Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Resolved: Splitting the Editor Hugo was a mistake

1 view
Skip to first unread message

David T. Bilek

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:05:23 PM7/31/08
to
The OSC thread which appears to be going downhill (sorry, my bad) got
me thinking about the Best Editor hugo awards. I know it was split
last year into Long Form and Short Form which essentially corresponds
to book editors and the short story/novella magazine editors.

Upon reflection, I think this was a serious error made with the best
of intentions.

We all know the reason for the split; book editors were significantly
disadvantaged and hardly ever won. But there was a very good reason
that book editors hardly ever won. Namely, because voters don't have
any friggin' basis for deciding which book editor was the best in any
given year.

It's easy for the magazine editors because they choose which stories
appear and work with the author to get it ready for publication. So
you can judge the work of one of the magazine editors based on what
appears in the magazine. Easy and good.

But that doesn't work for novel editors. Nobody will dispute that,
say, the Nielsen Haydens are excellent editors of SF and have done
more for the field before lunch today than I will do in my entire life
but we really have no idea whether Patrick Nielsen Hayden was a better
editor last year than Beth Meachem, David Hartwell, or one of the
non-Tor nominees. We just don't, and we have no way to decide. None.
It's just a random "I like this person" vote.

Why? Because book editors don't really choose which books get
published in the same way that magazine editors choose which stories
get published. Do you really think that David Hartwell was the guy
who decided whether or not Robert Sawyer's ROLLBACK made it into
print? Does Beth Meachem decide if Orson Scott Card gets published?
Did Patrick decide if THE LAST COLONY would see publication? Nah.

Occasionally the book editors decide if the author gets published in
the first place; my guess is that Scalzi wouldn't have started
getting published by Tor if it wasn't for Patrick, but that was lots
of books ago. THE LAST COLONY was going to see publication no matter
who ended up editing it. We all know it.

So, for the Long Form the only basis on deciding who was the best
editor is who actually improved the book the most in the editing
process. And here's the key: We don't see the editing process! How
much did Hartwell improve ROLLBACK? How much did Patrick improve THE
LAST COLONY? Did anyone actually make their book *worse*? For all we
know ROLLBACK was better than Nabokov before Hartwell edited it. Or
maybe it was worse than THE EYE OF ARGON. But we don't get to see the
first submitted manuscript so we have no way to decide.

Judging based on the final book doesn't work because, as pointed out,
the editors don't usually decide if that specific book gets published.
And since we don't see the initial draft, the final result tells us
nothing about how good a job the editor did. Maybe Sawyer is a
natural who turns in his manuscripts like Mozart wrote symphonies:
pitch perfect the first time (HAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHAH HAH AHAH HAH uh
sorry) and Hartwell does nothing but screw them up. Maybe Scalzi
turns in his manuscript scribbled in purple crayon on brown paper bags
and barely more coherent than LOLCat and it's only through Patrick's
Herculean efforts that it becomes even barely understandable.

The point is, we don't know. And we have no way of finding out. And
thus have no basis on which to cast a real vote in the Best Editor
(Long Form) category, which should never have been created.

In short, Carthago Delenda Est.

-David

David T. Bilek

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:09:30 PM7/31/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:05:23 -0700, David T. Bilek
<david...@att.net> wrote:

... snip lots

>
>In short, Carthago Delenda Est.
>

Jesus, I clearly need to give in to the Borg and get a blog.

-David

Kay Shapero

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:44:37 PM7/31/08
to
In article <80l494hemsc812d2m...@4ax.com>,
david...@att.net says...
Wanna Inksome invite? :)
--
Kay Shapero
Signature munged - to email me use kay at domain of my website, below.
http://www.kayshapero.net

Wayne Throop

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:52:46 PM7/31/08
to
: David T. Bilek <david...@att.net>
: Jesus, I clearly need to give in to the Borg and get a blog.

I dunno. I see where Lewis Black recently ruled
that blogging is the root of all evil. As part of the argument,
the show demonstrated Rickrolling. The Borg are one thing,
but voluntarily joining with those who practice Rickrolling?
I dunno.


Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Charlie Stross

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 9:40:37 PM7/31/08
to
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
as <david...@att.net> declared:

>
> But that doesn't work for novel editors. Nobody will dispute that,
> say, the Nielsen Haydens are excellent editors of SF and have done
> more for the field before lunch today than I will do in my entire life
> but we really have no idea whether Patrick Nielsen Hayden was a better
> editor last year than Beth Meachem, David Hartwell, or one of the
> non-Tor nominees. We just don't, and we have no way to decide. None.
> It's just a random "I like this person" vote.

Speak for yourself; *I* know damn well what my book editors
are doing :-/

> Why? Because book editors don't really choose which books get
> published in the same way that magazine editors choose which stories
> get published.

Complete and utter bollocks.

> Do you really think that David Hartwell was the guy
> who decided whether or not Robert Sawyer's ROLLBACK made it into
> print?

As a matter of fact, yes. If DGH didn't *like* ROLLBACK he'd
have sent it back to Bob with either "this doesn't work for
me because of X; fix it and resubmit" or "sorry, not buying
it".

I will grant you that an editor usually needs a good reason
to reject a book by a Hugo winning author, but if the book's
a bad enough stinker it will be either rejected or rewritten
to spec. (Note that it's a lot harder to reject a book by a
high-grossing bestseller -- but that's another matter :)

More to the point, at this level -- subsequent novels by
front-rank authors -- usually the novel doesn't even get
*written* until the author and their editor have done lunch
and discussed it. Aside from first-timers and the odd
eccentric experiment, novels are sold before they are
written, and the contract isn't offered until there's a
pitch or an outline that the editor likes the look of and
wants to see.

> Occasionally the book editors decide if the author gets published in
> the first place; my guess is that Scalzi wouldn't have started
> getting published by Tor if it wasn't for Patrick, but that was lots
> of books ago. THE LAST COLONY was going to see publication no matter
> who ended up editing it. We all know it.

Nope. If it was a complete stinker -- or simply didn't match
what the editor expected and wanted -- John would have been
sent away with a flea in his ear and orders to rewrite it.

> So, for the Long Form the only basis on deciding who was the best
> editor is who actually improved the book the most in the editing
> process. And here's the key: We don't see the editing process!

Now, that's a valid objection for fans. (So: make the long
form editor award a Nebula, right? :) However, you get to see
the aggregate output of that editor's work over the course
of a year, and if you've got the nous to realize that editor
A publishes a bunch of flashily-promoted crap while editor B
is producing a range of boundary-pushing future classics
including first novels by new authors, it's a fair bet that
editor B is doing more for the genre.


-- Charlie

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Garrett Wollman

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 10:22:30 PM7/31/08
to
In article <12175543...@news.newsfeeds.com>,

Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <david...@att.net> declared:
>> Do you really think that David Hartwell was the guy
>> who decided whether or not Robert Sawyer's ROLLBACK made it into
>> print?
>
>As a matter of fact, yes. If DGH didn't *like* ROLLBACK he'd
>have sent it back to Bob with either "this doesn't work for
>me because of X; fix it and resubmit" or "sorry, not buying
>it".

And if he rejects it, all of the other editors in the business hear
about it and won't publish the book either? If all editors make the
same decisions given the same MSS, what reason would Hugo voters have
to prefer one over the other?

(My impression of how books are sold these days, which is probably
wrong, is that potential authors pitch books to agents [or their
agent, if they already have one], who know the purchasing preferences
of the various houses and editors and will then pitch the project to
those editors considered most likely to be interested in buying. I've
heard in a number of places -- and it may be different for genre
publishing vs. "mainstream" litfic -- that a new writer today won't
even get in the door without an agent's recommendation.)

Just how big is the field for the "book editors" Hugo? Not the
nominees -- I can look those up -- but the actual number of people
employed as acquiring SF editors in publishing houses today. What
size room would fit them all? My intuition says it's under a hundred
people, possibly significantly under. (Figure two to five editors
per line and maybe a dozen or so distinct lines at the major
publishers. So between 30 and 60, among the major New York houses?)

