Is it available somewhere to download?

Not that I am aware of.

Re Erickson, I think the problem is that his good work is spread across a bunch of books (almost all of them), and there's no one definitive career-summation work.

That didn't stop our old friend Joseph K. It is for this reason that the canon is skewed towards short story collections. It is more of a key figures list than a core text list.

None of which explains how a minor work by an author of little relevence to slipstream (Changing Planes) makes it so high up the list and Erickson and Barthelme who live and breathe this stuff appear so far down.

The voting threw up some surprising stuff too, like how much more widely M John Harrison was seen as influential than Christopher Priest.

Neither appear on the list though?

PS Aren't you proud of me for not mentioning Perdido Street Station?

Both Priest and Harrison appear on the list, but further down than the core 20-odd. I've emailed the Readercon magi and asked for them to forward/post the whole thing, which should make things clearer. Or, you know, not.

I think they must be on the "Other Important Non-Canonical Slipstream or Slipstream-related Writings" list, rather than the actual list. A weblink would be good.

Both Priest and Harrison appear on the list

No they don't. They're in the complete list of nominations, but not in the canon.

Huh. Memory was tricking me, then. (I certainly wound up talking more about Harrison with my co-panel-ees beforehand.) I should say, though, that I regarded all three lists as being part of the overall canon-y list-y thing. There were, so to speak, three concentric circles of canon-ness. Or something.

Looking at the choices it would appear that, amazingly, yours were some of the least insane.

(For example, I personally feel that Steve Erickson's work is quintessentially Slipstream, that he is the most characteristically Slipstream author—yet only one of his books made it onto the top-115, and that near the bottom.)

I am Ron Drummond.

On many levels, you're not.

As I said elsewhere, the problem with Erickson is that he has a bunch of more or less equally characteristic slipstream-y novels, rather than one career-defining work. I think they're all awesome, but maybe others had only read bits and pieces of his work.