Blogsplosion: One View

Deborah Biancotti

Fact #1: What follows is the opinions, perceptions and - for what they're worth - conclusions of one person. Me.

Ready, Set…

During a few fateful days at the tail end of August 2005, a certain multi-layered online debate caught many of us off guard with its speed and strength. It was triggered by these words:

"Yes, we're publishing more [in Australia], but is our writing getting better?
I'm not convinced."

Russell B. Farr’s July editorial of Ticonderoga Online, Here Now , mused on ‘the state of things’. Nothing new there. This is genre. In Australia. We are always musing on the state of things. Having, I believed, no personal stake in the answer to Russell's question, I blithely quoted him in my blog .

At which point all hell broke loose.

It must be said, it was a reasonable & engaging hell. It was a good-natured, well-intentioned debate. It swept like a small fire through the imaginations of many people who came to read and reply, agree, disagree, question, challenge and tease each other with shrewd affection. It invoked emotion, maybe even some angst, but the sheer good will of the assembled crowd, the respect & engagement, the downright curiosity, was unlike anything I personally had seen before. At least, that is, in the electronic world. Mailing lists, for example - several of the ones I've been on, anyhow - are renowned for their occasional vitriol and tantrums. But something about the level playing field of blogs, & the ability to choose to engage or otherwise (after all, you're not getting a hundred emails in your inbox every time Rantish Whiner decides to let loose) means there is a generosity of spirit that at first baffled and then delighted me and many others.

It became, at times, invigorating, inspiring, even - at times - overwhelming.

Here is one account.

Go!

If I haven't emphasised it enough yet, this is my personal account of what I think happened. I am at pains to take responsiblity for this article. So many diverse opinions and ideas are at stake that I worry I will not do justice to it all. So this is me saying 'I will stand by what I say here' and by the end of this article, you'll know how to seek me out online and challenge me on what you think needs challenging and we will likely find some kind of settlement.

Unless you try to call me silly names. In which case, you will find me kind of indifferent and maybe even a little dismissive.

Unless the names are really funny.

This account exists because a call was put out that a record be made of the time spent and ideas invoked. This is the beginning of that record, though not the end. If blogs have taught me anything, it's that words are not stone. I will write this article and others will react and perhaps write their own articles, proffer their own thoughts, engage in other discussions.

Which is lucky, because it really shouldn't be left up to me. I am the worst person to analyse the zeitgeist, to explain what was behind what happened. But, trapped in bed with a cold for most of it, I am perhaps the best person to offer a description - barely more than that - of what was offered, what said, what occurred. While I do this, I will try to acknowledge people for their words and ideas. Not only to give credit where it's due, but to point out where the expertise lies if you happen to want to follow any of this up (and also so they can correct me when I get it wrong). I have put in a zillion links so you can hunt out the original words in their original contexts and form your own conclusions in case mine are flawed. The livejournal layout takes some getting used to. You'll likely have to do a lot of scrolling. Sorry about that, I'd work it differently if I could. Also, terrible simplicities have been made, else this article last as long as the original debate.

I have sorted and categorised based more on theme than chronology or thread, because I think that's the best way to give people a chance to respond, and also because of a comment made by Russell during the debate:

' Here's the thing: I'm not actually arguing anything, just making an opined observation. I suggested that I didn't think that, despite the increase in volume being written and published by australians, there doesn't appear to have been a corresponding increase in quality. No argument, no attempt to make an issue of this. Is it an issue for editors, or publishers, or writers, or all of the above? I don't know. '
- Russell B. Farr.

Let's take a look.

Reading 1: Grant Watson initiated discussion by suggesting writing had become more about the writer than the reader. 'More readers please,' came the cry. 'Yes, please!' said several of us. Yet the main problem with short fiction is that it exists in small press (" Indie press! " cries Jeff VanderMeer), & the main problem with this press, as Alisa Krasnostein noted, is that it's hard to find at your local Dymocks. What, we're still wondering, is a reader to do?

