With the closing down of the Author’s Choice Monthly line, with the Short Story Paperback line being put “on hold” for an indefinite period of time, with the drastic downscaling of the Axolotl novella line (with many announced individual titles cancelled), with the collapse of the proposed Axolotl/Bantam novella line, and with the death of the Pulphouse: A Hardback Magazine original anthology series, Pulphouse Publishing is just about out of the short-fiction business, with the exception of Pulphouse: A Fiction Magazine. And thus ends—in failure, alas—the most ambitious SF short-fiction publishing program of recent times. With the failure of the various Pulphouse lines, the failure of the Tor Doubles line, the canceling of the Axolotl/Bantam novella line, and the presumed failure of the British Legend novella line (At least, they have yet to follow up the initial releases with any more such books to date.), I’m afraid that short fiction in book form is going to become even harder to find in the science fiction genre than it already is, and collections, for the most part, will continue to be left to the small presses by most of the major trade publishers. A bleak prospect—the only bright spot here being that at least small-press collections are getting noticed more now than they were a few years ago, and are perhaps a bit more readily available now—mostly in SF specialty bookstores and in the more “literary” chain bookstores such as Borders—than they used to be.
* * *
Your best bets in the reprint anthology market in 1992, as is usually the case, were the various “Best of the Year” anthologies, and the annual Nebula Award anthology, Nebula Awards 26 (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich), edited by James Morrow. Science fiction, which only two years ago was covered by three “Best” anthologies, is down to being covered by only one, the one you are holding in your hand at this moment. There are still three Best of the Year anthologies covering horror: Karl Edward Wagner’s long-established Year’s Best Horror Stories (DAW), now up to volume XX, a newer British series called Best New Horror (Carroll & Graf), edited by Ramsey Campbell and Stephen Jones, up to volume 3 this year, and the Ellen Datlow half of a mammoth volume covering both horror and fantasy, The Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror (St. Martin’s Press), edited by Ellen Datlow and Terri Windling, this year up to its Fifth Annual Collection. Fantasy, as distinguished from horror, is covered only by Terri Windling’s half of the Datlow/Windling anthology—and at a time when the fantasy genre is expanding, too. I don’t personally see why we need three “Best” anthologies covering horror when we only have one anthology covering science fiction and only half of an anthology covering fantasy—but the publishers certainly don’t ask my opinion on these matters. Maybe next year someone will start another science fiction “Best” anthology, or a “Best” anthology devoted to fantasy alone.
Other good buys for the money this year were several “historical overview” type anthologies, the best of which was probably a massive overview of the horror field, Foundations of Fear (Tor), edited by David G. Hartwell. Other good values in this area included: the interesting although somewhat idiosyncratic The Oxford Book of Science Fiction (Oxford), edited by Tom Shippey; Isaac Asimov Presents the Great SF Stories: 24 (DAW), edited by Isaac Asimov and Martin H. Greenberg; Isaac Asimov Presents the Great SF Stories: 25 (DAW), edited by Isaac Asimov and Martin H. Greenberg; The Mammoth Book of Fantastic Science Fiction Short Novels of the 1970s (Robinson), edited by Isaac Asimov, Charles G. Waugh, and Martin H. Greenberg; The Mammoth Book of Fantastic Fiction (Carroll & Graf), edited by Isaac Asimov, Charles G. Waugh, and Martin H. Greenberg; The Best of Astounding (Carroll & Graf), edited by James Gunn; and a “Best” anthology drawn from the small-press field, The Best of the Rest 1990 (Edgewood Press), edited by Stephen Pasechnick and Brian Youmans.
The best one-shot “theme” reprint anthology of the year was probably Inside the Funhouse: 17 SF Stories About SF (AvoNova), edited by Mike Resnick. When I heard about this one, I expected it to be pretty lightweight, but, in fact, several of the stories here are quite substantial in quality (notably Pohl and Kornbluth’s “Mute Inglorious Tam,” Edmond Hamilton’s “The Pro,” and Malzberg’s “Corridors,” among others), and none of the stories here are less than entertaining; if for nothing else, Resnick should be complimented for reprinting Philip K. Dick’s “Waterspider,” a rare story that features Poul Anderson as the main character! Also quite good, considerably better than the year’s original Christmas anthologies, was Christmas Stars (Tor), edited by David G. Hartwell, which contained excellent stories by Connie Willis, Gene Wolfe, Jack McDevitt, Brian W. Aldiss, and others.