(How many major authors are there today who are so prolific that they
actually need multiple publishers just to get their work through the
system as fast as they can write it? IIRC, in his heyday Asimov kept
two or three different publishers busy with distinct subsets of his
output, even if Doubleday got the plurality.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

David T. Bilek

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 10:23:29 PM7/31/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:40:37 -0500, Charlie Stross
<cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <david...@att.net> declared:
>>
>> But that doesn't work for novel editors. Nobody will dispute that,
>> say, the Nielsen Haydens are excellent editors of SF and have done
>> more for the field before lunch today than I will do in my entire life
>> but we really have no idea whether Patrick Nielsen Hayden was a better
>> editor last year than Beth Meachem, David Hartwell, or one of the
>> non-Tor nominees. We just don't, and we have no way to decide. None.
>> It's just a random "I like this person" vote.
>
>Speak for yourself; *I* know damn well what my book editors
>are doing :-/
>
>> Why? Because book editors don't really choose which books get
>> published in the same way that magazine editors choose which stories
>> get published.
>
>Complete and utter bollocks.

see below, since I'd have to repeat myself otherwise.


>> Do you really think that David Hartwell was the guy
>> who decided whether or not Robert Sawyer's ROLLBACK made it into
>> print?
>
>As a matter of fact, yes. If DGH didn't *like* ROLLBACK he'd
>have sent it back to Bob with either "this doesn't work for
>me because of X; fix it and resubmit" or "sorry, not buying
>it".
>
>I will grant you that an editor usually needs a good reason
>to reject a book by a Hugo winning author, but if the book's
>a bad enough stinker it will be either rejected or rewritten
>to spec. (Note that it's a lot harder to reject a book by a
>high-grossing bestseller -- but that's another matter :)
>

Ok, I realize this may be opening myself up for a world of hurt given
that I'm me and you've have 4 consecutive years of Best Novel
nominations but you seem to be saying "If ROLLBACK had been utterly
abysmal Hartwell might have rejected it". That seems a very, very
weak rejection of the idea that at the level we're talking about (big
name authors and big name books) the novel is likely to see print no
matter who the editor is. Sure, maybe your next book in the Merchant
Princes series will be so utterly awful that Hartwell won't let it see
print, but that's so small a possibility that it seems absurd to
consider it and even more absurd to give Hartwell the credit for
"finding" it. He didn't "find" the next book in the Merchant Prince
series in the sense that is important for voting the Best Editor Hugo.

The truth is that it wouldn't matter if your editor were Hartwell, or
Meachem, or Neilsen Hayden, or ME for god's sake the end result would
be the same: your next MP book will see the light of day because you
don't write shitty books. Now, if your editor were me the *first* one
may never have seen the light of day, but a Best Editor Hugo is for
last year not some book 5 years ago or whatever.

It's also true that the final result might look somewhat different
depending on who your editor is, but we readers don't see that part of
the process! It's utterly irrelevant to our vote for the Best Editor
(Long Form). All we know is that the next MP book was edited by
Hartwell, not what he actually did. (If it isn't Hartwell, I
apologize. The second book, which I checked, was Hartwell)

>More to the point, at this level -- subsequent novels by
>front-rank authors -- usually the novel doesn't even get
>*written* until the author and their editor have done lunch
>and discussed it. Aside from first-timers and the odd
>eccentric experiment, novels are sold before they are
>written, and the contract isn't offered until there's a
>pitch or an outline that the editor likes the look of and
>wants to see.

This makes sense. And how many of your pitches for Merchant Princes
books have been rejected? If the answer was that nine were rejected
for every one accepted it would mean more in terms of Best Editor hugo
voting than if the first one was accepted as long as it wasn't
completely sucky.

I guess I'd just point to what you said above: An editor needs a damn
good reason to reject a book by a Hugo winning author, so I don't
think we can take which book ended up with which editor as all that
big a deal (and this caveat is important) specfically when we're
concerned with a Best Editor Hugo. Not talking in terms of any other
context, just in terms of the Hugo.

