Asimov’s and Analog Readers’ Choice, and 2017

No discussion this week, as I’m swamped both with life and with last-minute Hugo reading.

But I’m going to take this chance to spotlight something I always look forward to — Asimov’s and Analog have both published online the selections from their readers’ choice awards!

This is an awesome opportunity to take a look at some of the work being done in the print magazines — which, most of the year, we have a harder time featuring here…

That’s it for 2016 stories. Time to bring 2017 in! We’d love to hear your suggestions for 2017 stories, anything you’ve loved in the first few months of the new year. We’ll be on a short hiatus until April, and then we’ll see what you’ve been reading!

5 thoughts on “Asimov’s and Analog Readers’ Choice, and 2017”

  1. I think the first three months of 2017 have been a bit thin in terms of good stories–much as the last two months of 2016 were unusually rich in them. Has anyone else had the same observation?

    1. I’ve given up trying to identify trends, but you see a much broader field than I do 🙂

      Have you read the WIRED Science-Fiction issue? How was that? Seemed like an impressive selection of authors, although I don’t know what to expect from WIRED. Right now that’s on the top of my to-read list for 2017 fiction…

  2. I didn’t notice the Wired issue when it came out, but the stories in it are dated 2016, so they’re probably not Hugo-eligible for next year. I know SFWA already ruled they’re not eligible for the Nebulas next year.

    The eligibility rule for the Hugos (much like the one for the Nebulas) says “Publication date, or cover date in the case of a dated periodical, takes
    precedence over copyright date,” and Wired does have a print edition with a 2017 date, but each individual story has its own publication date right on it, and those are all in 2016. For the Nebulas, they decided that the rule about using the cover date only applied to stories that didn’t have individual publication dates.

    1. Really? That’s so bizarre.

      I mean, yes, the platform notes the date of publication, but each story is also tagged with “magazine-25.01”.

      I can’t see how this is any different from “Tuesdays With Molokesh The Destroyer,” which had the exact same “published in December, part of the January issue” thing going.

      That’s awfully nitpicky for an eligibility ruling. And it saddens me — I’d deliberately put off reading the WIRED issue because I’d understood it to be a 2017 publication.

  3. Well, the Hugos aren’t the Nebulas, so perhaps the logic will be different. I like the idea that you use the date that’s closest to the story. So if an online story has a date right on it, then you use that. If not, you use the publication date for the issue. If there is no pub date for the issue, or it’s not online at all, you use the issue date. Failing all else, you use the copyright date.

    Given how they read it for “Molokesh the Destroyer” you may be right that they’ll be considered 2017 for purposes of the Hugo Awards. They’ve already been ruled out for the Nebula, though.

Leave a Reply