Reading 2: Sean Wallace asked whether Russell had noticed the contributions of many fine Australians currently writing . But excellence is a matter of personal taste, of course, so how are we to gauge it? One suggestion was a measure of the number of Australians appearing in Year's Best collections. Russell noted, " I was questioning whether looking at the number of stories published by Australians in any recent year was a suitable gauge of the overall strength of the genre in Australia. " Confusion existed over the numbers, however, with a suggestion that they seemed to have remained stable despite a growth in local publishing outlets. So Ellen Datlow dropped in to let us know the names of those she herself had published in the Year's Best Fantasy and Horror.

Reading 3: Ben Payne suggested stories from ten years ago may stick in a reader's mind merely because the ideas & forms of the genre were new to a less experienced reader: " I think the more experience you have with the genre the harder you become to impress ". Hence that whole myth of The Golden Age.

Writing 1: Writers swarmed the debate, with Lee Battersby good-naturedly disagreeing with the principle of The Golden Age, though this was not Russell's point in the first place. Russell dropped by with a summary of what he'd been trying to say (to paraphrase: is the quality of overall writing getting better?). The concept of 'world class writing' was explored, with Ben Peek finding a way to mention pornography (writing that is not in conversation with culture, in case you were wondering).

Writing 2: By this stage Jonathan Strahan had waded in to give some honest & educated commentary (what we're currently missing is " a batch of really top notch, knock 'em out of the park stories "), with reference to writer career & development. This triggered a discussion of apparent 'gaps' in Australia's publishing history. Jonathan speculated gaps may exist for several reasons : previous high achievers in short stories may be moving into novels; current short story writers are only just commencing careers; the energy of publishers/editors subsided in the period post-Worldcon (1999).

Writing 3: " I love Aussie fiction, I'm almost parochial about it ," said Shane Jiraiya Cummings, scoring mostly bemusement from other readers who seemed somewhat more cautious in their enjoyment. In the same discussion, though, there was the suggestion that writers weren't putting enough work into their stories, causing Ben Payne to step up to the plate: " And this is my question... what evidence do you have that they don't? If you're judging whether people put enough effort into their writing by the quality of the end product, then your argument seems kind of circular; your argument seems to be: "people aren't writing enough good stories because they don't put the hard work in, i can tell they don't put the hard work in because there aren't enough good stories..." "

Writing 4: I noted, in reaction to the above comments, that " I don't think 'harder work' necessarily = 'better work'. Unfortunately. Would that it were so easy a calculation... " Ben Payne noted separately that " for all you know the author has put their heart and soul into it ". To assume writers are resting on their laurels is dangerous.

Writing 5: Grant Watson suggested there was a link between markets & writing quality such that: " People buying = more publishing = more writing = writing tends to improve ." Conversely, Hannah Wolf Bowen offered a different equation: " But in some cases, yes, more publishing = less incentive to learn to do better = flattening of the learning curve ".

Writing 6: Further discussion referenced the idea that some writers respond better to positive than negative comments. New writers, particularly, were likely to require softer feedback, suggested Ben Payne. " And looking around at most publications, they're full of new writers... so anyone who says "the larger amount of fiction being published is shit" is doing exactly that... "[ie. hammering writers unduly]. Early validation can be put to good use creating confident writing later. Alisa suggested, ' There needs to be a feedback loop here so that its an ongoing, interative process that improves. ' Thus, feedback was identified as an important contributor to writer improvement.

Writing 7: Jonathan suggested the tendency for the Oz SF scene to err on the side of generosity could be damaging: " If we had more publications appear reliably (and I hail ASIM for their achievement in that area), higher editorial standards, and more frankness in assessing one another's work, I think you'd see a real improvement in standards. " Ben Payne listed a couple of suggestions for overcoming that: welcoming diversity of opinion; and encouraging writers to improve. Ben carried the discussion over to his blog to look for ideas on workable feedback venues. I popped in to distinguish between criticism & constructive criticism . (Criticism is easy, criticising *well* ... you know the rest.)

