Posted on by jameswharris

The Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories

Newsstand-1939

Version 1.0 Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories
by Piet Nel and James Wallace Harris

The new version 5 of the Classics of Science Fiction is here:

      https://csfquery.com

We will maintain this version for reference.

 

When most people from around the world think of science fiction they usually remember movies and television shows. Even among bookworms, most recall novels when the phrase science fiction is mentioned. Short stories are a fading art form, like poetry. Short stories still have their passionate fans, but not many. Few science fiction fans can tick off a list of their favorite short stories when they have no trouble making a list of novels.

If you search the internet for the best works of science fiction, you’ll get lists of movies and novels. If you search hard enough, with the right keywords, you can find a few lists of classic short stories. Our goal is to identify the most remembered short stories, novelettes, and novellas of science fiction. We entered the stories from anthologies, awards, polls, textbooks, and recommended reading lists into a database and generated our list with the most frequently recalled stories. We focused on the best-of-the-year and retrospective anthologies. We call each source a citation – see our Citations Bibliography.

We feel it’s impossible to claim these are the best science fiction stories ever written. We doubt there is an objective way to measure art. We feel our method identifies the most remembered stories.

Beginning in 2018 I started a personal project to read the entire 25 volumes of The Great SF Stories 1-25 (1939-1963) edited by Isaac Asimov and Martin H. Greenberg. (I later learned Robert Silverberg replaced Asimov for a 26th volume.) I started an online discussion group to find other folks wanting to share the project. That group began working on its own list of favorite science fiction short stories, but none of us were ready to complete our own list until we read more.

Piet Nel and I began a second project to make lists of great stories from the best anthologies. I told Piet if we could come up with a system that identified the most remembered stories we could publish it here.

Piet is an expert on science fiction anthologies and a data entry maniac. Before I could think much about the project he was sending me spreadsheets filled with stories from various anthologies. I called Mike Jorgensen, the programmer behind the Classics of Science Fiction lists and he volunteered to develop the database and program the reports for this project. In a short time, we had 10,000 entries in the database.

The Classics of Science Fiction lists for books is based on 65 different citation sources published from 1949-2016. To be included on the final list a title had to be on a minimum of 10 citation lists. We used the same statistical methods for The Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories list but required only a minimum of 5 citations. “Bloodchild” by Octavia Butler had the most, with 16.

If you look at the table below you can see how the cutoff works. There were 3,679 stories that got only 1 citation out of a total of 5,383 stories “nominated” by all the citations. If we had made the cutoff 2, it would have made the final list 1,704 stories long. 885 stories got at least two citations. A Top 100 list would have been between using 7 and 8 as a cutoff.

Citations Total Titles Cutoff Total
1 3679 5383
2 885 1704
3 376 819
4 168 443
5 87 275
6 57 188
7 47 131
8 25 84
9 21 59
10 13 38
11 8 25
12 6 17
13 6 11
14 4 5
15 0 1
16 1 1

Most people reading lists on the internet get bored after scanning 11-50 items. Top 100 lists are becoming less common. At first, we felt our final list should stay below 100 stories to appeal to the impatient internet readers. We played with different cutoff points. Requiring 7 citations got the list down to 131 stories. That was still too long. However, many stories we dearly loved came in below the cutoff. We finally decided to make the cutoff 5 citations, which produces a very long list of 275 stories. We figured impatient list readers can use the rank list and stop scrolling wherever they get tired. My favorite way to view the list is by year because I love seeing how the genre evolved over time. But to peruse from the 19th to the 21st centuries takes a lot of scrolling. The author list will appeal to folks with favorite writers.

To make each list more useful we’ve linked to various sites on the web that offer additional information. Each report uses a different reference tool. The year list takes you to ISFDB to see all the possible reprint sources for the story. The rank list takes you to Wikipedia to read about the story. The author list takes you to Wikipedia to read about the author. We recommend you right-click on a link and select “Open in new window,” so you won’t lose your place in our list.

I have found great pleasure in reading science fiction short stories this year. So far, I’ve read an anthology 19th century short stories, annual anthologies for 1939-1944, 2016, 2017, one retrospective of the 1950s, and the first three volumes of The Science Fiction Hall of Fame. I’m developing a sense of how the genre has evolved over time.

One distinctive observation I’ve made is how stories were written before NASA generally assumed we’d find life, including intelligent life, on Venus, Mars, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. I’ve often wondered if that assumption only came from science fiction readers or did most people around the world in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s think that too.

With each decade, science fiction reinvented itself, processing new science, and speculating on new twists of old themes. If you read enough science fiction, you’ll see that most of the genre’s identifying concepts have been around a very long time. Every new generation comes up with their own hopes and fears for the future.

After producing this list of 275 stories, I’ve already started reading the most popular stories. The Classics of Science Fiction book list would take someone years to read, even decades, but I feel this list is readable in one year. It’s less than one short story a day, with 90 extra days for the novellas and novelettes that might take two days.

