Returning once more to the Hugo Awards…

In my original post about Best Editor (Long Form), I mentioned the names of a number of very gifted and hard-working editors deserving (IMNSHO, of course) of nomination. Some of the fans commenting on that post, both here and over on FILE 770, said they could not possibly vote for any of them — or for any editor, actually — without knowing what titles each of them had edited during the awards year.

So I asked them.

Some have replied. Downstream of this, you’ll find a list of the books edited last year by Anne Lesley Groell of Bantam Specta, Diana Pho of Tor, and Jane Johnson of HarperCollins Voyager. And today I have a response from an editor who was NOT mentioned in my original post, but should have been: JOE MONTI of Saga Press.

Saga, for those who do not follow the ins and outs of publishing closely, is the new science fiction imprint of Simon & Schuster/ Pocket Books. S&S, of course, is one of publishing’s Big Five, a major major house with a long and storied history, but they have not had much presence in our genre since David G. Hartwell’s prestigious Timescape imprint folded a few decades back. The return of S&S to SF was one of the big publishing stories of recent years, and a very good thing for our field. It says a lot for Joe Monti’s skills that he was the guy S&S chose to launch Saga and go head to head with Tor, Bantam Spectra, Del Rey, DAW, Baen, and the other long-established SF imprints.

And so far, I think, he’s done a hell of a job. But you can judge that for yourself. When I wrote Joe and asked what books he’d edited last year, he replied:

“As for this, I sat on it a bit as I wasn’t sure if I deserved to be mentioned, but I will play along… I edited and acquired a lot in my inaugural year for Saga Press! I really was scrambling to present a full list, along with my fellow editorial conspirator Navah Wolfe, to showcase the kind of books I hope to publish and a sense of my tastes.

“One author I snapped up in a pre-empt in my first days: The great Ken Liu. Some were through previous relationships I had as an agent, a friend, others were just serendipity like The Gospel of Loki and Lagoon, which I saw on publisher rights list and ran screaming after. They are, in loose order of publication:

The Darkside War by the enigmatic Zachary Brown
The Grace of Kings by Ken Liu
The Gospel of Loki by Joanne M. Harris
Cold Iron by Stina Leicht
Lagoon by Nnedi Okorafor
Loosed Upon the World: the Saga Anthology of Climate Fiction, edited by John Joseph Adams
The Red by Linda Nagata
The War Against the Assholes by Sam Munson
The Trials by Linda Nagata (The Red trilogy #2)
Silver on the Road by Laura Anne Gilman
Going Dark by Linda Nagata (The Red trilogy #3)

I also reissued a few excellent books that were previously at other publishers:
Chuck Wendig’s first three Miriam Black novels: Blackbirds, Mockingbird, and The Cormorant (Setting up for books 4, 5, & 6 starting in 2017)
Six-Gun Snow White by Catherynne M. Valente
The November Criminals by Sam Munson

And then I repackaged a few great books from the S&S lists for adult SFF readers:
The Harper Hall trilogy by Anne McCaffrey: Dragonsong, Dragonsinger and Dragondrums; all with new introductions by Tamora Pierce, Naomi Novik and Brandon Sanderson (respectfully)

The Sea of Trolls trilogy by Nancy Farmer: The Sea of Trolls, The Islands of the Blessed, The Land of Silver Apples

The Curse Workers trilogy by Holly Black: White Cat, Red Glove, Black Heart.

PHEW! I am really proud of that list, as they contain a few debuts and all of them reflect authors… stretching their… skills… I really feel lucky to be in my dream job after all this time. That’s why I got the Saga colophon tattoo!”

So there’s another name to consider when you are making those Hugo nominations.

We have a wealth of choices in Best Editor (Long Form) this year. Good editors, who would make worthy winners. Regardless of what the slates chose to do, my own hope is that one of them gets to claim a rocket in Kansas City, to thunderous applause.