Also interesting were: Bootcamp 3000 (Ace), edited by Gordon R. Dickson, Charles G. Waugh, and Martin H. Greenberg; and Space Dogfights (Ace), edited by Algis Budrys, Charles G. Waugh, and Martin H. Greenberg. Noted without comment are Unicorns II (Ace), edited by Jack Dann and Gardner Dozois, and Isaac Asimov’s Earth (Ace), edited by Gardner Dozois and Sheila Williams.
* * *
This was a somewhat stronger year than average in the SF-oriented nonfiction SF reference book field, although once again, disappointingly, John Clute and Peter Nicholls’s long-promised update of Nicholls’s The Science Fiction Encyclopedia failed to appear (there are strong indications that it will really actually No Fooling appear next year, though; I’ve even seen a galley proof of my entry and as we go to press my editor swears he has actually touched a copy of the finished book). A new edition of Twentieth-Century Science-Fiction Writers (St. James Press), edited by Noelle Watson and Paul E. Schellinger, was released late in 1992, although I didn’t catch up with it until early this year. It’s a solid work, and a valuable reference tool, and certainly a better and more usable job than Gunn’s The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction from a few years back, but it too is plagued by frustrating omissions (you can understand how some of the newest writers can be overlooked, but how can a work published in 1992, the year when she won the Arthur C. Clarke Award, manage to overlook Pat Cadigan, for instance? Or overlook Nancy Kress, in the year when she won both the Hugo and the Nebula Awards? And there are many other omissions as well) and by irritating errors of fact—in my own entry, for instance, the one in which I can most easily check the facts, they insist on listing me as the editor of the Full Spectrum anthology series (much to the dismay of the actual editors, I’m sure!), even though I carefully corrected that mistake on the galleys. Nitpicking of this sort aside, Twentieth-Century Science-Fiction Writers is a valuable reference work, and certainly belongs in libraries, but it is not an entirely satisfactory replacement for Nicholls’s 1979 The Science Fiction Encyclopedia, and the need for an update of the Nicholls book is still urgent, and growing more urgent every year. Elsewhere, your best bets for SF reference works this year were: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror: 1991 (Locus Press), edited by Charles N. Brown and William G. Contento; Reginald’s Science Fiction and Fantasy Awards, Second Edition (Borgo Press), edited by Daryl F. Mallett and Robert Reginald; Reference Guide to Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror (Libraries Unlimited), edited by Michael Burgess; and Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature II: A Checklist, 1975-1991 (Gale Research), edited by Robert Reginald. There were several books that might be of use to those interested in the craft of writing or in SF criticism, among them The Profession of Science Fiction (St. Martin’s Press), edited by Maxim Jakubowski and Edward James; Inside Science Fiction: Essays on Fantastic Literature (Borgo Press), edited by James Gunn; Strategies of Fantasy (Indiana University Press), by Brian Attebery; Fiction 2000: Cyberpunk and the Future of Narrative (University of Georgia Press), edited by George Slusser and Tom Shippey; Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review Annual 1990 (Greenwood Press), edited by Robert A. Collins and Robert Latham; and Victorian Fantasy Literature (Edwin Mellen Press), by Karen Michalson. For those interested in science fiction in Other Lands, there was Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy (Indiana University Press), by David Ketterer, and Japanese Science Fiction: A View of a Changing Society (Routledge), by Robert Matthew. And for those more interested in individual authors, there
was a book-length interview with Michael Moorcock, Michael Moorcock: Death Is No Obstacle (Savoy), by Colin Greenland; a biography of Arthur C. Clarke, Arthur C. Clarke: The Authorized Biography (Contemporary), by Neil McAleer; and a book-length study of William Gibson, called, appropriately enough, William Gibson (Starmont House), by Lance Olsen.