I’ve also been searching the web for folks who review short science fiction. Here are sites or columns that focus on short science fiction.

Here are other lists on the web that remember short science fiction.

The 1939 photo at the top of the page shows an era when the popularity of short stories was at its height. Most of those magazines contained some short stories, and many were all stories. This was before television. If you look carefully you can find several famous science fiction magazines on that newsstand.

JWH

Posted on by jameswharris · 1 Comment

Szymon Szott Reads All the Stories on the Classics of Science Fiction Short Story List

I have a guest columnist for y’all, Szymon Szott. Szymon worked out a computer program to find the minimum number of anthologies to buy that had the most stories from the Classics of Science Fiction Short Story list. The results were presented in these three columns:

Szymon was the first reader to tell me they’ve read all the novels on the novel list, and now he’s read all the short stories on the short story list. I still haven’t finished either list. Here’s his report on the short story reading experience.

Introduction

Hi, Szymon here again. Last time I wrote that “you won’t love every work of classic science fiction” and that was after reading all the books from the list of classic SF books. Now I’m back with some thoughts after reading all the works from the classics of SF short stories. Currently, the list consists of 110 novellas, novelettes, and short stories. I read these works over a period of about four years although 80% in the last twelve months.

It was great fun to read these outstanding works, I enjoyed most of them, and those that weren’t as good at least ended quickly. The brevity of these works makes them more accessible: a short story doesn’t require the same commitment as a novel. Also, if you’re an obsessive checklist completist like I am, then you’ll be making faster progress through short stories than through the list of classic SF novels.

Favorite Stories

I rated each story on a 1-5 scale (5 being ‘excellent’) and the average of all my ratings was 3.5 which confirms my overall positive experience. I gave 19 stories a score of 5, but if I were to recommend my top 10 favorite stories (at this moment) they would be the following.

TitleAuthorYearReview
NightfallIsaac Asimov1941Grand tale, memorable idea (but I don’t want to spoil it).
ArenaFredric Brown1944Like a Star Trek episode, a timeless classic!
Second VarietyPhilip K. Dick1953A movie (Screamers) was based on this tale. Similar themes to Blade Runner, vintage PKD.
The Last QuestionIsaac Asimov1956At least my third read. A great look into the possible future of any sentient life in the universe.
Flowers for AlgernonDaniel Keyes1959I knew the novel, which I prefer, but the story is still outstanding!
Inconstant MoonLarry Niven1971Last day on Earth. Apocalypse/catastrophe story. Great fun, I love this kind of tale!
Vaster Than Empires and More SlowUrsula K. Le Guin1971Colonists on a forest world find that it is conscious (as a whole planet/biosphere). Perfectly done!
Jeffty Is FiveHarlan Ellison1977Very nostalgic and a bit on the horror side (well, it is Ellison). Memorable!
The Mountains of MourningLois McMaster Bujold1989I first thought it was great, but then the denouement hitched it up a notch. Worthy of the Hugo and Nebula that it won!
Story of Your LifeTed Chiang1998Hard SF. The perfect marriage of story, plot, and physics (Fermat’s principle).

Surprisingly, only one story from the 90s made it to the above list even though the 90s were on average my highest-rated decade (with a score of 4.0). I was in my teens then, which is in line with the theory that “the golden age of science fiction is thirteen.” Meanwhile, the true Golden Age of SF (the 40s and 50s) are my next favorite decades, both with an average rating of about 3.8.

Favorite Authors

These are the authors that had the highest average scores (among authors with more than one story on the list):

  • Isaac Asimov
  • Ursula K. Le Guin
  • Octavia E. Butler
  • Connie Willis
  • George R. R. Martin
  • Harlan Ellison
  • John Varley
  • Larry Niven
  • Arthur C. Clarke
  • Robert Silverberg
  • Ted Chiang
  • Robert A. Heinlein
  • Roger Zelazny
  • Philip K. Dick

The authors in bold are those I already knew I enjoyed. I’ll be reading more works by the other ones!

Sources Used

One of the coolest aspects of completing this list was finding sources (books, podcasts, etc.) from which to read the stories. For each story, I looked to see if it was available online for free, in any of the books I already own, in any of the book services I subscribe to, and, finally, in my local library. The Internet Speculative Fiction Database was an indispensable resource in this regard. Ultimately, I didn’t follow my own advice but rather worked with what I had available. I used a total of 48 unique sources to find the stories, but two of them stand out in terms of the number of stories: Sense of Wonder and The Science Fiction Hall of Fame. They’re both great anthologies and I’ll be reading the other stories they include as well.

Looking at the per-source average rating, these were my favorite, which I’ve arranged by type:

  • Anthologies: Future On Fire (80s stories, edited by Orson Scott Card)
  • Podcasts: Drabblecast, Escape Pod
  • Collections: Exhalation (by Ted Chiang), Dreamsongs (by George R.R. Martin), The Best of Connie Willis
  • Magazines: Clarkesworld

Missing Stories

Finally, I’d like to share two stories that aren’t on the list. The first one is a classic: “The Colony” by Philip K. Dick. It doesn’t have enough citations to make the list. The second one is too new to have been included: “The Ocean Between the Leaves” by Ray Nayler (which Jim has blogged about). Both have what I love most about SF stories: a sense of wonder and high “readability”.