>
>> Occasionally the book editors decide if the author gets published in
>> the first place; my guess is that Scalzi wouldn't have started
>> getting published by Tor if it wasn't for Patrick, but that was lots
>> of books ago. THE LAST COLONY was going to see publication no matter
>> who ended up editing it. We all know it.
>
>Nope. If it was a complete stinker -- or simply didn't match
>what the editor expected and wanted -- John would have been
>sent away with a flea in his ear and orders to rewrite it.
>

The odds on Scalzi's next book being such a stinker that it got
completely rejected are so low I think we can discard it when, again,
talking specifically about the Hugo voting for Best Editor. If that
happened even 5% of the time it would still mean that 95% of the time
we gain no information at all in terms of the Best Editor Hugo from
which editors name is on a book if we don't see the actual editing
process.

And we don't see the editing process.

Well, you do, but you know what I mean.

>> So, for the Long Form the only basis on deciding who was the best
>> editor is who actually improved the book the most in the editing
>> process. And here's the key: We don't see the editing process!
>
>Now, that's a valid objection for fans. (So: make the long
>form editor award a Nebula, right? :)

YES. Uh, I mean "yes". Best Editor - Long Form should absolutely be
a Nebula and not a Hugo.

>However, you get to see
>the aggregate output of that editor's work over the course
>of a year, and if you've got the nous to realize that editor
>A publishes a bunch of flashily-promoted crap while editor B
>is producing a range of boundary-pushing future classics
>including first novels by new authors, it's a fair bet that
>editor B is doing more for the genre.
>

Actually, I don't think we do get to see the aggregate output. I just
tried to find out which books Beth Meachem published this year and I
can't. There is no list on the Tor site. Her own site is apparently
years out of date. I have no idea what books she edited and I read
RASFW! I'm a huge SF reader. I can likely name every book a random
SF author - say that Charlie Stross guy - has written, in publication
order, and give you fun facts about each. But I only know Hartwell
edited the second MP book because I checked just now. For all I know
he edited IRON SUNRISE as well. Or maybe he didn't. I sure couldn't
tell you.

In any case, valid criticisms of my underappreciation of an editors
work in determining whether a given books sees print in the first
place aside, do you disagree with the main point? That the fact that
a huge majority of Hugo voters don't see any part of the actual
editing process is a rather fundamental flaw in awarding a Best Editor
(Long Form) Hugo?

Maybe people want to give one anyway so poor novel editors don't get
left out. But I don't think we should pretend that we have the same
level of insight into who was the best editor last year as what was
the best novel or short story or whatever. We have all the
information we need for the latter and very little if any for the
former.

-David

David T. Bilek

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 10:29:29 PM7/31/08
to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:22:30 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>
>Just how big is the field for the "book editors" Hugo? Not the
>nominees -- I can look those up -- but the actual number of people
>employed as acquiring SF editors in publishing houses today. What
>size room would fit them all? My intuition says it's under a hundred
>people, possibly significantly under. (Figure two to five editors
>per line and maybe a dozen or so distinct lines at the major
>publishers. So between 30 and 60, among the major New York houses?)
>

Full-time acquiring SF editors at major houses? I'd take the under on
an over/under of 30, but I wouldn't bet a whole lot on it since it is
just a wild guess.

It is worth noting that the nominees this year are exactly the same as
last year, except Beth Meachem replaced the late Jim Baen.

Pop quiz hotshot: What books did "Lou Anders", Hugo Nominee, edit
last year? No cheating.

-David

Charlie Stross

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:06:35 PM7/31/08
to
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
as <wol...@bimajority.org> declared:

> (My impression of how books are sold these days, which is probably
> wrong, is that potential authors pitch books to agents [or their
> agent, if they already have one], who know the purchasing preferences
> of the various houses and editors and will then pitch the project to
> those editors considered most likely to be interested in buying. I've
> heard in a number of places -- and it may be different for genre
> publishing vs. "mainstream" litfic -- that a new writer today won't
> even get in the door without an agent's recommendation.)

Close, but not quite. In general, you don't sell just one
book -- you sign a multi-book contract (typically for 2-5
books; I usually run on 2-book contracts). And there's
usually a clause offering your existing publisher first
refusal on your next proposal. These are breakable, but in
practice if you've got a good working relationship with your
editor you don't *want* to break it.