So… as we discussed below, a lot of fans don’t know who to nominate for the Hugo in the two editorial categories because they don’t know who edited what last year. The problem is especially acute in Long Form.

Fair enough. So I went and asked the editors I’d recommended what books they’d edited. We all benefit by being well informed, no?

You’ll find the responses from Jane Johnson (Voyager) and Anne Groell (Bantam Spectra) in my post below. Today I received another answer, from DIANA PHO of Tor.

Diana worked on a LOT of titles last year, but most of them are not scheduled for release until this year or next. (And that includes HIGH STAKES, the latest volume in my Wild Cards series). The only novel on her list to be published in 2015 was LONG BLACK CURL, by Alex Bledsoe. She was also one of the editors at Tor.com, however, and in that capacity she was the editor on “The Two Weddings of Bronwyn Hyatt,” by Alex Bledsoe, from last May. Three other stories she acquired for Tor.com, from Margaret Killjoy, P. Djeli Clark, and Bledsue) will be out in 2016. Diana is also responsible for BEYOND VICTORIANA, a website dedicated to multicultural steampunk (‘this has been my side project for the past seven years,’ she tells me). You can find it here: www.beyondvictoriana.com

Should more editors respond, I will post their credits here as well.

Consider this a Fannish Service Announcement.

My observations about the Best Editor (Long Form) Hugo, which you can read in full several posts down, have drawn some comments here and on FILE 770 from fans who object to my suggestion that this category has become a de facto lifetime achievement award, at least since David G. Hartwell set an example by withdrawing from future consideration after his third win.

The objections seem to take the form of stating emphatically that Best Editor (Long Form) is NOT a lifetime achievement award, it’s not, it’s not, it’s just NOT.

And quite right they are. According to the rules, that is. According to the rules, the award is only supposed to be for the previous year’s editing.

Which is great in theory, and completely wrong in fact. Maybe those who are objecting vote on that basis, but if so, they are a very tiny minority. Given the difficulty of actually knowing who edited what in any particular year, most fans are voting on the basis of lifetime achievement, whether the rules admit that possibility or not. Or are we really supposed to believe that Ginjer Buchanan finally won in 2014 solely on the basis of the books she edited in 2013, that Betsy Wollheim’s win in 2012 was entirely due to her wonderful editing in 2011? If you believe that, there’s a nice bridge in my hometown of Bayonne, New Jersey that you might want to buy. Ginjer and Betsy won their much-deserved rockets in recognition of their long and distinguished careers, careers that spanned decades, during which time they bought and published hundreds of novels, discovered and nurtured dozens of new writers, helped to shape their lines and by extension the field we all love. That’s what got them their rockets, not — as we must assume elsewise — a sudden one-year burst of editorial brilliance.

That being said, however, I do recognize that there are those out there who will never agree to this philosophy. The rules are the rules, they will say, so they will not take career contributions into account, just the previous year.

Okay. We aim to please. So I emailed some of the editors I’d recommended in my original post, and asked them what books they edited last year. And a couple of them have replied.

ANNE LESLEY GROELL of Bantam Spectra and Random House. Besides my own KNIGHT OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS and the GAME OF THRONES coloring book, Anne also edited FOOL’S QUEST by Robin Hobb, UPROOTED by Naomi Novik, GREEN EARTH by Kim Stanley Robinson (an abridged compilation of three books ALG had edited), BOMBS AWAY by Harry Turtledove, THE DARKLING CHILD by Terry Brooks, “plus a bunch of stuff that will be out this year.”

JANE JOHNSON of HarperCollins Voyager in the UK, in addition to my own releases, was also the editor on THE LIAR’S KEY by Mark Lawrence, FOOL’S QUEST by Robin Hobb (the British edition, obviously), and HALF A WORLD and HALF A WAR by Joe Abercrombie.

So that’s two, for those who want to consider only last year’s work.