Conclusion

Overall, I think the Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories v2 list is just as great a resource as the novel list. And it’s even better if you want to read all the stories from beginning to end: it’s not that long a project and you can find the best that SF has to offer in compact form. Highly recommended!

Posted on by jameswharris · 3 Comments

Are the Classics the Stories We Don’t Forget?

I’ve been writing about science fiction short stories from 1957 for the past two months, but I realized today I’ve already forgotten most of them. I can’t tell if that memory loss is due to aging or forgettable stories. No science fiction story from 1957 made it to The Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories list. To get on that list a short story needs eight recommendations that we call citations. Here are the 1957 SF stories in our citation database, a total of 43. For our Facebook group discussion we read 23:

The most remembered story by our system was “Call Me Joe” by Poul Anderson. It had six citations. Next was “Omnilingual” by H. Beam Piper with four citations. I remember both of those stories very well because I’ve read them multiple times over the decades. “Call Me Joe” was included in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame volumes, which helps it to be remembered. “Omnilingual” is much less famous, as is its author, H. Beam Piper.

My favorite, and most remembered SF story from 1957 is “The Menace from Earth” by Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein is famous, and that helps his stories to be remembered. I love and remember this story because I love Heinlein’s juveniles, the twelve YA novels he published in the 1940s and 1950s with Charles Scribner’s Sons. I feel “The Menace from Earth” is the only Heinlein juvenile short story. However, “The Menace from Earth” has not been popular with our group. It only has three citations in CSFquery. If you look at the list of Heinlein’s stories, and sort the list on citations, you’ll see “The Menace from Earth” isn’t one of Heinlein’s most remembered stories.

Dave Hook took a deep dive in 1957 and liked quite a few short stories. He read 102 stories, of which he rated 51 great or superlative. I wasn’t that generous. I wouldn’t call any of these stories great, and I would only use the description superlative for less than a dozen science fiction short stories ever published, such as “Flowers for Algernon,” “Fondly Fahrenheit,” or “Light of Other Days.”

“Omnilingual,” “Call Me Joe,” and “The Menace from Earth” are only very good stories in my opinion, but they are among my all-time favorites.

Besides the three I’ve already mentioned, I think I’ll only remember two others in the future, “The Language of Love” by Robert Sheckley and “Time Waits for Winthrop” by William Tenn, and I thought they were merely good because of their ideas. I say I’ll remember them because I’ve already remembered them for fifty years.

I liked “Small World” by William F. Nolan and “Game Preserve” by Rog Philips because they were gritty and dark. Both of which I read before, but I hadn’t remembered, and I think I’ll soon forget again.

I enjoyed reading all these 1957 stories as I read them. Sadly, most of them just aren’t that memorable.

James Wallace Harris, 4/30/24

Posted on by jameswharris · 18 Comments

The Best SF Short Stories of 1957

Starting on March 12th, I’ll be moderating a group discussion of the best science fiction short stories from 1957 on Facebook. We discuss one story every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. I’ll also review those stories here on this blog.

The stories were selected by using any story with at least two citations on CSFquery. I also added two stories because one had been made into a movie, and one into a television show. I then added a few recommendations from our group’s moderators. No stories were awarded a Hugo for 1957, so I used Rich Horton’s picks for 1957 instead.

Here’s the schedule:

Our group has already discussed three famous stories from 1957, “Call Me Joe” by Poul Anderson, “The Menace from Earth” by Robert A. Heinlein, and “Omnilingual” by H. Beam Piper. Those will be discussed on repeat day. I’m really looking forward to reading the twenty stories the group hasn’t read before, many of which I haven’t read either.

When I create the discussion thread for each story I’ll try and find a link to where the story can be read online and put a link to the ISFDB.org entry so people can see if they already own an anthology where the story has been reprinted.

During the Group Read 72 period (March 12 – April 30) we’ll also be open to people recommending stories from 1957 that they feel should be on our list too. Think of it as a kind of scavenger hunt for forgotten classic short science fiction from 1957. Dave Hook, one of our most industrious members, did an extensive study of 1956, and I expect him to do the same for 1957.

Even if you don’t join our discussion group, please recommend any SF story from 1957 that’s not on the list that you think should be in a comment below. I’ll pass your recommendation to the group.

We welcome anyone who loves reading science fiction short stories to join our group. If you do join our Facebook group, be sure and answer the two questions. They are designed to filter out spammers and confirm that we only discuss science fiction short stories, not novels, not movies, not television shows. We delete any message that brings up politics, self-promotes a book, is offensive to others, or that’s off topic.

