Jason Sanford

"Small Pale Humans" by Daniel Spinks

As I read through the Million Writers Award notable stories of 2007, one thought that kept returning to me is that there are a lot of sick puppies writing fiction. I mean, I couldn't even begin to count how many stories in this list deal with murder, sex, torture, insanity--and murderous sex while torturing someone with an insane rubber chicken (okay, I made that last one up).

Seriously, if there is one constant in the realm of fiction, it is that authors will turn time and again to stories about extreme people exploring the extremes of human nature. One story from the list that captures this aspect of humanity in a good way is "Small Pale Humans" by Daniel Spinks. Published in Bear Parade, the story follows a seriously crazy individual as he goes through the endless repetitions of his life. As Einstein is believed to have said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In "Small Pale Humans," you can easily see why this is a valid definition of insanity. I especially liked the format of the story, which is spread over 16 small chapters. This forces people to click through the chapters as they read them, giving a circular nature to the story which fits in well with its repetition theme. Spinks' writing is also top-notch.

Million Writers Award update

I'm now reading through the Million Writers Award notable stories of 2007. There are a ton of great stories in the list this year, which will make selecting the top ten finalists extremely hard. I'm still aiming for having these story selections up by the last week of May. Until then, I'll post comments on this blog about stories I really like (although this doesn't mean I'll pick these stories for the top ten).

I should also note that in response to my previous post about some minor screw-ups in the list of notable stories--and the resulting tempest in a teapot from some writers and fans of flash fiction--it appears no one will take me up on my offer to remove their name from consideration for the award. I guess this means these mistakes didn't truly undermined the award's credibility, despite claims to the contrary.

Interzone readers' poll winners

The Interzone readers' poll winners have been announced. " Ack-Ack Macaque" by Gareth Lyn Powell won first place, followed by "Knowledge" by Grace Dugan and "The Sledge-maker's Daughter" by Alastair Reynolds. Two of my votes for the top stories, "Tearing Down Tuesday" by Steven Francis Murphy and "Molly and the Red Hat" by Benjamin Rosenbaum, came in fourth and fifth respectively.  

Get a free copy of F&SF

John Joseph Adams has details on how bloggers can receive a free copy of the July issue of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Sounds like a good way to drum up exposure for the magazine. I'd also suggest people subscribe to F&SF, which is having an amazing year and has published a number of great stories in the last few months. I mailed a two-year subscription renewal to F&SF yesterday and I can't say enough positive things about the great work Gordon Van Gelder and all the other editors are doing with this magazine.

Give 100% toward becoming 1% well read

By way of James Wallace Harris's blog comes news of the 1% well read challenge. As the site says, "The goal of this challenge is to read 10 books in 10 months from the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die list."

James asked for some books from this list that blew other people's minds. A few of my choices from recent years would be The Life of Pi by Yann Martel, The Shipping News by E. Annie Proulx, and The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje. I should note, though, that there are many great books--especially in the SF/F genre--are nowhere to be found on the list. Still, this is an interesting reading challenge.

Apex Digest subscription drive

Apex Digest is holding a subscription drive in an attempt to avoid going on hiatus. As a current subscriber to Apex, let me state that this is a great magazine with a totally unique view on how to mix science fiction and horror. And if you want to subscribe, Apex is again offering their Apex for Life subscription option which will give you Apex until you die. While that may sound like a disease, it's an offer well worth catching, especially as it only costs $100 (as opposed to $20 for a regular one year subscription). More info on these subscription options here.

And in an FYI, I'm in the process of reading issue 12 of Apex and hope to have a review up in a few weeks.

"Pump Six" by Paolo Bacigalupi is a Locus recommended story

Back in February I reviewed Pump Six and Other Stories by Paolo Bacigalupi and noted that the title story of the collection is one of the best SF/F novelettes I've read in ages. I finished the review by stating that if there is any justice in the world, "Pump Six" will be the story that finally wins Bacigalupi a Hugo or Nebula Award.

After writing those words, I wondered if others would notice this amazing story or if it would fall through the critical/reviewer cracks, so to speak. Well now we have some great news: In the May 2008 issue of Locus, reviewer Nick Gevers selects the novelette as a recommended story. I strongly suggest people track down this amazing short story collection and its equally amazing title story.

I should also note that this issue of Locus contains excellent interviews with both Theodora Goss and Catherynne M. Valente. As people may remember, Valente won last year's Million Writers Award with her story "Urchins, While Swimming."

More flash fiction crap--and how authors can remove their names from consideration for this award

This morning I received several outraged e-mails, all stating I'd undermined the credibility of the Million Writers Award by not kicking out all the stories which were under 1000 words (see yesterday's post for more on this). Others wanted to know why we didn't employ a legion of fact checkers to go through each nominated story to make sure they met the award guidelines.