Of the year’s art books, by far the best was James Gurney’s marvelous Dinotopia (Turner Publishing). Other artists in the field may paint dinosaurs better and more accurately than Gurney (Bob Walters, for instance, or Dougal Dixon), but Gurney here is unmatched for the imagination, creativity, and gentle whimsy that he brings to his wry and charming depiction of how human society might mingle with dinosaurs if the dinosaurs had not become extinct, and Gurney’s control of technique here is painterly and masterful, even in the pieces that don’t feature human-dinosaur interaction, such as the wonderfully evocative “Waterfall City.” I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see this book win Gurney a Hugo Award this year. Also worthwhile were: John Berkey Painted Space (Friedlander Publishing Group), John Berkey; Virgil Finlay’s Women of the Ages (Underwood-Miller), Virgil Finlay; The Fantasy Art Techniques of Tim Hildebrandt (Paper Tiger), Tim Hildebrandt; In the Garden of Unearthly Delights (Paper Tiger), Josh Kirby; and H.R. Giger’s Necronomicon II (Morpheus International), H.R. Giger.
In the general genre-related nonfiction field, the choice was also clear—the best general nonfiction book of the year was Bruce Sterling’s compelling The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier (Bantam). This isn’t strictly about science fiction, although plenty of science fiction writers are mentioned prominently, but it will certainly be of absorbing interest to anyone who is intrigued by computers and computer crime, concerned with First Amendment issues involving the repression of free speech, or fascinated by speculations on what effect the rapidly evolving “electronic community” will have on the lifestyles and mores of a not-too-distant future society. Speaking of the “electronic community,” some of that same territory is also explored in Arthur C. Clarke’s How the World Was One: Beyond the Global Village (Bantam), another interesting speculation on how the communications revolution is about to change—and already has changed, in fact—our lives in every detail from the most mundane to the most profound.
* * *
In spite of the presence of several box-office blockbusters, 1992 seemed (to me, anyway) like a rather lackluster year for genre films. There were lots of sequels, and most of them demonstrated once again that more is usually less—a lesson that you would have thought that Hollywood had had plenty of time to learn by now. At any rate, Batman Returns was even more disappointing than the original Batman—and I didn’t even like that all that much to begin with. Alien3 was disappointing, by far the worst of the Alien movies (perhaps they should have used that screenplay by Bill Gibson afterall, eh?)—at least Sigourney Weaver got chomped (reputedly by request) and so doesn’t have to worry about being stuck with doing another one of these … although after the lackluster box-office draw, that may not be too much of a possibility anyway. Honey, I Blew Up the Kid was also disappointing, lacking the naïve charm and energy of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. In fact, “disappointing” is a good word for many of 1992’s films, and is just as applicable for the same reasons when extended beyond strict genre boundaries: Lethal Weapon 3, for instance, was “disappointing,” not even as good as the second movie in the sequence, let alone the first, and even Home Alone 2, although it made scads of money, was fundamentally just an overblown rerun of the tropes of the original movie, played with less energy and verve the second time around. Since this has been true of the vast majority of movie sequels since Son of Kong—if not long before—you’d think that the movie industry would have caught on by this point. Usually they don’t even make all that much money—although every now and then a Terminator 2 or a Home Alone 2 makes a bizillion bucks, and then everyone goes sequel-crazy. I’m praying that there won’t be a Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 2. I might even be willing to make a small burnt offering to insure against it.
“Disappointing” isn’t a word that applies only to sequels, of course. The bulk of the original genre films of 1992 were disappointing as well. Toys was stunningly beautiful and creative in its set-design and its costuming and photography, but as a movie it was dull, heavyhandedly preachy, and ponderously coy, full of thudding elephantine whimsy—too bad they didn’t save some of that creativity for the script; even Robin Williams and Joan Cusack couldn’t save this one. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was handsome, glossy, glassy-eyed, and dead, like a stuffed panther in a museum case. Prelude to a Kiss was well-intentioned and well-acted, but ultimately rather glib and unsatisfactory, failing to come to grips with many of the more challenging aspects of its premise. Mel Gibson struggled manfully with the material in Forever Young, and did a credible job (especially in the scenes where he was interacting with the young boy), but leaky writing and holes in its plot logic you could fly a B-52 through without scraping the wingtips eventually scuttled the movie—interestingly, almost the identical thematic material was handed much more subtly and more satisfyingly in last year’s much less expensive and much less hyped Late for Dinner. Universal Soldier was sort of like Terminator 2 with everything that was good about that movie removed. Freejack had some good special effects, and some decent actors adrift in a rather muddled plotline. The Lawnmower Man had some good special effects—period. Death Becomes Her had some good jokes and some cute comicbook-grotesque special effects, but there was not really much there there, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was dumb but energetic. Encino Man was dumb. I hated Twin Peaks enough on television that I couldn’t bring myself to see Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me, so you’re on your own there.
