When it comes to editing magazines and anthologies, some people seem to enjoy it. I don\u2019t, not especially. I like giving life to new ideas and finding platforms for other people\u2019s fiction or art. I hate slush reading, decision making, administration and writing rejections. My key editorial ethos is probably \u2018Try not to screw up too often\u2019. And I hadn\u2019t planned on writing this piece, but recent social media discussions have corkscrewed their way into my brain.<\/p>\n
The role of the editor(s) and diversity in anthology or magazine contents is one of Those Things. It\u2019s an important Thing, but can easily drive you to despondency or endless argumentifying. A lot of the discussions this week have been about the question of female writers\u2019 presence in Tables of Contents and, putting it bluntly, the degree to which ToCs often seem to be dominated by male writers, especially white male writers. However, I think this raises the broader subject of editors\u2019 approaches to diversity in general, which is more the meat here today.<\/p>\n
(Incidentally, as an editor I tend to feel that you\u2019re basically getting something wrong with every issue or volume, and you know it, even when no one else notices. When people do notice, you are doomed by being resolute in the face of criticism, and doomed by trying to explain that your good intentions were trampled by the Elephants of Life.)<\/em><\/p>\n WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW CONTAINS NO DEFINITE ANSWERS, BECAUSE I DON\u2019T KNOW ANY. AND I BARELY KNOW WHAT I\u2019M DOING SOME DAYS. SO THERE.<\/span><\/p>\n NOTE TO COVER MY BACK, ALMOST: I can be a bit random about terminology. Feel free to exchange \u2018Chinese\u2019 or \u2018desi writer\u2019 for \u2018black writer\u2019; \u2018non-binary\u2019 or \u2018gender-fluid\u2019 for \u2018queer\u2019 and so on. I\u2019m writing in diversity shorthand rather than wanting to make lists. Many recent discussions have taken \u2018straight white male\u2019 as the default position for majority inclusion in many projects, and there\u2019s certainly a history to that, so I\u2019ll use it here. Write your own piece if it offends you. This is an underlying matter I\u2019d like to get out of the way. Unless you\u2019re running some sort of weird one-person vanity show, it seems to me that as an editor you serve too many masters and mistresses from the word Go.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a lot to deal with from the start. Let\u2019s be honest. I\u2019ve acquired stories that weren\u2019t my cup of fish (as a recreational reader). And I\u2019ve rejected ones that I loved. We\u2019re not talking about the quality of the stories here, only the question of how much your personal taste guides your selections. Misguidedly or not, I\u2019ve done this to try and serve readers, to showcase a range of tales which might appeal to the broadest audience. I\u2019m not the one who\u2019s going to buy this stuff, after all.<\/p>\n For each of the above, there are other issues you have to bear in mind. What does your publisher feel about diversity? Are there matters which go beyond any one magazine or anthology going on here, related to their wider activities? And if you think you know your audience to any degree, what\u2019s the vibe there \u2013 is it hungry for change and new approaches, or is it staid and suspicious? As you select, you have to be hoping and guessing about that audience \u2013 does it really like what you think it likes? Or are you deliberately selecting for people who you think aren\u2019t well served by other anthologies and magazines, which is another and perfectly valid choice again?<\/p>\n (Also worth checking – did you invent your audience in your head and wake up later to flashbacks of Vietnam and the Airborne cavalry?)<\/em><\/p>\n There\u2019s an argument for single-handed editors of established skill and taste, and one for collectives of editors. Real life often means that small\/independent press editorial boards are simply a few colleagues who already get on, and may do so because they have shared tastes and interests. As most are working for little or nothing, it\u2019s for the love \u2013 or it started that way. What might a varied editorial board, if you had that luxury, have to offer? They might well:<\/p>\n Editorial groups do have their limits, so be gentle. Nancy Tinubu from the local writers\u2019 collective is not a gestalt avatar of all young black women, nor an endless source of answers as to the entire field of Afrikan literary, political and cultural issues. She might be bloody useful, though.<\/p>\n Some readers do like the stability of a single editor, one whose previous anthologies or issues they enjoyed. Almost a brand feel (Ellen Datlow<\/strong>, to pick the most immediate example that comes to mind, is often cited in that category). That, however, is contingent on the mind-set of the single editor, and we all have blind spots about our own choices. I mean, that selection of fourteen very similar Cthulhu pastiches written by a group of close friends, all of whom are middle-aged lapsed Baptist real estate agents and all of whom happen to live in the same town, for example. How could people say that it was \u2018somewhat lacking in variety\u2019? The ingrates.<\/p>\n Which is also \u2018Did you tell people and did they believe you?\u2019 Anyone can call out for submissions from a diverse range of writers from different backgrounds, cultures, skin colours, sexual identifications and so on. You can even do it and not mean it. It\u2019s certainly vital to make your position clear early on. But what happens next?<\/p>\n You can\u2019t make people write for you. You can review any editorial statements, guidelines and open call marketing you put out, and think hard about how they sound to others. You can make an extra effort to share any guidelines about your approach. I mean, there was that \u2018All Women\u2019 special of Carcass Noire<\/em>, where you forgot to encourage female writers to submit or circulate the Open Call in the right places, and had to get some of the guys to change their names to Daphne and Enid in order to fill the issue. Do you have to remember everything? Yes.