Writing 7: Gillian Polack noted the self-doubt and vulnerability of writers (particularly new writers) to what could be seen as criticism in Russell's remarks: " Also, I read the piece and instantly saw myself and wondered whyever I was in print. "

Writing 8: Tansy gives her writer peers a teasing dig when she says, " Just about every good writer in Australia at the moment is interested in writing novels as well as short stories. Does this mean they save their great material for the medium more likely to earn them an income??? "

Editing 1: ' Do editors/publishers know what is *good*? ' Alisa asked, winning an entire new & passionate discussion . What, asked some others, does 'good' actually mean? Jonathan suggested & others agreed, " there is NO objective criteria for determining 'good' in art. None. Not at all. Not any ." Stuart Barrow implied (my interpretation here) that if you don't think the editor's product is good, don't buy it . " All I can do is bring out something I'm happy with, and hope. "

Editing 2: Anyhow, how worthwhile is 'good'? " I am far, far less interested in reading things that an editor (or anyone) thought was objectively good than in reading things that they loved, " said Hannah, receiving one or two 'hell, yeah!'s from the crowd, & the delicious word 'visceral' was used by Stephanie Gunn to describe her reaction to fiction.

Editing 3: Given the nature of editing, Ben Payne asked, " how do you judge the job an editor is doing unless you know what material they had to work with? " Tansy Rayner Roberts answered with, " You can't review editing. It's as simple as that. "

Editing 4: Shane Jiraiya Cummings suggested editors get what they pay for , with better pay rates attracting better stories.

Editing 5: Shane also talked about editors sweating over their editing , not only invoking images of medieval surgery, but also leading some of us to muse about the very real possibility of ‘over editing’ in the follow up thread. " But as an editor ," said Ben Payne, " knowing when to stand back and stop interfering is just as difficult, and just as important a part of the job. " In response to my phobias about the writer losing ownership of a story, Ellen Datlow suggested, " Part of the editor's job is to get the story to the point where it does indeed express exactly what the author wants it to. "

Editing 6: Alisa scored agreement from Ben Payne and Chris Barnes with, " good editing is in the choosing of the original stories as much as it is in the correcting of punctuation. "

Editing 7: " What sort of mentoring for editors is there out in the scene? " asked Alisa. Answer: not much.

Publishing 1: Debate ensued on Ben Peek’s blog about the nature of small press (Jeff VanderMeer, "Indie press!") and whether it fulfils any identifiable audience needs. Does it not, instead, fulfil market needs for writers and publishers, with little consideration to what an audience wants?

Publishing 2: Devin Jeyathurai, Iain Triffitt and Victor Infante all noted the (understandable) interest publishers have in *selling*. Victor said, ' a book is not published on the grounds of whether it is good or not, although that's certainly a factor. A book is published on the grounds of if it can be sold or not. '

Publishing 3: Dave Cake suggested marketing and promotion were key in getting the product to readers, and Ben Peek composed a post about the need for more proactive reader-finding behaviour.

Publishing 4: More of an aside than anything, but Jonathan mentioned the power of Worldcon to drain resources from small press , which touches on the stresses publishers are under.

Talking 1: Somewhere along the line, Ben Payne composed a common-sense ‘to do’ list for everyone.

Talking 2: Shane Jiraiya Cummings identified some energetic solutions in his blog, including HorrorScope, an Australian fiction column in Hellnotes, multiple anthologies from Shadowed Realms, including the new Australian Dark Fantasy and Horror: The Best of 2005 anthology. Alisa Krasnostein launched the Australian Spec Fic in Focus (AS if) site.

Talking 3: Ben Payne charted a change of course for his zine, Potato Monkey: " a venue for authors to have fun and experiment, to play around and to try things that they might not do in a more mainstream venue ." Lee Battersby announced his retirement from his editorial positon at Tic-On to focus on his writing.