So far only those two editors have responded, but if I get more replies, I will post the titles here. Whether you favor the “single year” or “lifetime achievement” approach to this award, I think we can all agree that having some information is to the good.

For all those who have been waiting for the t’other shoe to drop… I talked about some worthy choices for the Hugo for Best Professional Editor (Long Form) down below, so it behooves me to say a few words about Best Professional Editor (Short Form) as well.

This is the second category that was created when “Best Editor” was split in 2007, but in some ways it feels more like a continuation of the older category. Magazine editors almost always won Best Editor before the split, and of course magazine editors have dominated the new Short Form category as well… though not to the same extent. Anthologists, who were always eligible even before the split but almost never won, have been holding their own in recent years, mostly in the person of the redoubtable Ellen Datlow. Datlow has won Short Form three times since the split. Sheila Williams of ASIMOV’S has won twice, Gordon Van Gelder of THE MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION has won twice, and Stanley Schmidt of ANALOG has won once… in his final year of eligibility, after his retirement was announced.

The “usual suspects” syndrome is strong in this category. Since the division, a whole new phalanx of bridesmaids has come forth. Jonathan Strahan, Neil Clarke, and John Joseph Adams have all been nominated multiple times, but none of them has ever taken home a rocket. Unlike Long Form, which has become a de facto lifetime achievement award thanks in large part to the example set by David G. Hartwell, none of the Short Form winners have ever retired themselves from the competition. Of course, some have been retired by, well, retirement… Stan Schmidt and Gordon Van Gelder, for instance, no longer edit ANALOG and F&SF, respectively, and are no longer eligible.

Last year, this was another category completely dominated by the Puppies. All five of the finalists were first-time nominees… which was good. But all five were from the slates, which was not so good. Four of the five were nonetheless legitimate nominees worthy of serious consideration: anthologists Jennifer Brozek and Bryan Thomas Schmidt, Edmund R. Schubert of ORSON SCOTT CARD’S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, and Mike Resnick of GALAXY’S EDGE. (Schubert subsequently withdrew his name from consideration, which was commendable, but he did it too late to be replaced on the ballot).

Conspicuous by their absence from the ballot were a number of past winners and runners-up, including Datlow, Strahan, Adams, Clarke, Williams, Anne Vandermeer, Gardner Dozois, and others, all of them pushed off the ballot by the Puppies. Which made the final ballot a bit of a joke. You’re going to give a Best Editor, Short Form award, but you’re going to exclude the most prominent and distinguished short fiction editors in the field? Sure. That’s like starting the NFL Playoffs by excluding the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks on the grounds that they’ve won too much lately. Hey, maybe those teams get eliminated along the way… as they did this year… but you have to at least let them in the tournament. To be the champ, you need to beat the champ… and in our field, the champion short fiction editors are folks named Datlow, Williams, Dozois, etc.

All that being said… the slates, by whatever means, did throw up some legitimate Hugo-worthy nominees in this category last year, though not as many as in Long Form. One of those stood well above the others, IMNSHO. The Hugo really should have gone to MIKE RESNICK. Resnick has a long and distinguished career as an anthologist, one stretching back decades, and while he has plenty of rockets on his mantle at home, and even more crashed upside down rockets on the shirts he wears at worldcon, he had never been recognized for his work as an editor before. In addition, Resnick had founded a new SF magazine, GALAXY’S EDGE; in an age when the older magazines are struggling just to keep going, starting up a new one is a bold act (maybe a little insane) that deserves applause. But even more than that, Resnick has been a mentor to generations of new young writers, featuring them in his anthologies and now his magazine, advising them, nurturing them, teaching them, even collaborating with them. His “writer babies,” I have heard them called. In a way, Resnick is a one-man Clarion. Finding and nurturing new talent is one of an editor’s most important tasks, and Resnick has been doing it, and doing it well, for decades. He got my Hugo vote.

