Life updates, plus Year’s Bests

5 Comments

Had another grief-counseling session on Thursday. As with the previous two sessions, there weren't any spectacularly amazing breakthroughs or anything, but as with those previous sessions, it helped a fair bit. Gave me some useful tools and some good reminders of various things. I went in feeling like I was fine and on top of things and not really needing the session, but I came out on the verge of tears; there's definitely plenty going on down there under the surface where I don't quite have conscious access to it yet. Anyway, I really did get lucky in the doctor I was randomly assigned to. I'm a little uncomfortable posting her name here, but if any of y'all are looking for a counselor in the Mountain View area, let me know and I'll tell you her name.

(And while I'm thinking of it, I should note that I'm being kind of selfish about my time and emotional energy these days. In particular, some of you have sent me email lately that you're probably hoping for relatively near-future responses to. I may or may not manage that; I just want to make clear that any lack of response doesn't have anything to do with you. I'm making some choices based on my own needs and on the resources I can muster at the moment; doesn't mean I don't like you, just not completely ready to cope with interacting with people sometimes, even via email. . . . and now it probably sounds like I'm chiding people, which was not my intent at all. Sorry. I'm gonna give up on this paragraph now and move on.)

Unrelatedly: bought plane tickets to WorldCon the other day. Arriving Glasgow 4 August; leaving 10 August. May wander over to Edinburgh for a couple days. We'll see. I suppose I should make plans soon so I'll know where I'm staying the nights of the 8th and 9th, huh?

This afternoon, finally bought a couch and loveseat. I won't bore you with the details of the very long time it's taken me to make this purchase, except to note that one of my main concerns from the start was the ten- to twelve-week wait for them to arrive, and if I'd ordered them on the day when I finally decided to do so, that wait would now be about half over. Sigh. On the plus side, Ethan Allen is having a no-sales-tax sale this weekend, which gave me a substantial discount, so I guess it was worth the wait.

Speaking of waiting, congratulations to Lola, whose divorce has finally become final!

What else? Picked up three Year's Bests at the bookstore last night: Gardner's Year's Best Science Fiction and the Hartwell/Cramer Year's Best SF and Year's Best Fantasy. Ellen and Gavin & Kelly's Year's Best Fantasy & Horror apparently won't be out 'til August.

I continue to be delighted at how many stories in the Year's Bests are by people I know and/or people we've published. (This is pure fanboyishness, like "Goshwow! Because I know these people, some of their coolness may rub off on me!") For example, Gardner's volume features stories by Ben R, David M, C Rowe, Vandana S, Paul M, and Daniel A, half of whom are probably reading this very entry (hi, folks!). Gardner left out some of my favorite stories from last year, but there's some damn good stuff in this anyway, plus a fair number of stories I've heard good things about and have been meaning to read (including several on the Hugo ballot, which I need to read this weekend). Gardner says nice things about SH, but notes that he'd like to see us publish "more science fiction . . . especially rigorous hard SF." Ah, well. He gave Honorable Mentions to about 15 of our stories (at rough quick count; I'll go back and make a full list later).

The Hartwell/Cramer volumes include stories by Dora G, David L, Tim P, Nalo H, Ray V, Liz W, Charlie F, and Brenda C. Also the one SH reprint in a Year's Best this year: Ken Liu's "Algorithms for Love." H&C describe SH as "one of the select five or six webzines of professional quality (and with professional-level editing)."

Side note: I'm always a little startled to see a story that we rejected turn up in a Year's Best. It always gives me a moment of thinking "Hey! We should've taken that, because an objective editor has now declared it to be objectively among the year's best stories!" And then I stop myself. A good reminder to me that different editors have different tastes.

Huh. This was gonna be a quick what-I've-been-up-to entry, and here it is threatening to digress into a screed about editing and science fiction. Must go read submissions. Hope you're all well. Happy belated Canada Day, happy forthcoming Fourth of July. Oh, and happy very belated summer solstice. I'm sad that the days are getting shorter.

5 Responses to “Life updates, plus Year’s Bests”

  1. Charlie Finlay

    Jed, if it’s any comfort, Gardner picked up a story for this year’s Year’s Best which he originally rejected for Asimov’s. So every editor does that… sometimes even the guy who edits both.

    reply

  2. Tom Galloway

    Fair warning on Edinburgh post-con; the Edinburgh Festival and Fringe starts on Aug. 7th (http://www.edfringe.com/). This causes lodging both to go up in price and become hard to find. On the other hand, it’s certainly interesting seeing every possible place in a city that could manage some sort of performance do so, and I enjoyed my time there during Fringe last Scottish Worldcon. But it’s definitely something that you need to consider vis a vis lodging aspects.

    reply

  3. David Moles

    I’m always a little startled to see a story that we rejected turn up in a Year’s Best. It always gives me a moment of thinking “Hey! We should’ve taken that, because an objective editor has now declared it to be objectively among the year’s best stories!”

    I had something of that reaction when I found out Gary Shockley’d sold “Imaginary Airships and Miniscule Matter” to Ellen (and for a lot more than we’d have paid him, I’m sure). But only for about a heartbeat.

    I had an idea a couple of days ago, and it’s this: An editor is never wrong to reject a story. I don’t know if it’s true or not — or even if I believe it — but I’m at least willing to take it under consideration. Thoughts?

    reply

  4. Charlie Finlay

    David, no, of course you’re right that an editor is never wrong to reject a story. Despite how authors may feel about it. An editor has to react positively to a story — at bottom, all you have are your own intuitive feelings about what works for you. Will editors make mistakes and reject stories they later come to like? Sure. We’re all human, even editors. But when an editor starts doubting their own gut reactions to fiction, and tries to replace them with something else, they’ll ruin any skill or talent they have for picking stories.

    reply

  5. Ted

    I recently learned from Jim Kelly that once when a story of his was on the Hugo and Nebula ballots, Ellen Datlow told him he should have sent it to her first. He told her that he had, and she had rejected it.

    Another reminder that editors can have different tastes from one day to the next.

    reply

Join the Conversation