I have been a long-time supporter of Grimdark Magazine (hereafter GdM). Fantasy stories featuring morally compromised protagonists doing the best they can in a flawed world appeal to me.
I have nominated the publisher Adrian Collins and editor Beth Tabler for the Best Editor, Short Fiction Hugo Award as well as the magazine itself in the appropriate category. They generally do a great job at finding interesting stories for GdM. GdM's anthology projects have also been outstanding.
To be clear, I wish them the best in their efforts to provide top-notch fantasy fiction to Grimdark fans and readers. I hope they continue to attract new customers.
I've traded emails with Adrian over the years and interacted with him on the Grimdark Readers and Writers group on Facebook. He's a great guy. I've also had some contact with Beth via an anonymous account. Again, a perfectly delightful individual.
The direction of the magazine has shifted over the last 12+ months. As a result, I have canceled my Patreon support for the magazine.
The short version is that I have less interest in reading GdM. I downloaded the 10th Anniversary issue (#40) and found that I had 4 or 5 issues that I had left unread. My motivation for reading GdM has apparently declined.
Issue #40 made it clear why I haven't been as interested in GdM. There has been a significant shift in the editorial objective of GdM.
In past years, it seemed that GdM was committed to publishing the best stories, interviews, and reviews within the Grimdark sub-genre. GdM didn't care who you were. If you could tell a great story, do a great interview, or write a compelling review, then they wanted to print your work.
The lead editorial in issue #40, by Krystle Matar, was titled "Grimdark, Home of the Other". In it, she proclaims:
The future of grimdark lies in its diversity.
Hogwash. The pursuit of diversity is absolutely a vice. Pursuing diversity at the expense of excellence harms everyone. It harms readers by neglecting to provide the very best writing possible. It harms authors by reducing the opportunities and incentives for them to refine their craft and tell the best stories possible.
My past practice was to skim through GdM interviews and reviews. I stopped doing even that much after running into far too many articles that included an identitarian "As a [inserted gender/ethnicity combination here], I feel...".
Their identity may well contribute to the types of stories an author tells. But it is not the measure of their ability as a writer. Can they tell a solid story?
One potential illustration of how an emphasis on diversity may be harming the genre is the first featured fiction story in GdM issue #40. "Little Mermaid, In Passing" by Angela Slatter was originally published in 2017. It is a fine enough story. It is also a derivative tale that relies on existing stories to tell a new one. If there were not enough solid stories in the slush pile to fill out this issue, then re-running a previously published story is a reasonable choice. But should an older, derivative work be the leading piece of fiction in an anniversary issue ahead of new and original work?
Story/interview/review selection and placement also tell the reader something about the priorities of a publication.
Being open to new perspectives and different sources of fiction is absolutely a virtue. While it is harmful to use diversity as a key performance indicator, everyone should be open to new perspectives and new sources of genre fiction. The doors should be open wide to everyone.
I enjoy the works of a wide range of authors. Currently, two authors whose works I almost automatically purchase have identity-related features that might surprise some. Reading the works of C.T. Rwizi and Rebecca Roanhorse is almost always a solid, entertaining experience. If you haven't experienced their fiction, please seek it out. You will not be disappointed.
I am a Hugo nominator and voter. I participate in that process because I value high-quality genre fiction regardless of the source. Being a nominator and a voter has led me to discover some outright gems.
The experience has also had disappointing moments as the small cadre of Hugo nominators appears to read and appreciate a very narrow range of works. It is a group that is sorely in need of diversification. But that is a subject for another day.
I might re-subscribe to GdM at some point in the future. My experience with the magazine has been positive, overall, even if there have been some recent disappointments. But for the moment, I'm taking a step back.
A final thought for Adrian and Beth, should they ever find this piece. There is a subtle but important difference between being open to a broad range of perspectives and purposefully subjugating quality storytelling to the purpose of representation.
If the very best submissions come from left-handed members of a tribe in Borneo, then so be it. The issue will not be very diverse, but it will be filled with great stories. The reverse is also true.