In response to that last question, I am the entire fact checking army for the MWA. I am ultimately responsible for any mistake in the award process. I collected the notable stories from each preliminary judge--all 164 of them--and then did my best to screen them to make sure they met the award criteria. As I stated yesterday, I made mistakes. In my haste to get the notable stories up, I missed several that came in under the 1000 minimum word count. One of these stories was so far under the word minimum (at only 208 words) that I felt I had no choice but to remove it. Two or three other stories were in the 700 to 1000 word range and, feeling these were closer to the intent of the award guidelines, I let them remain in the notable stories list.

Which brings us back to the main point of these outraged e-mailers, which is that I undermined the credibility of the award by doing this. To which I respond: Bullshit. What the e-mailers are really complaining about it that their flash fiction didn't get considered for the award while the judges had the audacity to pick someone else's 700 word story for this honor. As stated, none of these stories should have been picked for this notable list--that was a mistake. Still, a judge felt these two or three stories were worth honoring. So what are these e-mailers suggesting: That I revoke this honor from someone whose story is only slightly under the guideline minimum? Will that make you feel better that your own story wasn't considered? The complaints on this strike me as rather self-centered.

The MWA has one of the most open and transparent nominating processes of any literary award.  Our goal is to bring attention to deserving writers and their stories.  I have admitted making some honest mistakes with this year's list of notable stories. If anyone feels this undermines the credibility of the award, then that is what you will believe. However, I also hope you do not merely state this opinion in the privacy of an e-mail or a closed forum. Put your own credibility as an author on the line. E-mail me and ask that your stories not be considered for this award in the future. I will be happy to remove your name from consideration from this point onwards (or, if you have a notable story in this year's list, remove that story from further consideration). I will also publish a post in the near future naming all the authors who feel this way and contact me. After all, I wouldn't want anyone to risk taking part in an award they consider lacking in credibility.

Micro Award for flash fiction

Shortly after my previous post in which I mentioned a possible flash fiction version of the Million Writers Award in the works for next year, Robert Laughlin e-mailed to say that "It is too late for you to set a precedent by establishing the first competition for previously published flash fiction; I have already done so. I am the creator and administrator of the Micro Award, an annual award for fiction not over 1000 words in length. Authors and editors may each nominate one story published in the previous year, and the award accepts stories published in print and online venues. Rules are posted on our website, at www.microaward.com. This year's submission deadline is Sep. 30, and the winner and non-winning finalists will be announced on or about Dec. 15."

More power to Robert with the award and I encourage people to submit early and often.

Screw-ups in the Million Writers Award

I have received a number of e-mails about screw-ups with this year's list of Million Writers Award notable stories. Many of these mistakes are minor--misspellings of either journals or authors' names and wrong links to stories. As I have been made away of these mistakes I have corrected them.

But as many people have pointed out, a couple of stories didn't appear to meet the guidelines for this year's awards. First, there seems to have been a story or two listed which were published prior to 2007. This is a mistake, but not one I take too seriously. Let me explain: some journals (such as the Barcelona Review) do not archive their stories in a way which lets the judges easily determine when a story was published. It also happens that judges can make mistakes and miss a story's publication date, meaning they might select a story which was not published in the preceding year. When any of this happens, my view is to not remove the story from the notable list PROVIDED the story wasn't also listed in a previous year's MWA. The main goal of the MWA is to bring attention to deserving authors. As such, I have little desire to remove a story because a judge messed up the story's publication date.

Another issue that has come up is that some of the notable stories this year don't meet the MWA's 1000 word minimum. The MWA rules state that the genre of short stories called flash fiction or short shorts is not eligible for the MWA. The reason for this is simple: When I started the MWA, I felt that the award should be used to promote longer fiction on the web. Partly this was because I am not a fan of flash fiction, and partly because I felt online flash fiction was already receiving a good deal of attention.

This year one notable story, Maryanne Stahl's "Your Hair, Your Weight" in Per Contra review, is well under 1000 words--clocking in at exactly 208 words. I asked the preliminary judge who selected this story what happened and she told me she'd forgotten about the 1000 word limit. Unfortunately, I also goofed and failed to notice the story's length when I was compiling the notable story list. Because the story is so far below the word minimum, I feel it would be unfair to leave it as a notable story and have now removed it from the list. I apologize to Maryanne and Per Contra for this mistake. The only good thing is that Maryanne is already a highly accomplished author, so I don't think this will derail her writing career in the slightest.

This leaves the final issue, which is that several people have noticed other stories on the list which appear to be slightly below the 1000 word minimum. In these cases, I will not remove the stories. I do not ask the judges to do a word count on stories--if they are close to the minimum, then they will remain. Again, this gets back to promoting deserving authors.

Now before people start harassing me because of my well-known dislike of flash fiction and how this episode marks me as a hypocrite or, worse, a sloppy editor, everyone should know that I was approached several months ago by an author and editor about doing a flash-fiction version of the MWA. We both agreed it was a good idea but that we didn't have the time to do it this year. If all goes well, this flash fiction MWA will be launched early next year alongside the regular award. And in even better news, I won't be running this flash MWA! So my biases against the flash genre will be kept well away from the award.

I hope this clarifies everything and settles any disputes about this year's award.