In general, the time you change editors is (a) your editor is
retiring/moving publisher, (b) you're *really* unhappy
about something, (c) there's a major re-org at your
publisher, (d) you want to do something new and very
different, or (e) you've hit a point where your agent
thinks they can auction your next book for a LOT of money.

In my experience, if you're doing well for a publisher you've
got a bit of negotiating leeway; Ace, for example, took
HALTING STATE (which was considered wildly experimental)
with no objection other than a "we'll take it as half
of a two-book deal, and the other book has got to be
bankable -- a space opera, say". (So that if HS flopped --
which it didn't -- they'd still have some home of breaking
even on the contract.)

New authors: well, some publishers refuse to read unagented
submissions. But you *can* get a foot in the door without an
agent; I know folks who've done it. (Mind you, agents tend
to get you a much nicer contract, so if you get a contract
offer unagented, you should get yourself an agent before you
sign it. Luckily, agents *love* new authors who come bearing
unsigned contracts; it's a chance to earn their 15% for
haggling over some small print.)

> Just how big is the field for the "book editors" Hugo? Not the
> nominees -- I can look those up -- but the actual number of people
> employed as acquiring SF editors in publishing houses today. What
> size room would fit them all? My intuition says it's under a hundred
> people, possibly significantly under. (Figure two to five editors
> per line and maybe a dozen or so distinct lines at the major
> publishers. So between 30 and 60, among the major New York houses?)

I think that's about right. Possibly towards the lower end.

Charlie Stross

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:20:46 PM7/31/08
to
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
as <david...@att.net> declared:

(Snipping -- before this mushrooms enormously)

> This makes sense. And how many of your pitches for Merchant Princes
> books have been rejected? If the answer was that nine were rejected
> for every one accepted it would mean more in terms of Best Editor hugo
> voting than if the first one was accepted as long as it wasn't
> completely sucky.

It doesn't work that way. Book #3 (as published) was
actually written to be the first third of book #2 (as
originally planned -- 600-800 page doorsteps). And it came
back with a terse "rewrite the ending; you can't _do_ that".
So the final 15% was completely re-written to order.

(And I prefer the original version, which had Miriam's
betrothal feast being interrupted by a SpecOps MH-53J with
miniguns and loudspeakers playing "Ride of the Valkyries",
rather than a palace coup by a spoiled prince.)

> I guess I'd just point to what you said above: An editor needs a damn
> good reason to reject a book by a Hugo winning author, so I don't
> think we can take which book ended up with which editor as all that
> big a deal (and this caveat is important) specfically when we're
> concerned with a Best Editor Hugo. Not talking in terms of any other
> context, just in terms of the Hugo.

Actually, part of the problem is that editors do two jobs:
they acquire authors, and they edit books.

The book-editing process is fairly opaque, but it's easy to
see if an editor's doing the Right Thing on the acquisition
front: look at first-time novels (or novels by
hitherto-obscure authors) that show up in any given year. If
one particular editor is responsible for the first-time
novels of a couple of authors who're on the Campbell or Dick
or Hugo shortlist, then it's a good sign that they're doing
something very useful.

> Actually, I don't think we do get to see the aggregate output. I just
> tried to find out which books Beth Meachem published this year and I
> can't. There is no list on the Tor site.

This is a defect. Solution: Patrick proposed the editor Hugo
split, and he's in a position to do something aout the Tor
site -- so bug him to list Tor books edited by editor. Then
bug other publishers, pointing at his list pour encourager
les autres. Editors *like* to be nominated for Hugos,
they'll bug their own web folks if you prod them :)

> I can likely name every book a random
> SF author - say that Charlie Stross guy - has written, in publication
> order, and give you fun facts about each. But I only know Hartwell
> edited the second MP book because I checked just now. For all I know
> he edited IRON SUNRISE as well. Or maybe he didn't. I sure couldn't
> tell you.

