Log in

No account? Create an account
22 October 2009 @ 10:29 am
YBH Honorable Mentions  
I've broken down the 531 honorable mentions in this year's Year's Best Horror by market.  You've seen me do this before with Year's Best SF and the late lamented Year's Best Fantasy & Horror.  I think it's probably the most accurate way of guaging the relative "status" and "quality" of different markets.

A few caveats:
  1. Obviously a market that publishes more stories per year has a higher likelihood of receiving more honorable mentions.
  2. HMs necessarily reflect the taste of the editor of the YBH anthology.   I don't know whether Ellen has any built-in bias in favor of one editorial style over another (as Gardner admits he does).
  3. This list actually includes both the stories that actually made it into the book and those that didn't.  I actually track those lists separately.  (If you're interested, F&SF had the largest number of stories (5) in the volume itself.)
  4. This list includes only periodicals and repeating anthologies.  I didn't include the one-time anthologies.

Here goes:

Black Static22
Weird Tales12
Space & Time9
Goblin Fruit8
Something Wicked8
Andromeda Spaceways6
Fantasy Magazine6
GUD Magazine6
Read by Dawn6
Mythic Delerium5
Not One of Us5
Sirenia Digest5
Alfred Hitchcock's MM4
Ellery Queen's MM4
Exotic Gothic4
Midnight Echo4
Nossa Morte4
On Spec4
OSC's Int Med Show4
Supernatural Tales4
Cemetery Dance3
Clockwork Phoenix3
Lone Star Stories3
Midnight Street3
New Yorker3
Strange Horizons3
Writers of the Future3
Abyss & Apex2
Albedo One2
Dark Horizons2
Philippine Genre Stories2
Realms of Fantasy2
West Branch2
A Public Space1
City Slab1
Dark Discoveries1
Farrago's Wainscot1
Fictitious Force1
Full Unit Hookup1
Hayden's Ferry Review1
Horror Library1
Sinister Tales1
Sonoma Review1
Speculative Poetry1
Static Movement1
Studies in the Fantastic1
Tales of the Unanticipated1

If you look at the top 11 from this list, you'll note that only 5 are SFWA "paying markets."  I point this out because some newbies tend to think of SFWA publication as the holy grail of short story writing, and I don't think it is.
Current Location: Office
Current Music: Jetsons Theme
mmerriam on October 22nd, 2009 07:05 pm (UTC)
While no HM for me this year, it is nice to see publications I have been in (or even was in that issue) get the nod.
Ken: Shhhhhken_schneyer on October 25th, 2009 01:53 pm (UTC)
I feel the same way. Either it's "Ooh, my markets are going up in the world!" or it's "I oughtta try that market!"
girlspell: bookgirlspell on October 23rd, 2009 01:46 am (UTC)
Interesting name (to say the least) with these magazines. Black Static? Good name for a horror zine. Half of them, I'm not familiar at all with.
Ken: Roll eyesken_schneyer on October 25th, 2009 01:54 pm (UTC)
There certainly are a lot of them.
Rachel Swirskyrachel_swirsky on October 25th, 2009 01:14 pm (UTC)
This is interesting, thanks.

I'm wondering whether you included Subterranean: Dark Fantasy under Subterranean, even though it was technically a one-off anthology.
Ken: Scaredken_schneyer on October 25th, 2009 01:50 pm (UTC)
I think I did exactly that, Rachel. *sigh*

I tend to make at least one really obvious mistake like that every time I engage in this exercise. Comes from being insufficiently plugged in to the field, but shooting my mouth off anyway. :P
Rachel Swirskyrachel_swirsky on October 25th, 2009 02:31 pm (UTC)
Nah, I'm not sure there's an appreciable difference anyway, at least as far as writers are concerned when they're marketing their stories. Same editor, same taste.
ellen datlowellen_datlow on October 26th, 2009 02:22 am (UTC)
Just fyi, the titles IN the book and not in the book aren't particularly meaningful as I had to cut all but 50 from the book at the last minute. So it wasn't as if I gave great thought to those that are in the actual volume :-).
ellen datlowellen_datlow on October 26th, 2009 02:27 am (UTC)
Also,I don't understand why you're including what you call "anthology series" rather than just "anthologies" overall. They're all stand alone, having nothing to do with the one the year (or two before)so your including some of them but not the other many anthologies seems arbitrary.

Ken: Hmmmmmken_schneyer on October 26th, 2009 02:49 am (UTC)
Hi Ellen! Thanks for weighing in, especially re: the methodology of inclusion/exclusion of HMs from the book itself.

As to the anthologies: I was looking at the markets from the point of view of the writer trying to decide where to submit next. In the case of a periodical, the periodical is usually still there this year as it was last, usually with the same editor, so that if it gets a lot of notice and praise, that may be a good place to submit.

In the case of an anthology by a single editor, where the purpose or theme of the anthology is very different from another anthology by the same editor (e.g., JJA's Federations anthology vs. his Way of the Wizard anthology), you can't really make a lot of generalizations about them (except that John's a smart guy who chooses cool stuff).

But in the case of an anthology that is repeated under the same title, like Clockwork Phoenix, I think it is possible to draw generalizations, especially where the editor comments on the later edition in terms of the earlier edition. Mike's submission guidelines for CP3 talk about what he got in submissions for CP2, and he looks like he's hoping that it will be the same general flavor of book. (Mike, if you're reading this, please correct me if I've misread you.) In such circumstances, I feel more confident making generalizations.

In the case of WotF, I agree that the generalization is more dicey, first because there is no consistent theme, and secondly because the final cut is selected by a panel, which rotates. But the initial cut is still always made by Kathy Wentworth, so I feel there's at least some consistency so that generalizing is worthwhile.

It's an imperfect method, of course, but I'm looking for alternatives to SFWA standards and Hugo/Nebula nominations (although I like those too, and in my own calculations I try to sort them all out).
ellen datlowellen_datlow on October 26th, 2009 02:58 am (UTC)
Ok--I do understand what you're saying about anthologies.

However, if you're suggesting that because certain magazines/"series" anthos receive more Honorable Mentions than others and that's a reason writers should consider submitting to the mags with the most HM, I don't think that really works. Don't forget, I'm looking for "horror" --which means it's very rare for certain mags to contain horror at all.
(eg Analog, Asimov's, AHMM, Shimmer, the New Yorker, any of the lit journals, etc etc.) Also, the annual output of even magazines for which there is a lot of horror changes year by year.

F&SF had 7 HM in 08 and one actual reprint in the Best of the Year. In 2009 there are only 5 so far (I've read all the issues but December).

I guess I'm just saying that I one can't count on this particular methodology from one year to the next.
Ken: Winkken_schneyer on October 26th, 2009 03:35 am (UTC)
Certainly, which is why this is one of several methodologies I employ. I publish the analysis because it is a useful datum, but its only one. When you take it together with HMs in YBSF, Hugo nominations, Nebula nominations, WFA nominations, BFA nominations, etc., you get a pretty good measurement of something or other. F&SF, since you mention it, comes out pretty consistently at or near the top when you combine all of those different measurements together.

But all this is beside the point, to some extent. I love the stuff that comes out in GUD, and so I frequently submit there, regardless of where it may fall on a bean-counting technique like this one.
quasi randomkaolinfire on November 19th, 2009 03:09 am (UTC)
Ran across a similar thing for Ploughshares and couldn't think of anywhere else to store the info ;)