The best fantasy movie of 1992 in many respects was Disney’s full-length animated feature Aladdin, which features some creative and (for Disney, anyway) unusually satirical animation and a funny and frentic over-the-top vocal performance by Robin Williams. (There were also some full-length animated features that didn’t do all that well: Cool World, Ferngully—The Last Rainforest, and Rock-A-Doodle—proving that, in spite of the immense box-office draw of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, animated films aren’t automatically the Road to Success.) Thunderheart was a well-acted intelligently scripted thriller with a strong, though subtly played, fantastic element drawn from American Indian mysticism. I myself didn’t go to see The Muppet Christmas Carol, but it’s gotten some good reviews and good word-of-mouth, and those who have seen it tell me that Michael Caine deserves some kind of special award for being able to give a serious and straight-faced performance as Scrooge while talking to felt pigs and frogs.
As usual, there were also tromping zombie legions of cheaply produced slasher/ serial killer/exploding head movies, as well as some big-budget horror films such as Sleepwalkers, Pet Semetary Two, and Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, and several entries in the new Killer Babysitter/Secretary/Roommate subgenre, such as The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, but I’ve burnt out on horror movies (a low-budget sleeper called Tremors from a couple of years back was the last one I actually enjoyed), and am rarely able to force myself to sit through them any more, so you’re on your own there, too.
My favorite movie of the year was Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven. I could justify a mention of it here by working up an elaborate rationale to the effect that its exactingly authentic portrayal of the real Wild West makes it as exotic as many an author’s alien planet, and just as capable of delivering profound Culture Shock … but, fuck it, I’m not going to bother. It’s a good movie. Go see it. I think you’ll like it.
Most of the excitement about genre material this year actually seemed to be on television, anyway, to consideration of which we turn next.
The long-awaited and often-postponed Sci-Fi Channel, a cable channel devoted entirely to, well, “Sci-Fi,” actually did debut this year, but we can’t get it here in Philadelphia, so I’m unable to comment personally on it—from wha
t I’ve read, though, and from what I’ve heard from others, it seems as if it’s mostly another excuse to recycle the sort of films that they make fun of on “Mystery Science Theater 3000.” Whether it’ll ever be more than that, I don’t know; I also don’t have any really firm idea how it’s doing financially, although one source said, vaguely, that it was doing “okay.” We’ll see.
Several genre-related shows came and went on television during 1992, the best of which was probably “The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles,” which may get a new lease on life in 1993. “Scorch,” “Nightmare Cafe,” and “Fish Police” were not very good, and quickly went down the tubes. “Eerie, Indiana” also died, as, I think, did “Hi, Honey, I’m Home” and “Charlie Hoover.” I still don’t like “Dinosaurs” or “Quantum Leap,” I’m tired of “The Simpsons,” and the big new Cult Favorite, “The Ren and Stimpy Show,” strikes me as overrated. “Star Trek: The Next Generation” is still probably the best science fiction show on television (and that includes the new SF series discussed below). The above-mentioned “Mystery Science Theater 3000” can be very funny indeed, although I get tired of it after a while and only rarely make it all the way through an episode. Fox’s new animated series, “Batman,” is surprisingly good and surprisingly intelligent, with some limited but effective animation, and good scripts—I actually like it better than the Batman theatrical movie and its sequel, if for no other reason than the fact that I don’t have to keep thinking how completely wrong Michael Keaton is for the part while I’m watching it. “Northern Exposure” is still one of the top shows on television, although the writing has slipped in quality somewhat this year (possibly because network bigwigs, having noticed the show, are now busily trying to “improve” it—that’s my guess, anyway), and still occasionally runs shows that have a fantastic element; Ed’s old Indian ghost made a return appearance this year, for instance.
The Year’s Best Science Fiction: Tenth Annual Collection Page 4