He got a lot of other Hugo votes as well. But not enough to win. As with Long Form, this category went to No Award. The work that the Sad and Rabid Puppies began to wreck this Hugo category was completed by Steve Davidson of AMAZING, Deirdre Saoirse Moen, and the rest of the Nuclear Fans. Resnick was never part of the slates, fwiw. He took no part in the Puppy Wars on either side, preferring to stay above the fray. And he did deserve a Hugo. But guilt by association prevailed, and he was voted down with the rest. A real pity.

((FWIW, at my Hugo Losers Party at Sasquan, I presented an Alfie Award to John Joseph Adams, who had the highest number of nominations of all those pushed off the ballot by the Puppies. And some other folks, whose identity has yet to be revealed, later sent Mike Resnick something called a ‘Jovian Award,’ for having the most votes of those who lost to No Award. Both Adams and Resnick were robbed last year; the former by the Pups, the latter by the Nukes.))

Which brings us to this year. When I hope we do not make the same mistakes. Let us hope that we won’t need more Alfies or Jovians. Let’s give a Hugo to the best short fiction editor in our field.

There’s certainly no lack of worthy candidates. Starting with the magazine editors. SHEILA WILLIAMS is still at ASIMOV’S. At ANALOG we have a new editor, Stan Schmidt’s successor, TREVOR QUACHRI. There’s no new editor at F&SF as well: CHARLES COLEMAN FINLAY. Beyond the Big Three, we have the newer magazines and their editors: NEIL CLARKE of CLARKESWORLD, EDMUND SCHUBERT of ORSON SCOTT CARD’S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, WILLIAM SCHAFER of SUBTERREANEAN, and, yes, MIKE RESNICK of GALAXY’S EDGE.

Oh, and we must not forget the e-magazines. Especially not TOR.COM, which has become one of our field’s most important venues for short fiction. Tor.com has a legion of editors, though, so it’s a little harder to determine which one should be nominated.. if indeed you think the stories they’ve published are Hugo calibre. (Maybe someone from Tor will come and tell us?)

And then there are the anthologists. JOHN JOSEPH ADAMS, last year’s Alfie winner, stands at the forefront of that group, together with ELLEN DATLOW, GARDNER DOZOIS, and JONATHAN STRAHAN. But, hey, there are lot of good anthologies published every year, so plenty of other editors are eligible. It is hard to know who to nominate in Long Form, as we’ve discussed, hard to know who edited what. It is easy in Short Form. What was your favorite magazine? What was the best anthology you read last year? The name of the editor is right there.

Oh… and it would disingenuous of me not to mention that I am eligible for nomination myself in this category, on the basis of OLD VENUS, the original anthology I co-edited with Gardner. Now, I’m very proud of OLD VENUS, and I think there are a number of wonderful stories therein worthy of Hugo recognition that I hope you’ll remember when time comes… but I don’t really regard myself as a serious contender in Short Form. Maybe some other year, when I’ve had several anthologies published… but there was no new Wild Cards book in 2015, so OLD VENUS was my only qualifying work, and I only did half of that. If you really really loved OLD VENUS and think it was worthy of Hugo recognition, well, nominate the stories, and nominate Gardner Dozois… he deserves just as much credit for the book as I do, and he did lots of OTHER editing besides, including his mammoth and long-running BEST OF THE YEAR anthology, the assembly of which is a task that would make lesser men weep.

Gardner Dozois will certainly be on my ballot. So will Mike Resnick, and… some others.

If you agree, you should nominate them as well. If not, nominate someone else.

But nominate.

MidAmericon II has opened on-line Hugo nominations, as I reported below… at least for those members who have received their PIN numbers (haven't gotten mine yet, alas). No better time for some more of my thoughts on possible contenders for this year's Hugos. You can find my earlier posts downstream, where I share some of my recommendations for the two Dramatic Presentation awards and Best Professional Artist. Tonight I am going to talk about a more contentious category: Best Editor, Long Form.

