Matthew Cheney has posted the preface to the upcoming Best American Fantasy. Here's a snippet:

The three words in our title do not have stable definitions. Instead of a cause of frustration, this lack of stability can be a source of wonder.

Best. According to whom? Under what criteria? Relative to what?

American. Where? Is it a geography or a mindset? Is it governments or landscapes? Is it a history or a bunch of histories or the eradication of history? Is it by birth or choice? Is it more about and less about or?

Fantasy. Swords and dragons? Dreams and portents? Nonsense? Does fantasy have to include magic, or can it simply hint at strangeness? Is it a genre or a lens? Is it subject or object? Can it live within the structure of a story, or must it emanate from the content? Where does fiction end and fantasy begin?

I like this explanation; especially the "best" part. I think it helps to remind people about the subjectivity of both quality and classification in literature.

A "Best of..." anthology is based on the criteria of the editor - usually one editor but sometimes more than one. This is great for a reader if his tastes match those of the editor, but this is often (for me anyway) hit or miss. I usually find some stories to be stronger than others. There have been no 5-star anthologies that I can recall. (Possible exception: The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume I edited by Robert Silverberg. I remember reading that years ago and loving every single story. However, I read this after a long dry spell of no reading at all and this anthology provided everything I like in science fiction. I am more critical now. I have the added perspective of having read more. Would I still find those stories as entertaining today as I did then? Maybe. Maybe not. I re-read Kuttner's "Mimsy Were the Borogroves" this week and found the ending to be unsatisfying even though it was a very good story overall.)

Do non-best-of anthologies - original fiction anthologies - stand a better chance? Those have been dwindling over the years, though so far this year two new original fiction anthology series have been launched: The Solaris Book of New Science Fiction edited by George Mann and Fast Forward edited by Lou Anders. Do you remember the Orbit series? Judith Merill's SF #nn series? Silverberg's Alpha and New Dimensions series? Would one expect original anthologies to yield stories of lesser import? I don't pretend to know anything about the publishing business, but my initial reaction is: yes. What happens when a contributor submits a sub-par story? Does the editor toss it, or does it get printed anyway? I suspect it might get printed anyway. But then, I realize my initial reaction must be wrong. Case in point: I found great (if not perfect) reads in quite a few original anthologies over the past few years. Three SFBC original anthologies come to mind: Down These Dark Spaceways edited by Mike Resnick, Forbidden Planets edited by Marvin Kaye, and Between Worlds edited by Robert Silverberg. I think these better-than-average original anthologies are rare.

And so there are those who - if the read short fiction at all - will stick to the "Best of" type. Thankfully there are editors out there who do read the original stuff and pass along the best to them.

Comments (0) | PermaLink | Category: Books
Posted by John DeNardo at Saturday March 24, 2007 at 11:01 AM
© 2008 SF Signal