We read and discuss science fiction stories from anthologies, magazines, award winners, stories up for awards, and by specific year. We also discuss author collections on Sundays. This group reading is our 72nd. Old science fiction stories are discussed on Tuesdays, Thursday, and Saturdays. New science fiction stories are discussed on Mondays, Wednesday, and Saturdays. We try to promote both print and online science fiction magazines.

James Wallace Harris, 3/9/24

Posted on by jameswharris · 28 Comments

Has Science Fiction Changed?

I often encounter the opinion that science fiction has changed. Is it true? Over my lifetime novels have gotten longer, trilogies and series have become more common, there are more female authors, and the genre has been heavily influenced by fantasy. Before Star Trek in 1966, the world of science fiction seemed tiny, and that TV show brought in millions of new SF fans. Then Star Wars in 1977 brought in tens of millions of new SF fans. (But I’m not sure how much the population of science fiction readers grew.)

But these are all externals. I’m wondering if the essence of science fiction itself has changed. Yes, the writing has gotten better, and the literary world has become more accepting, but do modern readers get something different out of reading science fiction than what I found in the 1960s? Why do I prefer older science fiction? Is it more than just because I imprinted on it when I was young? I’m not the only one who feels this way. Many aging Baby Boomers say they prefer older science fiction too, but so do some young book reviewers.

Over the last forty days I’ve read five novels by Philip K. Dick written between 1959-1963, plus Ammonite by Nicola Griffith and The Player of Games by Iain M. Banks. These aren’t new novels, but newer than what I’m talking about, and they feel different. Over the last year I’ve read such new SFF books as Sea of Rust by C. Robert Cargill, Babel by R. F. Kuang, and The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler. I know this is a small sample, but I’ve also read hundreds of science fiction short stories, both old and new, over the last couple of years.

All I can say is science fiction from the first half of my life (1951-1987) feels much different than the second half (1988-2024). The change started around the time of Star Wars in 1977. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg might be the main factors changing the genre. I confess that I’ve long thought that science fiction ran out of original ideas at some point, and the genre has been living on recycling ever since. But women writers, literary standards, and fantasy radically changed the flavor of science fiction since the 1970s too.

But what if the change in science fiction is due to other factors? Yesterday I watched a video by Bookborn, “Do SFF authors think we are stupid now” that offered two innovative ideas. Bookborn suggests that current science fiction lacks subtlety. She also suggests that newer science fiction requires less critical thinking because newer authors tell their readers what to think rather than letting the readers draw their own conclusions. Bookborn also felt authors wrote about topical problems too obviously. Even with books she likes, presenting viewpoints she agrees with, she felt they were too explicit, lacking subtly. She admits this problem is not measurable and highly subjective.

Bookborn then cites an essay, “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes. The essay in long, so I suggest reading Wikipedia’s summary instead, but to give you a quick idea, here’s a quote from the first paragraph at Wikipedia:

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes (1915–1980). Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of relying on the intentions and biography of an author to definitively explain the "ultimate meaning" of a text. Instead, the essay emphasizes the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author, a process in which subtle or unnoticed characteristics may be drawn out for new insight.

Bookborn is quite articulate at explaining her position, and her position is more complex than what I’m conveying here, so I recommend clicking on the link above to watch her video. Bookborn goes on to say that current authors hide from their readers because of social media. They fear attacks on what they say so they are overly careful about what they put forth. I had an additional insight. Because modern science fiction is often about elaborate world building, modern authors struggle to be precise so readers will see clearly what they have worked so hard to invent.

In Ammonite by Nicola Griffith and The Player of Games by Iain M. Banks, I was disappointed by the blandness of the author’s voice. And I never felt the presence of Griffith or Banks in their stories. Yes, in both cases their world building is beautifully detailed, but both authors left no mysteries about their stories or their personal views for me to ponder. I have theories to explain this too.

Modern writers prefer a close personal third point of view, or first person, to the older omniscient point of view which is better suited for conveying the author’s voice. I also find that the novels I admire most are ones written by authors I love reading about. Maybe what I love about older science fiction is my connection to the author.

Any science fictional world that’s set far from Earth becomes a fantasy world, and thus far less complex than our reality. Such fictional worlds are far from the infinite complexity of contemporary controversies. Writers can avoid personal philosophy by using allegory. Reading such fantasies means passively consuming what the book describes. Such stories don’t lend themselves to ambiguity and complexity, which makes the reader think. Our reality is infinitely full of shades of gray. Made up fictional worlds tend to be consistently designed because authors want them to be understandable to readers unless you’re Gene Wolfe writing The Book of the New Sun.

The five Philip K. Dick novels were far more compelling and thought provoking than the books by Griffith and Banks. I often try newer science fiction, but they usually come across as merely fun stories. Overall, newer science fiction stories are like going to Disneyland. They dazzle but when the ride is over, are quickly forgotten. I’m still thinking about those Philip K. Dick novels. When nothing else thrills, switching to a Philip K. Dick story will get my mind excited. Why is that? I believe it’s because his Dick’s books are closer to real life, and that makes them ambiguous and mysterious. They offer endless room for speculation. I’m reading another biography of Philip K. Dick, my sixth, I think, because Dick’s novels make me crave understanding.

