By popular request ...

[coalescent]

Chance asked:

Have you ever examined how you stack up with regards to parity on people reviewed and people doing the reviewing?

The second "you" refers to sh_reviews. Several people said I should bump my answer up to a separate post, so here it is:

"As of tomorrow [now today], in 2007 Strange Horizons will have published 148 reviews (of 144 different things, due to "two views" pieces and other overlap) by 53 reviewers. Of the reviewers, 29 (55%) are men and 24 (45%) are women. That's where the good news ends. The 29 men account for 92 (62%) of the reviews, while the 24 women account for 54 (38%) of the reviews. Worse, of the 130 reviews of books (88% of all reviews), 93 (72%) are books by men and 37 (28%) are books by women.

I can tell you that this last figure roughly reflects the proportions of books we receive. At the moment, in on my list of books-we-have-that-I-would-in-principle-like-to-get-reviewed-sometime, there are 26 books; 6 (23%) are by women and 20 (77%) are by men. I haven't tried to count to see how this reflects sf publishing in general, though I'd love to know. I also haven't counted to see how SH compares to other reviews venues."

jamiam said:

Maybe you could get someone who prefers reading women/authors of color/what-have-you to occasionally shoot you a list of the stuff they'd like to see reviewed? And use that to supplement your own list?

All recommendations are always welcomed. (Several people do, in fact, already send me recommendations, although not on a formal/scheduled basis.) I try to chase up pretty much every book by a woman or author of colour on any given Locus list of forthcoming books; I note that the current list is about 22% such books (38 of 173 -- this is a quick count, so I would expect to be out by a few), and that I've already commissioned (or published) reviews of about a third of them. I also note that I've commissioned about half a dozen reviews of relevant books not on the Locus list, and that these tend to be YA books or books from non-genre publishers.

I would be particularly glad to receive suggestions of authors for "feature weeks", where we publish several reviews of books by the same writer; previous author-focused feature weeks have been for John Crowley, Justina Robson, and James Tiptree Jr. (Not that I'm short of ideas, of course ...) The major criterion is that the author should have a new book coming out on which to hang the week. Preferably their other books should be in print, so that I can get them for reviewers -- although Aegypt isn't all in print, so that's not a fixed rule.

Any other questions?

Comments

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

I would be particularly glad to receive suggestions of authors for "feature weeks"

Almost all of Delany's fiction is in print in those cool Vintage editions. Plus, there's his On Writing...

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

Can I have a pony?

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Me too! Or a cinnamon whirl.

[rosefox]

Ew, cinnamon.

[rosefox]

It's not one of the Important Minorities, but since I'm now reviewing SF for Lambda, I'd be happy to review queer books for SH. It'd save me some time to be able to cover the same book twice. *)

(Actually, rewriting my SH review of the Slattery--almost finished, landing in your inbox any day now--for Lambda is giving me a bit of a headache, but that's mostly because the Slattery is not what I would call a queer book, so the review for Lambda ends up in great part about "Does just having queer characters who pay zero attention to the politics and societal wossname of their queerness make something a queer book? Should it?" while the SH review is mostly about all the different ways the book made me want to cry.)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

OK, but you'll be responsible for making sure it gets fed and exercised. You can't just give it up in two months.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I should note that I consider suggestions from existing reviewers tantamount to volunteering. [g]

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

But surely, if you can write two reviews of the same book it means that neither of them is a complete and accurate presentation of your view of the book? :-p

More seriously, of course that would be great. Although equally, if you don't have time and just want to send me the titles of books you think SH should cover, that would be fine too.

[rosefox]

Touché! But I refuse to respond to your criticism of my reviewing style. So there.

[rosefox]

And now it becomes clear what you meant by:

Although equally, if you don't have time and just want to send me the titles of books you think SH should cover, that would be fine too.

I shall keep this in mind.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

Maybe this is just a perception failure on my part, but I see a lot of interesting women sf writers around who certainly merit SH's attention but haven't yet amassed a significant body of book-length work to justify a week devoted to them. I'm thinking Kelly Link, M.Rickert, Nalo Hopkinson, Elizabeth Bear, Margo Lanagan etc.

The in print aspect is another part of the problem, have you consider a 'forgotten gems' type section where the likes of Leigh kennedy, Josephine Saxton, Patricia Geary, might get covered? None of their work seems to be in print but copies are widely available on Amazon etc.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Well, we've reviewed all the writers you've listed at some point or other. Though we've had trouble keeping up with Bear, I admit ...

The problem with "forgotten gems" is that either SH or the reviewer has to pony up to get the book. Neither approach is ideal. This isn't to say it couldn't be done (probably should be done at some point), but I don't think it could be a regular feature.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

(Also, the last time we ran a review that described a writer as "forgotten" just because she was out of print, the reviewer got in no end of trouble. [g])

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

I know you have reviewed these people, what I meant was is it a little early to consider them for a whole week's focussed reviews? You're right about Bear though. Alternate her and Charlie Stross and your reviews are sorted for a month.

It isn't easy to ask people to pay for books to review I know, but I'm sure many of your readers have their own suggested titles already on their shelves they would be willing to either write about themselves or loan to certain other reviewers.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

Neglected? Missing In Action?

Funny people these writers aren't they. *g*

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

Cinnamon whirls are easier to look after than ponies but which is more fun?

[peake.livejournal.com]

If you plan a Delany week I certainly volunteer. I shhould mention that I picked up a new novel by Delany while I was at Wiscon, not sf I think but still of interest. I haven't had a chance to read it yet (it's currently in a box somewhere because of all the building work at the moment), but if you needed a review ...

[peake.livejournal.com]

As a reviewer it's nice to be asked what we want to review, but it does tend to confirm prejudices. It might be an idea once in a while to send a book we haven't asked for, something we might not otherwise have read. It will generate some very negative reviews, but also some new discoveries.

[peake.livejournal.com]

That's the cinnamon whirl you're talking about?

[oursin.livejournal.com]

One of these days, when I have the time and energy to go roaming along my bookshelves (so probably not for about 2 months yet, since various factors militate against all these elements being in place at the same time until then), I mean to do a post about Great Women SFF Writers In My Collection Who Seem To Have Completely Fallen Off The Map (possibly for Aqueduct).

Which is rather obliquely to mention that I have a number of forgotten gems in my personal collection which I would be happy to lend providing I got them back in a non-mutilated condition.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

You're right. As you may have noticed, I haven't sent a "which of these would you like to review?" email for a while now; I've been seeing whether I can keep up and commission enough reviews by emailing people one-on-one. I can, so I'm going to keep doing it, and will try to mix things up a bit more.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Thanks; that's helpful. And of course, as and when you have the time and inclination to write some reviews of your own, do let me know ... :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, hey, this is easy! I should organise all feature weeks this way. On the other hand, I'm conscious that I've used you and Graham several times each in feature weeks now. Of course, whether or not it runs as part of a set, I'd still like a review of the book. :)

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

I would be particularly glad to receive suggestions of authors for "feature weeks",

Matter coming out, you haven't read Use Of Weapons, Banks underexposed in US.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

while the SH review is mostly about all the different ways the book made me want to cry.

Hurry up! :)