<\/p>\n How hard and crystalline a route to diversity do you want to take in your editorial capacity? There are two very different steps you can try:<\/p>\n a) Direct solicitation<\/strong> \u2013 simply contact every decent non-white, or non-male, or non-straight writer you know and say you want a story from them. If you don\u2019t know any, that\u2019s a bit rough, and shows you haven\u2019t been paying attention to the field at all. You suck.<\/p>\n Many will be too busy, or not interested in the theme, etc, so this can be a slow business. It\u2019s not very good for finding the talent that you don\u2019t know about, unfortunately, and can end up as its own nepotistic little bug if that\u2019s all you do. Once started, it has to be developed.<\/p>\n OR<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n b) Blind reading<\/strong> – if you think you\u2019ve done what you can so far to reach out to a cross-section of the writers you would like to submit, read submissions blind, i.e. with all identifying information stripped at the slush stage. It\u2019s not perfect, because you can\u2019t strip your head of your own fancies or prejudices. And again, you can\u2019t make people write for you, but you can hope that some will consider this a good way to get seen without any editor having prior baggage about them or their work.<\/p>\n Blind reading can be a way round the fact that the writing world has its incestuous moments, and you are going to know, even be friends with, some of the submitters. You may even spot their style, but it might help. Mind-set comes up again, of course, because if you\u2019re determined only to have a particular character set or number of tropes, you may well sabotage yourself anyway. That\u2019s where a group or board can be useful.<\/p>\n Male writers, female writers, queer writers, black writers \u2013 everyone gets rejection slips. Authors in wheelchairs and authors from Sri Lanka can write rubbish, just like anyone else. Equality of incompetence has an effect \u2013 if you get three barely so-so stories from the broader range of writers you wanted, and thirty great stories from white male career writers, what do you do? If you\u2019re blind reading, you may well end up with those guys.<\/p>\n But if you weight your selection, who wants to say they took a story because they didn\u2019t have any other hearing-impaired or Inuit writers who submitted, even though the story was a bit lame? And who wants to be the writer who was accepted on that basis?<\/p>\n Alternatively, you could:<\/p>\n Every so often silly people ask why on earth diversity is important in this context. It\u2019s the easiest question to answer, of all of them. You can be as self-serving or noble as you want if you intend to be a successful editor. Take your pick:<\/p>\n I\u2019m open to complaints and comments about any of the above. This should have been written by a far more erudite, far more experienced editor than me. If I get sound new information, I adjust. If I\u2019ve made a genuine mistake, I adjust. It\u2019s what you do (or should do). I\u2019m aware that having good intentions doesn\u2019t always cut it, though I believe it can help. I may well even revise my own editorial habits as a result of writing this. I probably will.<\/p>\n And I am also a writer, after all. Getting a fair chance to be considered is always an issue for any writer. I come from the old Write, Sluice the Yard, and Write Again School, but I\u2019m hardly unaware that I have privileges. You might well ask what could go wrong for a reasonably experienced white male author, except that we would drift into discussions on whether or not you\u2019re \u2018in vogue\u2019, \u2018cutting edge\u2019 or have the wrong circle of writing and publishing friends \u2013 or just no friends. And if you forgot to grab the attention of that crucial editor in the one second when they noticed you. No one really wants to be the snotty little kid who didn\u2019t get invited to Danny\u2019s seventh birthday party, and ended up setting fire to Danny\u2019s Spiderman costume that night. With Danny in it (well, OK, maybe not many of you).<\/p>\n But<\/strong> the important point is the privilege aspect. I\u2019m not marginalised. I don\u2019t have to look at endless Tables of Contents and say \u2018Why are there so few white guys like me in there?\u2019 I\u2019m not embarrassed or apologetic about being what I am. I simply think everyone should have a fair crack of the herring.<\/p>\n Oh, and if you want to submit to Occult Detective Quarterly<\/em> when we open again, I want the most fantastical set of submissions from the most wildly diverse set of writers. I want stories of every culture from writers of every culture and self-identification. And you know I mean it, because I\u2019m ancient and get bored very easily. I\u2019m selfish \u2013 I need diversity to keep me interested in this stony little globe…<\/p>\n Proper posts, lurchers, author features and interviews are on their way…<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When it comes to editing magazines and anthologies, some people seem to enjoy it. I don\u2019t, not especially. I like giving life to new ideas and finding platforms for other people\u2019s fiction or art. I hate slush reading, decision making, administration and writing rejections. My key editorial ethos is probably \u2018Try not to screw up … Continue reading The Cynical Editor: Diversities and Disturbances<\/span>
\n<\/em><\/p>\nDiversity for the Common Editor<\/h1>\n
1. WHO DO YOU SERVE?<\/h2>\n
\n
2. ARE YOU LEGION?<\/h2>\n
\n
3. DID YOU TELL PEOPLE?<\/h2>\n
\n
4. BLIND SOLICITORS<\/h2>\n
5. DID YOU TAKE THEIR WORK?<\/h2>\n
\n
6. WHY BOTHER?<\/h2>\n
\n
7. IN NO CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n
\n