Okay, for the record:

My acquiring editor at Ace is Ginjer Buchanan, but she
leaves editorial guidance to my agent, Caitlin Blasdell (who
just happened to be senior editor at Avon-EOS before she
quit to start a family/become an agent). Copy edits on my
Ace titles get done by Bob and Sarah Schwager. If there was
any justice, Bob and Sarah would get my nominations for the
Hugo, but they're virtually invisible ...

At Golden Gryphon (the two Laundry titles) the books were
edited by Marty Halpern (who has since left GG). Ace just
buy them in as-is. I'm hoping to persuade Ace to outsource
the edits on the third Laundry novel to Marty, for
continuity's sake.

At Tor, my acquiring editor is David Hartwell, and he also
edits me -- he's edited all the Merchant Princes books. (I'm
not sure who does the copy-edits.)

Orbit buy in the edited titles from Ace (including the
Laundry books) and run them as-is, with minor typo
corrections.

Pan MacMillan aka Tor UK buy in the edited titles from Tor
US and run them as-is, with minor typo corrections.

You can get much of this from the Acknowledgements in my
books, rather than from the publishers.

James Nicoll

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:36:57 PM7/31/08
to
In article <pbr49451ojl22qd8k...@4ax.com>,

David T. Bilek <david...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Sure, maybe your next book in the Merchant
>Princes series will be so utterly awful that Hartwell won't let it see
>print

Sup-par sales in the series (even for reasons that have
nothing to do with the plot) are more likely to kill a series
than declining quality. Ditto for author's career's. Remember how
many of the Locus Poll authors quietly vanished?

--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

David Goldfarb

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 6:10:43 AM8/1/08
to
In article <2vs4949ne18tqrf52...@4ax.com>,

David T. Bilek <david...@att.net> wrote:
>It is worth noting that the nominees this year are exactly the same as
>last year, except Beth Meachem replaced the late Jim Baen.

This being the third time I've seen her name misspelled in this
thread, I want to note that it's "Meacham".

--
David Goldfarb | The one-O "lose": reverse of "win" or "find".
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | The two-O "loose": reverse of "tight" or "bind".
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |

johan.g...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 6:39:32 AM8/1/08
to
On Jul 31, 10:22 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> Just how big is the field for the "book editors" Hugo? Not the
> nominees -- I can look those up -- but the actual number of people
> employed as acquiring SF editors in publishing houses today. What
> size room would fit them all? My intuition says it's under a hundred
> people, possibly significantly under. (Figure two to five editors
> per line and maybe a dozen or so distinct lines at the major
> publishers. So between 30 and 60, among the major New York houses?)

Andrew Wheeler's estimate in a thread a year ago was three to six
dozen, depending on how narrowly you want to define the genre:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_thread/thread/64a0ac200c917489

And since he worked as an editor, I expect he knows.

Johan Larson

JScalzi

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 8:14:17 AM8/1/08
to
On Jul 31, 8:05 pm, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:

>THE LAST COLONY was going to see publication no matter
> who ended up editing it.  We all know it.

I don't.

First, Patrick is Senior Editor at Tor, which means he's got more than
a little say in what Tor publishes. If he had decided, based on sales
and/or strategy, that it was best not to follow up Old Man's War and
Ghost Brigades, the chances of TLC having been published are nil, in
no small part because I have other book ideas stacked up on the runway
and I would have been happy to get to those instead. But he decided it
would make sense to have another book in the series, asked me if I was
interested in writing it (I was; I like the universe), and then we
discussed the direction the book should go and off I went to write.

Second, if Patrick decided no longer to edit, or (God forbid) were
consumed by wolves or something, then the question becomes who *I*
want to work with. Editors aren't interchangeable; part of the reason
my books are good, and that I publish science fiction at all, is that
Patrick is an ideal editor for me -- we understand each other very
well and that matters when it comes down to it.

It's *not* a given that the books would be the same with a different
editor, or that I will work with just any editor who might be assigned
to me; I don't have to because a) at this exact instant in science
fiction publishing history I am of sufficient importance to be able to
throw a hissy fit about it and pull it off (this won't last), and b) I
don't *need* to publish; I made more than sufficient income writing
other things than science fiction and could do so again, so if things
are not to my liking, I can walk. Note well, I first published OMW on
my Web site because I didn't want to *bother* with submitting it for
publication, so clearly I'm both lazy and crazy enough not to publish
if I'm not happy with the overall situation, which necessarily
includes my relationship with my editor.

