Your favorite SF Editor?

Campbell, Bova, Hartwell, Strahan

Not Dozois - I think his selections are off, to be honest, and don't tend to enjoy his anthologies as much as others, as his books always seem to contain a good number of stories I don't like (or which are not SF, despite being in a SF anthology).
 
Second Hartwell. I liked the Windling/Datlow best ofs, though it's a love/hate relationship with Datlow. Paula Guran's anthologies are usually enjoyable, and I'd put in a good word for Anthony Boucher, the not-Campbell from the 1950s.

Randy M.
 
Hard for me to say because I simply have trouble with anthologies and short story collections of any sort probably the only short story collections I've completed are ones of Robert Heinlein and though he edited a set of stories to some extent--I've never read that collection.

But now that I'm thinking about it I do have Dangerous Visions edited by Harlan Ellison and though I have never read all the stories I sure do enjoy his introductions, so lets put him on the list despite the fact that on a personal level I've never cared for Harlan:I still do enjoy some of his fiction.
 
I believe that the best reprint anthology I ever read was Timeless Stories for Today and Tomorrow, edited by Ray Bradbury. Most of the stories were from mainstream authors, and all of them were excellent.

Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions and Again, Dangerous Visions stand alone among original anthologies, and I wish somebody would assemble the stories that were supposed to appear in The Last Dangerous Visions, even though some of them have shown up here and there over the years.

I don't really have a favorite among magazine editors or "best of the year" editors.
 
I think so. An editor is only as good as the material he has to work with. This was SF of a certain era and I like the era. Not everything was good, of course, but that is the stigma of every age.
 
I think so. An editor is only as good as the material he has to work with. This was SF of a certain era and I like the era. Not everything was good, of course, but that is the stigma of every age.
Fair enough. I guess my thinking is that he was just about the only editor, so I’m not sure I can judge his quality.
 
I think so. An editor is only as good as the material he has to work with. This was SF of a certain era and I like the era. Not everything was good, of course, but that is the stigma of every age.

From what Ive read , Hugo Gernsback's reputation among writers was not good.
 
I remember reading somewhere that H.P. Lovecraft himself referred to Gernsback as Hugo the rat.

It had to do with the story The Color of Space. Gernsback was to pay Lovecraft five hundred dollars for the story but instead, only paid him twenty five dollars.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top