{"id":3421,"date":"2011-12-13T08:59:30","date_gmt":"2011-12-12T21:59:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.zenashapter.com\/blog\/?p=3421"},"modified":"2021-08-30T18:11:53","modified_gmt":"2021-08-30T08:11:53","slug":"short-story-anthologies-part-2-how-do-they-read-theirs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenashapter.com\/blog\/short-story-anthologies-part-2-how-do-they-read-theirs\/","title":{"rendered":"Short story anthologies: Part 2 \u2013 how do they read theirs?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Reading quandary… the best kind!<\/p><\/div>\n

Last week<\/a>, I was wondering why I had such a methodical approach to reading short story anthologies. Having just read four anthologies back-to-back, I found myself adding up the number of stories I enjoyed, calculating what percentage that was of the whole, and the result reflected my reading enjoyment of that anthology (see last post ‘Part 1 \u2013 how do you read yours?’<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But I don’t read novels like that, adding up the number of chapters I like, so why anthologies? It was a quandary I wanted to resolve…<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

How do THEY read THEIRS?<\/p><\/div>\n

My thoughts lead me to thinking about editors and how they read anthologies. With all they have to read professionally, surely variety in an anthology is important to them, or perhaps it’s the quality of writing, or being transported into a different world?<\/p>\n

Perhaps, if I asked them, their answers might help me resolve my quandary?<\/p>\n

So I asked around, and here\u2019s what eight extraordinary editors and judges of anthologies said:<\/p>\n

1. Jack Dann<\/a>, multiple-award winning author and editor of over seventy-five books:<\/p>\n

As a reader, the first thing I notice is the quality of the writing. If the craft ain’t there, I don’t continue reading. And once that hurdle has been overcome, it’s all about the sense of wonder–or what you called being transported to another world. And then, after overcoming those hurdles, it’s variety–length of stories, types of stories, pathos next to bathos, all that. And, believe it or not, it works just about the same way when I’m editing an anthology.<\/em><\/p>\n

2. Cat Sparks<\/a>, fiction editor of Cosmos Magazine<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Quality of writing — because when the prose is top notch, the reader is automatically transported to a different world!<\/em><\/p>\n

3. Keith Stevenson<\/a>, editor and publisher Coeur de Lion Publishing<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Above all, it has to be the quality of the writing. Good writing can make the mundane sing with wonder and remind you all over again why you fell in love with the written word.<\/em><\/p>\n

4. Jason Nahrung<\/a>,\u00a02011 Aurealis Awards Judge<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The key criteria would be quality of the writing — the ability to wield language to tell a compelling story. A good idea, or a variety of good ideas, makes me sad if the writing doesn’t do them justice. As an Aurealis judge, I’m\u00a0considering and balancing\u00a0numerous criteria, however.<\/em><\/p>\n

5. Katharine Stubbs,\u00a02011 Aurealis Awards Judge<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Quality of writing is the most important to me. If the quality isn’t there then I’m unable to keep reading \u2013 I just can’t be bothered! There’s so much out there that’s fantastically written that will give more enjoyment, so I’m not going to stick around.<\/em><\/p>\n

6. Amin Chehelnabi, 2011 Aurealis Awards Judge<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I’d have to say quality of writing, but story always comes first, whether alone or in an anthology. Story and quality of writing go hand in hand as well. Ideas are magical, wonderful things, but the execution of your idea is important.<\/em><\/p>\n

7. Russell B. Farr<\/a>, founding editor Ticonderoga Publications<\/a>:<\/p>\n

If there was a gun to my head and I absolutely had to pick one, I’d be difficult and ask if we were talking about single-author collections or multiple-author anthologies. In the case of the latter, variety is the key, especially if the anthology is themed (if there is no theme, variety should come naturally). The better themed-anthologies will have multiple different investigations of the theme, and if writers can present opposing explorations that work on their own merits, I think the anthology is onto something.<\/em><\/p>\n

In the case of single-author collections, the quality of writing needs to be on display. These should be a snapshot of what the writer can do, and while variety is good, even the best writers only produce variety to a point. All of the stories need to be of fantastic quality: this should be the selling point, this is a book by a fabulously talented writer and these stories are amazing.<\/em><\/p>\n

I’m going off the topic here but to me it is more important for novels to transport the reader into a different world — short stories can and very much do work by providing a snapshot. For a novel to work they need to almost immerse the reader in another place. Short stories are magical cameras, novels are fantastical rabbit holes.<\/em><\/p>\n

8. David Vernon<\/a>, Judge and Editor Stringybark Stories<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The most important element of an anthology is quality writing. Variety and setting do not matter if quality is poor. Many a time I have read a great story that is marred by typographical errors, grammatical hiccups or poor construction. A potholed road is unpleasant to drive on, even if the scenery is great!<\/em><\/p>\n

So, the answer was more or less unanimous \u2013 quality of writing can make or break an anthology.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

How will you rate your next anthology?<\/p><\/div>\n

Do these answers solve my quandary<\/a> though? I think they might, in a way. The anthologies I’ve just read were all compiled by professionals, who screened for quality of writing before ink went to press. So I was left with the sheer indulgence of selecting my favourite stories based purely on whim \u2013 ie. what I enjoyed. I chose a mathematical formula to help me measure the exact scale of my enjoyment, because that was an instinctive choice made by my methodical brain. When it comes to writing, I\u2019m a planner, not a pantser<\/a>. So perhaps when it comes to reading, I\u2019m an assessor, not a get-the-gister?<\/p>\n

Other readers, you perhaps, might use a different methodology but come to the same result, or the same methodology and come to a different result. Say, there\u2019s a good quandary \u2013 have you read any of the four anthologies I’ve just read?<\/p>\n