Is it? Depends on what happened in Asimov's last year, don't you think? What were the best 2010 Asimov's stories?

Do you think Hugo Awards are based on the previous year's worth? :p

Given that they hold them annually, they should be.

The reality is probably otherwise.

Off the top of my head:

Sins of the Father, Sara Genge
Names for Water, Kij Johnson
The Other Graces by Alice Sola Kim
The Sultan of the Clouds by Geoffrey A. Landis
A History of Terraforming, Robert Reed
A Letter from the Emperor by Steve Rasnic Tem

Gimme more time and I'll come up with more . . .

Here's more:

Blind Cat Dance, Alexander Jablokov
The Choice, Paul McAuley

Compelling, especially (for me) the Genge, Johnson, and Tem.

As you know, that is officially what they're for (it's in the definition). What actually happens is why the categories not for specific works sometimes are described as the "body-of-work" categories. The voters' tendency to ignore theoretical niceties has been advanced (not by me, but I'm a fire-bomb-throwing radical compared to a lot of the WSFS Business Meeting regulars) as a reason to eliminate all such categories.

This. This this this this thiiiiisssssss

I guess I have to buy a Worldcon membership now, don't I? >.>

One thing about Williams' tenure: she would have been left with an undetermined number of already-purchased stories from Dozois, so it's difficult to tell at what point in those last five years Dozois' influence tailed off and Williams' editorial style actually became the dominant one. It's really only become clear in the last year or so which direction(s) she's shifting the magazine in.

I can't speak for other Hugo voters, but I admit that I've been playing wait-and-see with Asimov's.

Edited at 2011-01-04 01:32 am (UTC)

Well, where to start?

One, no, it doesn't take that long to see where an editor is going. They go through inventory quickly, usually. They actually move pretty quickly, and it has been six years. Historically you get to see an editor's impact within a year or two. Let's assume two years, if there's six months or a year's of material bought by the previous editor. (Though historically some of that is dumped by the incoming editor). Either way look at any of the current three volumes of Mike Ashley's HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE FICTION MAGAZINES to see this in action. (It took Mike Moorcock, for instance, a matter of months to make his impact with NEW WORLDS, as an extreme example.)

Two, all of the stories that I referred as award-winning or -nominated, are actually from Sheila. None were bought during Dozois' tenure. I double-checked with Sheila herself to make certain of this. I have the list here at home, with which stories she selected and bought. So we have a high rate of award success, but no love for Sheila at all?

Three, if you look at previous years, I think you'd find that Sheila was shifting already to new authors and new material, including stories by Paolo Bacigalupi, Elizabeth Bear, Deborah Coates, Sara Genge, Peter Higgins, Matthew Johnson, Ted Kosmatka, Holly Phillips, Tim Pratt, Cat Rambo Gord Sellar, Steve Rasnic Tem, Carrie Vaughn, and many more.

I think it's been clear for a while which way she's been aiming for, and it's worked for her, obviously, with lots of awards and nominations for her stories. So let's reward that with some acknowledgement of what she's brought to the magazine. (And it's not just the six years. She's been with ASIMOV's since 1982!)

Pulling up research, courtesy of Locus Index to SF Awards, Dozois became editor Jan 1986. He then proceeded to win the Hugo from 1988 to 2004 for fifteen times. (Except for 1994 and 2002). By your logic we should have waited six years to award him anything?

Well, first of all: your average Hugo voter doesn't have access to that information until someone like Williams or yourself provides it directly.

Second: Frankly, I'm trying to come with a plausible explanation here, other than the rather obvious fact that Hugo voters are madly in love with Dozois and refuse to see Williams as anything other than a shadow of their favorite. And that is probably exacerbated by gender bias.

Third: Do you want me to say that you've convinced me to buy Asimov's? Totally, yes. I've been leaning that way the last year or so, but you've definitely put in the clinching vote. Chill out, man. We're not all actually cut from the same cordwood as Mamatas. And even he's fallen under the sway of your rather convincing stack of facts.

I'd say that the average Hugo voter, who can afford to go to Worldcon, is probably well-read and on top of such matters, within reason. And that information has been available for some time, as pointed out by Sheila:

"I purchased 28 of the 29 Hugo nominated stories during my tenure (so far) and 9 of the 10 winners. The only exception was "Tk', tk', tk'" by David Levine. I purchased all the Nebula nominees and winners as well. There is a mixture of mine and Gardner's stories appearing in every 2005 issue of Asimov's through October/November. I'm responsible for every story since, and including, December 2005. Poems purchased by Gardner appeared through 2006. Kij Johnson's 2009 World Fantasy winning story is one of mine, too. Gardner has been very supportive. In 2006, he listed all the 2005 stories that he purchased on the Asimov's Forum and made it clear that he was not responsible for subsequent tales in the magazine. For better or worse, the onus for the direction the magazine has taken since the end of 2005 is entirely mine."—Sheila Williams

I'm not going to explore the reasons behind ASIMOV's winning fifteen times from 1998 to 2004, and then suddenly stopping, for that way leads to madness, I suspect. But you probably guessed them, spot-on. Meanwhile I did see your post as a way to clarify the situation, for others, however, so while it may have come across as harsh, it wasn't meant to be. I did expect Nick to come out swinging against the idea so it's nice to be proven wrong. :)

Edited at 2011-01-04 11:53 am (UTC)

Could part of the issue be that Gardner won it so often that voters felt that they needed to vote away from Asimov's for a while. Kind of situational discrimination.

It was interesting listening to her discuss her editorial thoughts at Capclave in 2009.