My short story collection from Golden Gryphon, Nano Comes To Clifford Falls and Other Stories, is out, and so is the first review, Gary Wolfe's in Locus. Mostly favorable, the review uses my collection as a springboard for a discussion of craft, art, idea, and characters in SF. Wolfe's central point -- or what I take to be his central point, it's a complex discussion -- is that I do well at "craft," sometimes rise to "art," but have few new SF ideas and employ time-honored settings and tropes mostly mechanically.
I think this is fair. I don't have the dazzling ideas of a Bruce Sterling or Charles Stross, and that aspect of SF has never been important to me. How characters interact with the future, what a radical change in setting or technology does to the fabric of human interaction and to a person's sense of his or her place in the universe -- this is what I've aways loved best about all literature. Wolfe is right in saying that the heart of most of my stories could be recast in a mundane world. SF is to me a means of highlighting aspects of human nature, not an end in itself.
This raises a question, though, about the other aspect of my SF career: teaching. Currently I'm writing a critique for Virtual Clarion, an on-line workshop affiliated with Clarion in San Diego. The story I'm critiquing is the opposite of my own preferences: a military SF story focused on ideas. When I critique this sort of approach, whether for Clarion or any other class, I must be very careful to see the story the author wanted to write, not the one I would have written with the same material. It's not always easy.