Like several of the other problem categories the Long Form Editor Hugo goes to a person, not a work… which means it is subject to the "usual suspects" syndrome that I have discussed previously. Way too many voters don't actually know what the various candidates did during the previous year. This leads to the same people winning the award, year after year after year… most often, the editors with the biggest presence at cons and on the web.

Which is NOT proof of a cabal or a conspiracy, despite what some morons would like to have you believe; it's just proof of human nature, and, well, our own innate human laziness. In the case of this particular category, the problems are exacerbated because "long form" editors — book editors to you and me — are not even credited by the vast majority of publishers. Tor is a notable exception, which is one reason Tor editors have dominated this award since its inception, but even in that case, the editorial credit is not exactly prominent. You have to go looking for it. Most readers, and most Hugo voters, do not bother to look. And aside from Tor, the total absence of credits on the novels themselves means nobody knows who edited anything… well, except the writers.

A little history lesson may be in order. Originally this category was "Best Magazine." That was easy to judge. If you thought GALAXY had the best stories last year, you voted for GALAXY. If you preferred ASTOUNDING, you voted for ASTOUNDING… or F&SF, or IF, or AMAZING (actually, I don't think AMAZING ever won, though it deserved to during the Ted White years). There were seldom more than ten magazines around at any one time (except during brief booms), so everybody knew the contenders and could judge accordingly. In those days, the magazines were the heart of the field.

By the late 60s and early 70s, that was less true than it had been previously. The magazines were still important, but more and more novels were being published, in both hardcover and paperback, and there was a boom in original anthologies as well (before that, most anthologies were made up of reprints). By offering higher rates than the magazines, anthology editors like Damon Knight, Robert Silverberg, and Terry Carr lured a lot of best, cutting-edge short fiction away from the magazines to "book magazines" like ORBIT, NEW DIMENSIONS, and UNIVERSE. Accordingly, the old "Best Magazine" Hugo was abandoned in favor of "Best Editor," so that the anthology editors and the book editors could also be recognized for their efforts.

A funny thing happened, though. Even though the award was no longer restricted to magazines, the magazine editors continued to dominate it, year after year, decade after decade. Ben Bova took over ANALOG after John Campbell's death, and won six. When ASIMOV'S was founded, its first editor George Scithers, took two in a row. He was followed by Shawna McCarthy, who won a couple, and Gardner Dozois, who won something like seventeen. Ed Ferman finally got a couple for his long run at F&SF, and Kris Rusch took one when she succeeded him. Original anthology editors, like Carr and Silverberg, were often nominated, but never actually won. And book editors? Forget it. David G. Hartwell made the ballot fairly regularly, but he was the only one, and he never won. Jim Baen was nominated a few times, but that was when he was editor at GALAXY. Generations of important book editors came and went without ever once appearing on a Hug ballot: Larry Ashmead, Ellen Asher, Jim Frenkel, David Harris, Victoria Schochet, Susan Allison, Beth Meachum, Betsy Mitchell, Judy-Lynn del Rey, John Douglas, Ginjer Buchanan… the list goes on and on.

Donald A. Wollheim was never nominated for a Hugo. The award said "Best Editor," but for all practical purposes, it was still really "Best Magazine."

((Of course, there was a perfectly understandable reason for this. Then as now, the book editors WERE NOT CREDITED. Unless they founded their own publishing imprint but their names on it, as with Baen and del Rey, the casual reader did not know who they were or what they had edited)).

To be sure, there were a couple of breakthroughs. Terry Carr finally won a Hugo in 1985, on the strength of the Ace Specials… the first book editor to win, I believe. He won a second in 1987, after dying in April of that same year.

In between Terry's two wins, Judy Lynn del Rey was voted a rocket after her own death… but her husband Lester refused on her behalf, pointing out that fandom had never voted her the award while she was alive.