Dick’s novels were compelling, Ammonite and The Player of Games were not. They aren’t bad, in fact, they’re exceptionally good stories, just not compelling. Dick was obsessed with deciphering reality. He doubted that what we perceive is real. He was horrified by other people, often thinking they were machines, disguised supernatural beings, or illusions of the mind. Paranoia fueled his narratives. Our reality was too complex for Philip K. Dick, and it drove him into insane states of mind trying to figure it out. Every Philip K. Dick novel is another exciting speculative assumption about reality.

Interestingly, Dick doesn’t fit the theory about the author being dead. Yes, his stories are wonderful without knowing anything about Philip K. Dick, but their complexity increases the more you do know about him. I want stories where the authors aren’t dead by Barthes criteria.

By coincidence, both The Player of Games and Time Out of Joint are about game playing. However, the first novel feels contrived. It’s hard to believe. But the second, which is far more fantastic, yet feels very real and believable. Why is that?

I believe the reason I love older science fiction is because it speculates about reality. Whereas newer science fiction is focused on telling a delightful story. Lucas and Spielberg overly inspired newer writers to focus on entertaining the masses.

I loved the Heinlein novels of the 1950s because they speculated about future space travel. That was before NASA showed us what real space travel would be like in the 1960s. Heinlein’s stories honestly tried to speculate about traveling to the Moon or Mars. Space travel in Star Trek, Star Wars, or the Culture novels of Iain M. Banks are really fantasies. Space travel in Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson is somewhat speculative.
Most science fiction isn’t very speculative, even the old stuff. However, novels like Flowers for Algernon or Earth Abides feel far closer to reality. And I’m sure many people will point out that stories by Philip K. Dick are extremely fantastic, yet their characters feel like ordinary real people, and that grounds them.

For all his insanity, Philip K. Dick struggled to understand reality. And I think the reason I admire many older science fiction writers is because they were commenting on reality. I do love entertaining stories, but pure storytelling seldom offers much to think about.

I’m not sure I understand “The Death of the Author” in the same way as Bookborn. It seems to me that classics were written by authors whose personality dominated their fiction. Think about Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Eudora Welty, Ernest Hemingway, Flannery O’Conner, Jack Kerouac, or the science Fiction writers like H. G. Wells, Robert Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, Ursula K. Le Guin, Harlan Ellison, Zenna Henderson, Samuel R. Delany, John Brunner, etc. If you want to write a great science fiction novel, I think it must connect with reality. Just think how silly and fantastic Slaughterhouse-Five is, yet Vonnegut points to reality, and that makes it a great novel.

James Wallace Harris, 2/4/24

Posted on by jameswharris · 24 Comments

The Best SF Short Stories of 1956

Beginning, Tuesday November 28th, I’ll be moderating Group Read 67 “The Best SF Short Stories of 1956” on the Facebook group Best Science Fiction and Fantasy Short Fiction. We’ll start reading and discussing one story every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. People leave comments whenever they want after the start date, sometimes that day, sometimes a day later, a week, or even a year later. Here’s the schedule:

I chose the stories based on the number of citations each 1956 short received in the Classics of Science Fiction database. I started by selecting all stories from 1956 that received at least three citations using the list builder function.

For our Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories v. 2 list, we use a cutoff of eight citations, which meant only two stories got on that list: “The Country of the Kind” by Damon Knight and “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov. Stories with 3-7 citations are somewhat remembered, but I also wondered about possibly good stories that never got much recognition. It’s always a thrill to rediscover a forgotten great story.

I then looked at the stories with just one or two citations to see if any stood out for consideration. I picked any story that had been reprinted in two best-of-the-year anthologies, or one best-of-the-year and significant retrospective anthology or was a Hugo award finalist that year. I also included a famous Philip K. Dick story, “The Minority Report” and one of Rich Horton’s recommended stories that had only gotten one citation each. I figured the following stories might contain a forgotten gem that the group should consider.

  • “And Now the News …” by Theodore Sturgeon [Rich Horton favorite]
  • “Clerical Error” by Mark Clifton [Dikty, Asimov/Greenberg]
  • “Compound Interest” by Mack Reynolds [Merril, Asimov/Greenberg]
  • “The Doorstop” by Reginald Bretnor [Merril, Asimov/Greenberg]
  • “Horrer Howce” by Margaret St. Clair [Galaxy 30 Years, Asimov/Greenberg]
  • “Silent Brother” by Algis Budrys (Merril, Asimov/Greenberg]
  • “The Assistant Self” by F. L. Wallace [Hugo finalist]
  • “The Dragon” by Ray Bradbury [Hugo finalist]
  • “Legwork’ by Eric Frank Russell [Hugo finalist]
  • “The Minority Report” by Philip K. Dick [ISFDB Most Viewed Short Stories]

So, join us on Facebook. I’m going to try and review each of the stories individually on this blog, so if you don’t like Facebook, you can comment here. I also plan to talk about science fiction and 1956 in general.

