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/2009/dt0902.htm)on F&SF's website about the recent trend of what I call the "literary-ization" of SF/F short fiction, as reflected in the types of stories nominated for and winning the Nebula and Hugo awards in the last five or so years.

I'm not sure yet how I feel about what he's saying. I agree with his general basic point, that SF/F short fiction has gotten more literary recently, in my opinion over the last 10-20 years. But I don't think I agree with many of his claims about SF.

More importantly to me, he completely ignores traditional fantasy. He makes a good case that traditional SF has been marginalized by this new more literary fantasy, but he ignores the fact that the same thing has happened to traditional types of fantasy, like secondary-world and/or adventure fantasy. The marginalization of those types of fantasy is exactly why I started this magazine--because they needed a dedicated market, especially when blended with more literary approaches.

So while he decries the more literary-inclined writers and readers for excluding traditional SF, it looks to me like he's committed that same omission himself by being too SF-focused to consider the ramifications of the exact same trend on fantasy.

[EJade]

I just read the Truesdale article. I would agree that he may have committed the same error (though in reverse), though perhaps the fact that he refers to the fantasy in the award-warning stories as fantasy-lite is an oblique reference to the fact that he recognises the problem. Mind you, the long rant on singularity seems like a hurdle designed to make sure only hard-core SF readers go through the whole post!

I have to say, though I haven't been reading short fiction for nearly as long as he has, that I've noticed the tendency for a lot of stories to be more 'slipstream' than having any strong genre elements. One of the nice things about reading BCS is knowing that the fantasy elements will never be tangential.

[Scott H. Andrews]

Mind you, the long rant on singularity seems like a hurdle designed to make sure only hard-core SF readers go through the whole post!
I totally agree. :) I've heard that exponential chess-board tale in many different incarnations, and Ray Kurzweil, although he made some great synthesizers, I wouldn't call an authority on folklore.

One of the nice things about reading BCS is knowing that the fantasy elements will never be tangential.Thank you! My goal is stories that feature both the literary and the traditional fantasy. I realize that is a niche market, but I'm seeing more and more readers over the last four months who are enjoying BCS's explorations in that niche.

[Lindsay Kitson]

I don't really think it's a niche market, or if it is, it's one that is growing. I agree completely that the knowing what I'm getting before I start reading is super nice, I'm really glad my friend pointed this magazine out to me. Read over the submission guidelines and realized it was exactly what I like to read. And write for the most part.

In contrast, I get frustrated reading F&SF magazine because there's not that much real fantasy in it, and I read ten stories to find one that I'm really at all interested in. The introductory blurbs don't always indicate genre, and so often, the story just doesn't have a plot or ending. All my friends who have read it feel the same. I was wondering if maybe the sort of fantasy I like just doesn't get written in short form.

But then I found BCS. :)