After Carr's second and posthumous victory, magazine and anthology editors won the award for eighteen straight years (Dozois, Datlow, and Rusch). In 2006, the last year before the award was split into Long Form and Short Form, David G. Hartwell finally won, after decades of being a runner-up. Hartwell and Carr and Judy-Lynn (if you count her) were the only book editors to win "Best Editor" during the two and half decades of the award. It is easy to see why book editors would object to this set-up, and why some of them lobbied for a change in the rules… which finally took effect in 2007, when the editorial Hugo was split into two — Best Editor, Short Form (magazines and anthologies) and Best Editor, Long Form (novels and books). Those are the rules we operate by today.

It's better in some ways, I cannot deny. But the problems persist, as I outlined above. Without credits, it is hard to know who edited what, or how much editing they had to do. Writers know this stuff (it is a small field), and other editors certainly do, but readers? Not so much. So we get the "usual suspects" syndrome, and a system that strongly favors the editors who are most visible at cons and on the internet. With smaller publishers and imprints, one can at least argue that you can judge an editor by the books that came out that year… but even that falls apart at bigger houses where a multiplicity of editors work on a long, long list of titles.

The first Long Form Hugo was awarded in 2008. It went to Patrick Nielsen-Hayden of Tor. The runners-up were Dave Hartwell of Tor, Jim Baen of Baen, Ginjer Buchanan of Ace, and Lou Anders of Pyr. The next two years, Hartwell was the victor. Beth Meacham replaced Jim Baen on the short-list those two years, but elsewise the nominees were exactly the same. After Hartwell's second victory… his third Hugo overall… David did something very classy. He withdrew himself permanently from further contention. There were other editors, great editors, who had never been recognized, and some of them deserved Hugos too. He now had three, and that was enough. David G. Hartwell bowed out gracefully.

That gesture had a profound effect on the award, I think. Though the rules may say the Long Form award is intended for work published during the previous year, in truth the category had become a sort of ad-hoc "lifetime achievement" award. And that is more or less how it has continued since, due in no small part to Hartwell's noblesse.

The following year, 2010, Patrick Nielsen-Hayden won his second rocket. Following Hartwell's example, he announced during his acceptance speech that he too was withdrawing his name from further consideration. Lou Anders of Pyr won in 2011. Betsy Wollheim of DAW won in 2012, and thrilled the crowd at the award by dedicating it to her father — finally the Wollheim name had appeared on a Hugo. In 2013, PNH allowed himself to be nominated once again, stating that his wife Theresa had not been there to see him win his first two, and he wanted her to see him win one. Which he did. In 2014, Ginjer Buchanan of Ace finally got hers (LONG overdue).

These were all popular victories, and well-deserved… but what was most interesting to me was that the majority of these recent winners were following David G. Hartwell's example, and treating the award as a recognition of lifetime achievement, bowing out after their wins rather than trying to rack up ten in a row. With so may outstanding editors never having been recognized, I think this was A Very Good Thing, and I'd like to see it continue… so long as this particular category endures, at least.

Which brings us to last year, and the slates. Best Editor, Long Form was one of the Hugo categories swept by the Puppies; all five nominees appeared on one or other of the slates. Nonetheless, four of the five finalist were, to my mind, worthy nominees. Tony Weisskopf of Baen and Sheila Gilbert of DAW had each been nominated thrice before. In a normal year, the two of them would likely have battled it out for the rocket. Jim Minz of Baen and Anne Sowards of Ace were both new to the ballot, but they're both fine editors, and I expect both of them will contend again in future years.

Any of these four would have been a worthy Hugo winner. Alas, instead the "Nuclear Fans" and guilt by association prevailed, and No Award was given. Let me reiterate again: I voted No Award myself in several categories last year, categories in which I felt none of the finalists was worthy of a Hugo. But in categories where the finalists WERE Hugo worthy, I voted accordingly. Long Form was a case in point. Most of the editors nominated in this category had nothing to do with the Puppies. They did not ask to be slated, they were never consulted. Their work and careers speak for themselves. And while their names did appear on the slates, many many fans who were neither Sad nor Rabid nominated the same people because they were worthy of a Hugo (I nominated two of them myself).

