Introductions, A Rant
Jul. 2nd, 2008 10:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexxkayI'm in the middle of the latest Hartwell&Cramer Years Best SF (13). It's not as depressing so far as 12 was, so maybe we're trending back up. Or maybe it's a statistical blip.
But that's not what I'm here to talk about this time. This time, I'm ranting not about the stories, but about the introductions to them. Every story is preceded by an editorial intro, almost always of the same form: a long paragraph of bio- and bibliographic information about the author, then a short paragraph describing the story. Sadly, the story description almost always contains serious spoilers for the story to follow. I have had to get into the habit of assiduously ignoring that page on the first read-through, only going back to it after I've finished reading. This is an annoying disruption to my reading flow.
I know there are people who *like* this kind of spoilage. Are they actually a majority? Why not make *them* flip forward to get their spoilers? They are already well used to doing so for novels.
I doubt that the authors like having this done to their stories. At best, it seriously colors the reader's experience. At worst, the summary is sometimes flat-out *wrong*.
It seems to me that these summaries often say far more about the editor than they do about the story in question. For example, I just read a story by Ken MacLeod, "Who's Afraid of Wolf 359?" (spoilers follow)
The story is set in a future where humanity has interstellar travel, and has managed to create an overall governmental style that allows for peaceful coexistence. Not many details of this are given (it's just a short story), but it is referred to as a 'polyarchy'. The protagonist ends up stranded on a backwards planet, which is trying out old-fashioned pre-technological evolution. The protagonist realizes that his only real hope for survival is to get back off this planet. So he organizes the primitives into a warlike, expansionist empire, conquers the planet, builds space travel infrastructure, and goes on to conquer all of humanity.
The editors describe this story as 'upbeat'. Well, it's true that the protagonist comes out ahead, but that's hardly the same thing. This strikes *me* as a deeply pessimistic story. Remember my earlier discussion of 'post-imperial malaise'? It seems to me that only someone suffering from this syndrome could see the triumph of imperialism as 'upbeat'. The author, meanwhile, is a Scot, and well known for biting satire. It seems to me that the editors entirely missed his point.
But that's not what I'm here to talk about this time. This time, I'm ranting not about the stories, but about the introductions to them. Every story is preceded by an editorial intro, almost always of the same form: a long paragraph of bio- and bibliographic information about the author, then a short paragraph describing the story. Sadly, the story description almost always contains serious spoilers for the story to follow. I have had to get into the habit of assiduously ignoring that page on the first read-through, only going back to it after I've finished reading. This is an annoying disruption to my reading flow.
I know there are people who *like* this kind of spoilage. Are they actually a majority? Why not make *them* flip forward to get their spoilers? They are already well used to doing so for novels.
I doubt that the authors like having this done to their stories. At best, it seriously colors the reader's experience. At worst, the summary is sometimes flat-out *wrong*.
It seems to me that these summaries often say far more about the editor than they do about the story in question. For example, I just read a story by Ken MacLeod, "Who's Afraid of Wolf 359?" (spoilers follow)
The story is set in a future where humanity has interstellar travel, and has managed to create an overall governmental style that allows for peaceful coexistence. Not many details of this are given (it's just a short story), but it is referred to as a 'polyarchy'. The protagonist ends up stranded on a backwards planet, which is trying out old-fashioned pre-technological evolution. The protagonist realizes that his only real hope for survival is to get back off this planet. So he organizes the primitives into a warlike, expansionist empire, conquers the planet, builds space travel infrastructure, and goes on to conquer all of humanity.
The editors describe this story as 'upbeat'. Well, it's true that the protagonist comes out ahead, but that's hardly the same thing. This strikes *me* as a deeply pessimistic story. Remember my earlier discussion of 'post-imperial malaise'? It seems to me that only someone suffering from this syndrome could see the triumph of imperialism as 'upbeat'. The author, meanwhile, is a Scot, and well known for biting satire. It seems to me that the editors entirely missed his point.