James Wallace Harris, 11/22/23

Posted on by jameswharris · 12 Comments

Do You Buy the Best-of-the-Year Science Fiction Anthologies?

Back in 2018 I wrote an essay for Book Riot about all the best-of-the-year annual anthologies covering science fiction. The title claimed nine, but I added two more in an update that brought the total to eleven. In 2023 that number had dwindled considerably.

Gardner Dozois died in 2018 after publishing thirty-five giant best-of-the-year science fiction anthologies. Dozois set the pace for decades. Now, it seems the market for these best of the year anthologies has been breaking up. All 35-volumes of Dozois’ annual anthologies are still on sale.

Jonathan Strahan’s last annual anthology was The Year’s Best Science Fiction Vol. 2: The Saga Anthology of Science Fiction 2021 covering the best stories from 2020. (The year in these anthology titles are generally the year following the year the stories were first published.) I’ve been told that Strahan has said online that that series is finished.

Rich Horton’s last annual anthology was The Year’s Best Science Fiction and Fantasy 2021 Edition covering 2020. It came out as an ebook online, and it will be the last of Horton’s series.

Neil Clarke’s latest annual anthology is The Best Science Fiction of the Year Volume Seven published 9/5/23 in trade paper and hardcover. It’s late, covering 2021. Volume 8 is scheduled for next month, covering 2022. Online, Clarke has said he hopes to do an ebook and audiobook edition. It sounds like Clarke’s annual is still ongoing. Volume 7 is discussed at Black Gate and lists the table of contents.

The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2023 edited by John Joseph Adams and guest editor R. F. Kuang covers 2022, meaning it’s on time. It comes out October 17th in trade paper, ebook, and audiobook editions.

The Year’s Top Hard Science Fiction Stories 7 edited by Allan Kaster came out in June and seems to be going strong since it collects stories from 2022. Available as an ebook and trade paperback. I don’t know if Kaster will do a fourth edition of his other series, The Year’s Top Robot and AI Stories. The third edition came out in November 2022, so maybe it will.

This is sad, at least to me. Awhile back I wrote about what anthologies collected the best science fiction short stories and listed all the annuals from 1939-1999. I started a reading project to read them all, starting with 1939. I’m currently stuck on 1957. This has shown me their value in remembering short science fiction. If stories aren’t reprinted by the annuals or other anthologies, they are generally forgotten — unless the author gains enough fans to have a collection published.

I wonder what the demise of so many best-of-the-year science fiction anthologies implies? Did the market just get saturated and is now shaking out? Or, has interest in short fiction fallen off? Print magazines have had dwindling subscribers for decades. The big three of Analog, Asimov’s and F&SF are around ten thousand or fewer. At one time they had over a hundred thousand subscribers. Amazon killing off their Kindle subscriptions for these magazines is going to hurt. I hope it’s not fatal for these magazines.

Do you buy these best-of-the-year science fiction anthologies? I collect them, and own most of them in paper, ebook, and/or audiobook. And I belong to a Facebook group that discusses science fiction short stories. Even though we have 815 members, probably less than a dozen post regularly.

Long ago I wrote an essay about what was the best way to discover the greatest science fiction short stories of all time. I decided there were three approaches. Read a handful of retrospective anthologies, read all the best-of-the-year anthologies, or read all the SF magazines. I’ve taken the middle path.

I’ve wondered if best-of-the-year anthologies are dying if it’s a sign the science fiction genre is fading? Or is it a sign that science fiction publishers have been producing way too much science fiction? Are readers getting overwhelmed by all the authors and just pulling back to a few favorites?

Has our culture been oversaturated with science fiction? I’m a lifelong fan, but even I’m getting a little worn out with the genre. When I was growing up in the 1950s, westerns dominated the television screen and movie theater. Then for many decades science fiction has been extremely popular. Has interest in science fiction starting to fade?

I have a couple of other theories. Maybe short science fiction is fading because most readers prefer the novel? Or maybe many fans have lost interest in new science fiction and have turned to reading mostly old science fiction? That’s happening with me.

James Wallace Harris, 10/8/23

Posted on by jameswharris · 13 Comments

Could I Write a Science Fiction Story at 72?

In my teens, twenties, and thirties I desperately wanted to be a science fiction writer. At least I thought I did until I got married and got a job I liked. I still took creative writing classes and even attended Clarion West in 2002 when I was fifty-one. However, I never could stick with writing until I had a polished story. I’m just too lazy. Writing science fiction has always been more of a fantasy than a reality. I turn seventy-two next month, and I wonder if I’m too old to even dream that old dream. Why hasn’t it just faded away? (I wish it had — I could use the peace of mind.)

