A Stalker’s Notebook – The Taboos of Editing, by Charles Tan
Books, Column | Charles Tan | October 7, 2009 at 6:10 amI’m a big fan of anthologies (whether it’s reprint or originals), and I have come to greatly respect their editors. These are the men and women who are responsible for the creation of the anthology, from inviting authors to accepting/rejecting stories to filling out the rest of the book (the specifics will vary from anthology to anthology, editor to editor). It is in this context of collection creation that I talk about editing (as opposed to, say, typographical errors, which may not necessarily be the purview of the anthology editors).
Theoretically, an anthology should feature “well-written” stories that fit the theme of the book. This might seem like the ultimate criteria (although “well-written” in itself is such a subjective term that there’s no way of measuring it), but it’s not. Over the years, both readers and the publishing industry have created their own ethics and expectations of what should and should not be included in an anthology.
Take, for example, the plight of the author/editor. Should the author/editor include their own work in the said anthology? Arguments against this include that there is a conflict of interest and that the author/editor might not be distanced enough to judge the quality of his/her own work. On the other hand, the author/editor’s fiction might, indeed, be so good that it necessitates inclusion. Determining whether it’s the former or the latter becomes the tricky part. For example, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are so known for their significant contributions to the Dragonlance mythos that when a Dragonlance anthology comes out, part of the expectation of the fan-base is that the pair will contribute a story, even if they’re the editors. On the other hand, if you’re assembling a “best of” anthology and you happen to have a piece that qualifies, there will always be naysayers if you do choose to include it. Suffice to say, exclusion as opposed to inclusion becomes the safe choice (and when was an author/editor ever praised when they didn’t include their fiction in an anthology?). This is also the fuel for the advantages of editors vs. author/editors.
In the case of reprint anthologies, there’s “balance” to be considered. There are two ways in which balance comes into play. First is how many stories any single author gets reprinted in an anthology. In most situations, the answer is one, not because the author has only one good short story in any given year, but so that the other slots could be filled up by other contributors. It’s a good creed to live by, morally speaking, but there’s an exception being made here when it comes to the criteria of “good stories.” What if Story A and Story B by Author 1 are both superior to Story C by Author 2? Shouldn’t Story B take the place of Story C, even if Story A is already included in the book? It should be, if good story was your only qualifier, but in practice, allowances will be made to accommodate Story C instead of Story B (unless the gap between Story B and Story C is significant). Still, once in a while, you do see reprint anthologies where an author gets two story slots (three is probably pushing the limits of what is perceived as acceptable).
The other issue where balance is invoked in reprint anthologies is plundering from the same source too often. Here, some logic comes into play. If a good bulk of the stories from Year’s Best X comes from Anthology Y, then there’s little motivation for the reader to buy the former (especially since the latter came out first). Other arguments against this practice encompass that the field (at least when it comes to fantasy and science fiction) is currently wide enough that no one publication is the holy grail of good stories. There are other markets to discover, other venues to take into consideration. I do think this is a valid argument, but it raises the question: if we chance upon Anthology Y where all the stories are terrific (par excellence and not simply good), will they all be included in Year’s Best X?
Another factor in the editing of an athology is the realities of publishing. It is perceived that in order to sell an anthology, you need popular author names to be included in it. Haven’t we all heard (and in some cases, considered) the complaint that some stories were included in a collection solely because of the brand name of the author (i.e., the fiction is crap but the writer is famous)? Justified or not, this belief stems from the concessions an editor makes with marketing. And if you look at the successful editors, they do compromise with the publisher/marketing by including big names in their books. What some critics might neglect, however, is the actual editing process. Just because you’re a famous author doesn’t mean the editor will automatically accept your fiction. Some editors judiciously edit (or outright reject) sub-par stories. At other times, the editor is not the publisher, and they’re forced to include a story they wouldn’t otherwise have picked (which isn’t to say the said story isn’t good, it’s just not the best of the best). And at the end of the day, better the anthology with however-many quality stories and a few competent stories as opposed to having no anthology at all.
Lastly, and appropriate for today’s context, is the issue of gender/race. There are advocates who claim that gender and/or race of the author needs to be taken into consideration when assembling an anthology. Much like my explanation of balance, this is a good criteria morality-wise (and public relations-wise), but it clashes with the perhaps idealistic belief that a story should stand on its own, independent of its creators. Adding fuel to the flame is the question of there being enough writers of a particular gender/race to qualify for a specific theme. On the other end of the spectrum, an editor should theoretically represent a particular field rather than simply relying on their own biases (especially in anthologies like “Best of X”), so they should take into account gender and race.
In an open call for submissions, there are a few “passes” to overcome such complaints. For example, if one were to do a blind reading–that is strip the name and details of the author and simply judge a story via the text–one could possibly get away with both the gender/race issue and the inclusion of big-name authors in the book. Critics, of course, will ask for a transparent process….
But the point I want to make is that there are various factors which might affect a story’s inclusion in an anthology, and while it might seem meritocratic to judge a story solely based on its content, there are other factors an editor must–or must not–take into consideration. It’s interesting how certain taboos in editing have cropped up, and how it’s changing (or not changing, as the case may be) how anthologies are formed.
Tags: A Stalker's Notebook
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS Feed