Talking 3: Sean Wallace recommended more dicussion and debate .

Talking 4: Gillian Polack wisely reminded us, " But first we need to identify if there is a problem, or if we have lapsed into a culture of complaining. "

Finish Line

Believe it or not, I've tried to keep this simple.

It’s a debate without identifiable beginning and end, but what made this one interesting was that it was played out in real time in the ‘blogosphere’, where all players start with the same tools. Unlike a panel, where a selection of experts is chosen, the blog allows *anyone* to speak to *anyone else* (which is why I presented all the names above without any credentials – just as you first find them in blogsville). Renowned editors Jonathan Strahan & Ellen Datlow can be quizzed by newcomers to the field like Alisa Krasnostein. Discussions were as informal or formal as the respondents chose to be. What also made this interesting was that, despite emotions being raised on many sides, very little anger or blame was traded anywhere. Almost without exception, all players respected the rights of all other players to hold different views. It is this willing tolerance that allows me to write an article like this, knowing full well it invites disagreement in many instances.

I also want to point out that the explosion meant a lot to what may amount to just a few of us. Does it mean more than a hill of beans to anyone else? Time will tell. This discussion was just another leg of an ongoing journey, and may or may not have acted as catalyst to the players and viewers. But some things did occur directly after, as noted above, and you will have to ask each person how much it meant to them.

Some others of us have re-dedicated ourselves to our chosen pursuits, having examined what is important to us, and made private decisions of our own as to what our futures must hold in order to satisfy us. I put myself in this latter group.

Where are they now: The Players

The following people engaged in the debate & may be found online:

Alisa Krasnostein = girliejones = editor ASif! (Australian SpecFic in focus)

Ben Payne = benpayne = writer + editor ASIM, Aurealis , Potato Monkey

Ben Peek = benpeek = writer

Chris Barnes = chrisbarnes = writer + co-chair ConSyder 2006

Dave Cake = strangedave = editor Borderlands

Devin Jeyathurai = dev_ilry = writer + associate editor ASif! + slusher ASIM , The Outcast ( CSFG )

Deborah Biancotti = deborahb = writer

Ellen Datlow = ellendatlow = editor (incl. scifi.com , The Years Best Fantasy and Horror) + guest Conflux 3 , 2006

Gillian Polack = gillpolack = writer

Grant Watson = angriest = editor Borderlands + writer Angriest Video Store Clerk in the World

Hannah Wolf Bowen = buymeaclue = writer + editor Fortean Bureau

Iain Triffit = jack_ryder = writer

Jeff Vandermeer = vanderworld = writer + guest Brisbane Writers Festival , 2005

Jonathan Strahan = jonathanstrahan = coode_street = editor anthologies (incl. Year's Best Australian Science Fiction and Fantasy) + guest Conjure (Natcon) 2006

Lee Battersby = llbatt = writer

Mari Ness = mariness = writer

Martin Livings = lonewolf23 = writer + virtual guest Swancon 2006

Russell B. Farr = punkrocker1991 = editor Tic-On + writer + guest Swancon 2007

Sean Wallace = oldcharliebrown = editor Prime Books

Shane Jiraiya Cummings = jiraiyac = sjiraiya = writer + editor Shadowed Realms

Stephanie Gunn  = azhure = writer

Stuart Barrow = capnoblivious = writer + editor ASIM , Gastronomicon

Tansy Rayner Roberts = cassiphone = writer + editor ASIM

Victor Infante = ocvictor = writer + editor The November Third Club

Deborah Biancotti is a Sydney based writer and blogger. Her stories have appeared in Altair, Borderlands, Orb and Redsine, as well as the Passing Strange, Southern Blood and Agog! anthologies. Her most recent publication was in The Year's Best Australian SF and Fantasy. She can be found online at http://deborahbiancotti.net and http://www.livejournal.com/users/deborahb (the start of all this trouble).

back to top