In recent years, I’ve often wondered if I could make myself write one story worthy of an editor’s acceptance? I have ideas, lots of ideas. Lots of finished but unpolished stories. I don’t know if I have any talent, but I do know I lack focus and perseverance to stick with writing a story until it’s worth submitting. But let’s imagine if I could muster up some discipline, what would I write about?

I no longer like science fiction the way I liked it when I was younger. For the most part, I don’t even like reading modern science fiction. And I’m not talking about plot ideas or prose styles. I always assumed I could never completely finish any of my stories because I didn’t like them enough.

It looks like I have two desires: one to write a story I love, and second to write a story an editor will buy. But that’s wrong too. Maybe I shouldn’t be thinking about editors and instead just try to please myself.

Putting it that way, I can see why I’ve always given up. I love very few stories. Writing something I loved will take a huge effort, maybe even an impossible one. Is this an ego problem I’m having, or am I just chicken about rejection? Probably all writers who got published just wrote stories until they found an audience and didn’t worry about who would like them. I should do that too, but I don’t know if I can. Knowing that advice is not enough to inspire me to keep working.

I’ve read many books advising would-be writers. They all say to not wait for inspiration, but just develop the discipline to write daily. This probably explains my failure. I don’t like writing fiction, it’s demanding work. The people I know that became successful fiction writers started writing stories early in life and always kept at it. They couldn’t stop writing. Evidently, wanting to do something is much different from doing something.

I’ve tried to forget this desire to write fiction for most of my life. It won’t go away. It just keeps gnawing at me. I knew one woman who had a science fiction story published and then never tried again. I wonder if that would free me too.

When I was young, I wanted to be a successful writer to make money, so I wouldn’t need to work a 9 to 5 job. But I’m retired now, and money and jobs aren’t an issue. At 72, I’d be writing just to write. I do write by blogging. Evidently, there’s something special about fiction that blogging doesn’t satisfy.

Is it an urge to create? To leave something behind? I’ve always been fascinated by those writers I find on ISFDB.org that have just a few stories listed. A fitting example is “The Short Life” by Francis Donovan which I wrote about last time. Donovan has one published story. Did he encapsulate everything he wanted to say about reality with that one fictional statement? That might come closest to explaining my urge to write a science fiction story. I want to say something that will be remembered.

Of course, having a science fiction story published isn’t like writing hieroglyphics on a pyramid. Still, I think I’ve dug up a clue about my life-long hankering to crank out a science fiction story. And it might also explain why I’d need to love it. Who wants to write a crappy epitaph for themselves?

I wish I could write something like “The Star Pit” by Samuel R. Delany. Or “An Appearance of Life” by Brian W. Aldiss. Or “Vintage Season” by C. L. Moore. Or even something short, like “The Light of Other Days” by Bob Shaw. Those would all be epitaph-worthy stories.

[Thank you for being my psychiatrist or priest and listening to my confessions.]

James Wallace Harris

Posted on by jameswharris · 5 Comments

“The Short Life” by Francis Donovan

Who was Francis Donovan? He has exactly one story listed in ISFDB, this one, “The Short Life.” That story first appeared in the October 1955 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. It was reprinted in three editions of Best SF Four edited by Edmund Crispin, and in a large retrospective anthology, The Best Science Fiction Stories (1977) – no editor listed. Since both of those anthologies were published in England, I assume Donovan may have been English.

You can read “The Short Life” online at Project Gutenberg and on the Internet Archive. You might want to get an EPUB version for your ebook reader since it’s a novella.

I’m recommending this story to my reading group who are discussing the best short science fiction of 1955. I was asking the group which novelettes or novellas they thought should have won the Hugo award back then if they didn’t like “The Darfsteller” by Walter M. Miller, Jr. I think “The Darfsteller” is an outstanding story, but then so is “The Short Life.”

I find it quite fascinating when I discover a great science fiction story by a forgotten science fiction writer, especially one that published only a handful of stories. Donovan only published one. If you know anything about Francis Donovan, please post it in the comments? And if you’ve read “The Short Life” leave a comment about what you think of the story, and how you discovered it.

“The Short Life” is about telepathy. I’m not going to tell you the plot, there’s not much of one, and all the explanations are withheld to the end, but it really gets into the ramifications of telepathy. It’s also about Homo Superior. And it’s about first contact. I hope that’s enough to entice you into trying it.

“The Short Life” reminds me a bit of “In Hiding” by Wilmar H. Shiras and The Man Who Fell to Earth by Walter Tevis. It belongs among the best short science fiction of 1955.

p.s.

I did find one other clue to Francis Donovan, a letter to the editor in the September 1934 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. Evidently, he wasn’t English if this is the same Francis Donovan.

James Wallace Harris, 9/23/23

Posted on by jameswharris · 1 Comment

The World Treasury of Science Fiction edited by David G. Hartwell

The World Treasury of Science Fiction edited by David G. Hartwell came out in 1989 and contains over one thousand pages of short science fiction. I call this kind of science fiction anthology a retrospective anthology because it collects fiction that covers a time period rather than theme. Reading it should give SF fans a good sampling of science fiction published around the world from the late 1930s through the 1980s. For other retrospective anthologies see “The Best Science Fiction Short Stories.”