I make no apologies for voting No Award in some of the other categories, where it was warranted, where all the finalists were sub-par. But in THIS category, it was NOT warranted. Sasquan should have given one of these editors a Hugo.

I hope we do not repeat the same mistake at MidAmericon II.

Which brings us back, after a long detour, to this year's nominations, and my own thoughts and recommendations for 2016.

Toni Weisskopf and Jim Minz of Baen, Anne Sowards of Ace, and Sheila Gilbert of DAW were the four legit finalists last year. All four could very well contend again this year. The Puppies are already rallying behind Toni, I see from SP4. I expect she'll be the favorite choice of both Sads and Rabids, just as Baen is their favorite publisher.

There are some other outstanding editors who deserve your consideration as well, however. So let me bring a few of them to your attention. Starting with my own editor, ANNE LESLEY GROELL, of Bantam Spectra.

I cannot pretend to be objective here, so I won’t. Most writers love their own editors (if they didn't, they'd leave), and I am no exception. If you enjoy my Ice & Fire books, you have Anne to thank; she has been editing them since A GAME OF THRONES in 1996, and they would not be the same without her. And while WINDS did not come out in 2015, A KNIGHT OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS did, and Anne was a big part of that as well. All that art? Anne fought to get all that in, to make the book the lavish lovely thing it was. She was nominated once before, in 2012, losing to Betsy Wollheim. She's past due for a second nomination.

And then there's Tor. David G. Hartwell has won three times, and so has Patrick Nielsen-Hayden, but there are lots of other terrific editors at Tor who deserve some recognition. DIANA PHO, who edits our Wild Cards books. MOSHE FEDER, who discovered Brandon Sanderson. HARRIET MCDOUGAL, Robert Jordan's editor who put together this year's WHEEL OF TIME COMPANION. And LIZ GORINSKY.

Liz has never won a Hugo, but she was nominee in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. She would have been a nominee in 2015 as well, but she was pushed off the ballot by the slates. Instead she got an Alfie Award. She did honor to the Alfie, and she would do honor to the Hugo as well, and she certainly deserves to be returned to the ballot. One of these days soon, I expect to be making Liz wear a cone-head at a Hugo Loser's Party.

So, okay, lots of good strong candidates right here in the US of A… but you know, there are some great choices on the other side of the Atlantic as well. All the great editors are not American, you know, and the Hugo is not restricted to US companies. A lot of British and European fans joined worldcon last year to vote for Finland in 2017. I hope that most of them will take the time to nominate… and that they will look beyond the US publishing scene and rectify a decades-long injustice by nominating MALCOLM EDWARDS of Gollancz/ Orion and JANE JOHNSON of HarperCollins Voyager for the Hugo.

For those of you reading this who are not writers or editors and maybe don't know this stuff — Malcolm Edwards and Jane Johnson are the two giants of British SF and fantasy. You want to know what books they have edited? What authors? Start with, well, everybody. There is hardly a major writer in the field that has not worked with one or the other, or often (like me) with both. Malcolm, of course, has been a fan as well; he was GOH at one worldcon, and chaired an earlier one. Friends, and friendly rivals, they have between them helped to sustain, promote, and grow SF and fantasy for decades now. In the UK, in Australia, in South Africa and India and much of the open market, if you've been reading any SF or fantasy during the past twenty years, odds are it was edited or published by either Edwards or Johnson.

And neither one has EVER been nominated for a Hugo, let alone won.

We should fix that now. I was certain that Malcolm and Jane would finally get some recognition year before last, when worldcon went to London… but the Brits, it appears, were asleep at the switch, at least where this category was concerned.

Let's do better this year.