So, in fact, TLC would not have been published without Patrick. I
grant you that someone might have wanted to publish it, but it's not
the same thing.

"The point is, we don't know. And we have no way of finding out."

Well, you know. You could ask.

Keith Soltys

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 9:21:36 AM8/1/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:20:46 -0500, Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org>
wrote:

>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe


>as <david...@att.net> declared:
>
>(Snipping -- before this mushrooms enormously)
>
>> This makes sense. And how many of your pitches for Merchant Princes
>> books have been rejected? If the answer was that nine were rejected
>> for every one accepted it would mean more in terms of Best Editor hugo
>> voting than if the first one was accepted as long as it wasn't
>> completely sucky.
>
>It doesn't work that way. Book #3 (as published) was
>actually written to be the first third of book #2 (as
>originally planned -- 600-800 page doorsteps). And it came
>back with a terse "rewrite the ending; you can't _do_ that".
>So the final 15% was completely re-written to order.
>
>(And I prefer the original version, which had Miriam's
>betrothal feast being interrupted by a SpecOps MH-53J with
>miniguns and loudspeakers playing "Ride of the Valkyries",
>rather than a palace coup by a spoiled prince.)
>

<snip />

>-- Charlie
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


Wow. Any chance you could put that bit up on your blog so we could read it?

Keith

James Nicoll

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 9:40:23 AM8/1/08
to
For people who want to keep track of who edited what:

http://www.sfeditorwatch.com/index.php/Main_Page

Charlie Stross

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 11:21:24 AM8/1/08
to
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
as <ksoltys@-NOSPAM-rogers.com> declared:

> Wow. Any chance you could put that bit up on your blog so we could read it?

Lemme talk to my editor and see if he's cool with that. (I'd
need to post an extract of around 20% of the novel, and my
contract says I've only got the right to do up to 10%
without permission. However, if it's the *last* 20% of the
earlier draft of the book, I can't think of any pressing
reason why he'd say no ... )

Charlie Stross

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 11:27:39 AM8/1/08
to
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
as <sca...@gmail.com> declared:

> Editors aren't interchangeable; part of the reason
> my books are good, and that I publish science fiction at all, is that
> Patrick is an ideal editor for me -- we understand each other very
> well and that matters when it comes down to it.

And raw chance has a lot to do with who gets which editor.

There's another time line where Patrick worked through his
slushpile just a *little* bit faster and got to "Singularity
Sky" before I got a bite from a British publisher, pulled
it, acquired an agent who auctioned the US rights, and ended
up with Ginjer at Ace as my editor. In that time line,
Teresa Nielsen Hayden is my editor[*]. And it's highly likely
that *all* my books after "Singularity Sky" (which would
have a different title) and "The Atrocity Archive" would be
different, because she'd have been interested in different
book proposals and I'd have written different stuff.


-- Charlie

[*] We've discussed this. She may yet be my editor at some
point in the future, if and when David Hartwell retires.
(He's 67.)

David T. Bilek

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 1:34:35 PM8/1/08
to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:10:43 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <2vs4949ne18tqrf52...@4ax.com>,
>David T. Bilek <david...@att.net> wrote:
>>It is worth noting that the nominees this year are exactly the same as
>>last year, except Beth Meachem replaced the late Jim Baen.
>
>This being the third time I've seen her name misspelled in this
>thread, I want to note that it's "Meacham".

Oops, sorry.

-David

David T. Bilek

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 1:43:08 PM8/1/08
to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:40:23 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

> For people who want to keep track of who edited what:
>
>http://www.sfeditorwatch.com/index.php/Main_Page

I looked at that a bit yesterday while I was posting. Here's how it
breaks down for the people nominated for BEST EDITOR (LONG FORM) this
year:

Lou Anders: lists all(?) his edited books for 2007. It's a lot,
anyway.