Unfortunately, most of the great retrospective anthologies of science fiction are out-of-print. Our database at CSFquery lists the most frequently reprinted and cited stories. If you click on the title in the list, it will take you to ISFDB and show you all the places a story has been reprinted. This way you can create your own virtual retrospective anthology.

Only 9 of the 52 stories from The World Treasury of Science Fiction made it to our list of Classics of Science Fiction Short Stories. That suggests that most of the stories were Hartwell’s favorites and not popular picks. The anthology is a good read for discovering diverse science fiction.

You can see how many citations each of the 52 stories received here. To see which anthology has the highest percentage of cited stories, see “The SF Anthology Problem Solved.” A list of all the citation sources for short stories is here.

I’ve hyperlinked the stories I’ve reviewed from The World Treasury of Science Fiction.

  1. Harrison Bergeron • (1961) • short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
  2. Forgetfulness • (1937) • novelette by John W. Campbell, Jr.
  3. Special Flight • (1939) • novelette by John Berryman
  4. Chronopolis • (1960) • novelette by J. G. Ballard
  5. Triceratops • (1982) • short story by Kono Tensei
  6. The Man Who Lost the Sea • (1959) • short story by Theodore Sturgeon
  7. On the Inside Track • (1986) • novelette by Karl Michael Armer
  8. The Golem • (1955) • short story by Avram Davidson
  9. The New Prehistory • (1983) • short story by René Rebetez-Cortes
  10. A Meeting with Medusa • (1971) • novelette by Arthur C. Clarke
  11. The Valley of Echoes • (1973) • short story by Gérard Klein
  12. The Fifth Head of Cerberus • (1972) • novella by Gene Wolfe
  13. The Chaste Planet • (1975) • short story by John Updike
  14. The Blind Pilot • short story by Nathalie-Charles Henneberg]
  15. The Men Who Murdered Mohammed • (1958) • short story by Alfred Bester
  16. Pairpuppets • (1976) • short story by Manuel van Loggem
  17. Two Dooms • (1958) • novella by C. M. Kornbluth
  18. Tale of the Computer That Fought a Dragon • (1977) • short story by Stanislaw Lem
  19. The Green Hills of Earth • (1947) • short story by Robert A. Heinlein
  20. Ghost V • (1954) • short story by Robert Sheckley
  21. The Phantom of Kansas • (1976) • novelette by John Varley
  22. Captain Nemo’s Last Adventure • (1973) • novelette by Josef Nesvadba
  23. Inconstant Moon • (1971) • novelette by Larry Niven
  24. The Gold at the Starbow’s End • (1972) • novella by Frederik Pohl
  25. A Sign in Space • (1968) • short story by Italo Calvino
  26. The Spiral • (1968) • short story by Italo Calvino
  27. The Dead Past • (1956) • novelette by Isaac Asimov
  28. The Lens • (1984) • short story by Annemarie van Ewijck
  29. The Hurkle Is a Happy Beast • (1949) • short story by Theodore Sturgeon
  30. Zero Hour • (1947) • short story by Ray Bradbury
  31. Nine Lives • (1969) • novelette by Ursula K. Le Guin
  32. The Muse • (1968) • short story by Anthony Burgess
  33. The Public Hating • (1955) • short story by Steve Allen
  34. Poor Superman • (1952) • novelette by Fritz Leiber
  35. Angouleme • (1971) • short story by Thomas M. Disch
  36. Stranger Station • (1956) • novelette by Damon Knight
  37. The Dead Fish • (1955) • short story by Boris Vian
  38. I Was the First to Find You • (1977) • short story by Kirill Bulychev
  39. The Lineman • (1957) • novella by Walter M. Miller, Jr.
  40. Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius • (1962) • short story by Jorge Luis Borges
  41. Codemus • (1976) • short story by Tor Åge Bringsvaerd
  42. A Kind of Artistry • (1962) • novelette by Brian W. Aldiss
  43. Second Variety • (1953) • novelette by Philip K. Dick
  44. Weihnachtsabend • (1972) • novelette by Keith Roberts
  45. I Do Not Love Thee, Doctor Fell • (1955) • short story by Robert Bloch
  46. Aye, and Gomorrah … • (1967) • short story by Samuel R. Delany
  47. How Erg the Self-Inducting Slew a Paleface • (1977) • short story by Stanislaw Lem
  48. Nobody’s Home • (1972) • short story by Joanna Russ
  49. Party Line • (1976) • novelette by Gérard Klein
  50. The Proud Robot • (1943) • novelette by Henry Kuttner
  51. Vintage Season • (1946) • novelette by Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore
  52. The Way to Amalteia • (1984) • novella by Arkady Strugatsky and Boris Strugatsky

James Wallace Harris, 9/1/23