I note that he edited BRASYL. I had no idea. Since that's far and
away my pick for best novel, maybe he should be my pick for best
editor? Although, like I said, since I didn't see the editing process
I really have no basis for judging how his editing went.

Beth Meacham: No listed books.

David Hartwell: Lists his books fro 2007. Negative points for not
nixing the whole Kennedy sthtick in IN WAR TIMES. He did edit
Schroeder and Stross, though. Again, I have no idea how good a job he
did.

Ginjer Buchanan: Doesn't list any books edited in 2007.

PNH: Lists a whole buncha books edited for 2007. Good stuff.

So the best site I've seen for finding out this information still
fails to list books edited by 40% of the nominees for Best Editor
(Long Form). Still, 60% knowledge is better than the 2% I had two
days ago.

Cool.

-David

Eddie

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 4:05:41 PM8/1/08
to
On Jul 31, 8:05 pm, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
> Judging based on the final book doesn't work because, as pointed out,
> the editors don't usually decide if that specific book gets published.
> And since we don't see the initial draft, the final result tells us
> nothing about how good a job the editor did.  Maybe Sawyer is a
> natural who turns in his manuscripts like Mozart wrote symphonies:
> pitch perfect the first time (HAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHAH HAH AHAH HAH uh
> sorry) and Hartwell does nothing but screw them up.  Maybe Scalzi
> turns in his manuscript scribbled in purple crayon on brown paper bags
> and barely more coherent than LOLCat and it's only through Patrick's
> Herculean efforts that it becomes even barely understandable.

Oh noes, Scalzi does everthing thru teh Intertubes. Or at least sez
he does.
--
Eddie

David DeLaney

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 4:09:03 PM8/1/08
to

Which points to a possible way to judge: look at the editors' blogs, for those
that have them. That'll at least get you some idea of their self-editing
leet skillz...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Andrew Wheeler

unread,
Aug 1, 2008, 8:41:27 PM8/1/08
to
<johan.g...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks; I was just about to run through that again, and I was getting a
serious case of _deja vu_.

--
Andrew Wheeler

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 4:51:07 PM8/15/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:23:29 -0700, David T. Bilek
<david...@att.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:40:37 -0500, Charlie Stross
><cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>
>>Now, that's a valid objection for fans. (So: make the long
>>form editor award a Nebula, right? :)
>
>YES. Uh, I mean "yes". Best Editor - Long Form should absolutely be
>a Nebula and not a Hugo.

You want writers voting on which editors deserve awards? Writers who
are trying to keep editors happy, so those editors will buy their
stuff?

I don't think that's a very good idea.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The ninth issue of the Hugo-nominated webzine Helix
is now at http://www.helixsf.com

ppint. at pplay

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 6:28:19 AM8/19/08
to
- hi; in rasfwr article,
<crqba4hu3sd3ve0ig...@news.rcn.com>,
l...@sff.net "Lawrence Watt-Evans" forbode:
[]

>I don't think that's a very good idea.
>
- ymts there might be legal repercussions arising from the
bestowal or sponsorship of an award conferring any form
of recognition or approval that involves or may reasonably
be construed as promotion of the practice of splitting the
editor?

- hmwltk (perh.)

- love, a ppint. happy to have two thrids the shop open again
[please drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g",
should you wish to cc. to, or email, me]
--
"...and then, because she's blonde, i thought, "we'll kill her.""
- lindsay davis, "book club"
on radio4, 16:20 bst 8/6/06 (6/8/06 for merkins)

ncw...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 9:50:22 AM8/19/08
to
On 1 Aug, 04:22, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> (My impression of how books are sold these days, which is probably
> wrong, is that potential authors pitch books to agents [or their
> agent, if they already have one], who know the purchasing preferences
> of the various houses and editors and will then pitch the project to
> those editors considered most likely to be interested in buying.  I've
> heard in a number of places -- and it may be different for genre
> publishing vs. "mainstream" litfic -- that a new writer today won't
> even get in the door without an agent's recommendation.)
>

That sounds like a recommendation for a Hugo Award for "Best Agent".

Cheers,
Nigel.

0 new messages