Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Difficult Times For SF Magazines

Posted by kdawson on from the genre-you-save-may-be-your-own dept.

Lawrence Person writes "Another speculative fiction magazine folds: Realms of Fantasy is ceasing publication. This comes hot on the heels of the announcement that the venerable Fantasy and Science Fiction will be moving from a monthly to a bimonthly schedule, and underscores what a tough environment this is for science fiction and fantasy magazines, all of which have suffered declining circulation for quite some time. This is a real problem, since short fiction is generally where new writers cut their teeth, appearing in print alongside their more famous peers. Given that a one-year subscription costs less than the average video game, those with an interest in science fiction might want to consider buying subscriptions to Asimov's, Fantasy and Science Fiction, and Analog. (Those in the UK might want to add Interzone and/or Black Static and Postscripts as well.)"

50 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Online uptake? by dov_0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe people are doing most of their reading on online? Spending too much time on /.?

    --
    sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    1. Re:Online uptake? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or the Bean Free Library. http://www.baen.com/library/ Also a good place for authors starting out.

    2. Re:Online uptake? by Chelloveck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or Jim Baen's Universe, a darned fine science-fiction and fantasy magazine published in electronic format only.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    3. Re:Online uptake? by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I pretty much agree with you. I've read a shit load of fantasy and s.f. over the years, but as I've gotten older, I've found much of it less satisfying. The truth of the matter as I see it is that a large portion of fantasy/s.f. is akin to those trashy romance books that my grandmother used to read by the hundred. They're geek porn.

      Just to be clear, it's not the the entire genres are bad--it's that a lot of what is popular and people read are popcorn fluff. There's still a lot of really good fantasy and s.f. lit out there, it's just not always readily apparent.

    4. Re:Online uptake? by yog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can't someone post an oppositional opinion on slashdot without being modded "troll" or "flamebait" or the even more senseless "overrated"? The guy's got a right to an opinion, however off the beaten path he may be.

      The entire publishing industry--magazines, newspapers, and books--is in trouble these days; the traditional hard copy distribution system is breaking down and there's no clear alternative that will provide authors and publishers a similar level of employment.

      Millions of us have basically switched from reading books (or watching TV, which is the original book-and-magazine killer) during evenings and weekends to interactive media--cable/satellite TV and, increasingly, the internet.

      Probably a majority of people now get their daily news hit from the internet, and after a couple of hours of surfing there's just not much mental space left to sit down with a magazine, except maybe on the toilet.

      I foresee a time when hard copy is basically a thing of the past, with some kind of cheap, reusable or recyclable programmable paper replacing grab-and-read magazines at the supermarket check-out line (if indeed we will still have supermarkets). I think Neal Stephenson in "The Diamond Age" did a great job describing future books and magazines with multimedia graphics dancing on the pages in place of plain old static ink.

      Since there's still a huge market for creating compelling content, it stands to reason that we'll find a way to charge for it. Maybe in the end it will come down to advertising or else a pay-if-you-like-it approach that will probably eliminate the large production houses that make movies and TV shows today.

      I used to love taking home a science fiction magazine--Analog was my favorite--but today there's just so much stuff available for free, and real life has caught up with so much of science fiction today that it seems more interesting to read about real world developments. Isaac Asimov in an introduction to one of his collections wrote about growing up in the 1920s and 1930s when real world science progressed at a much slower pace, and every new issue of Analog had this special glow around it as he retrieved it from the magazine rack and paid his ten cents. Now that was a time!

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    5. Re:Online uptake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can't someone post an oppositional opinion on slashdot without being modded "troll" or "flamebait" or the even more senseless "overrated"?
      Yes, and it happens all the time. He's not a troll because he disagrees. He's a troll because he insults.

    6. Re:Online uptake? by troll8901 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't someone post an oppositional opinion on slashdot without being modded "troll" or "flamebait" or the even more senseless "overrated"?

      Well said.

      Maybe if I change his text as follows:

      That, or they're like me and choose to spend their reading time with Joyce, Fitzgerald or Faulkner instead of reading about some imaginative distance future that will be outdated in 10 years. Fantasy is even less appealing to me.

      I'm not into sci-fi and fantasy, you insensitive clods!

      You know, he has a point. I think a reason why "2001: A Space Odyssey" is so popular is because it's so far ahead, that people are willing to suspend their beliefs. Imagine producing this film in 1990. People will be laughing and criticizing it.

    7. Re:Online uptake? by JickL · · Score: 2, Informative

      The introduction to the Baen Free Library really is a quite excellent comment on how piracy actually works and how to take advantage of it. Check it out!

    8. Re:Online uptake? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I nowadays simply avoid scifi. Fantasy is not ashamed to entertain, while scifi tries to be "high literature" and fails miserably at it, or a parody which, while entertaining, is the equivalent of ice cream cone: you can't live on those alone. There are exceptions on either side, of course; but they are few and far between, so it's just not worth the bother.

      How dare you blaspheme against Muad'dib!

  2. these things still exist? by j1mmy · · Score: 3, Informative

    i thought they died out in the 60s

    1. Re:these things still exist? by rlseaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They started their decline about the time Astounding turned into Analog (around the time of Sputnik), but really the SF magazines are being dragged to their death from above. Having grown up reading science fiction, I'm now embarrassed to be seen anywhere near that section of a book store. The speculative aspect of the genre has been completely lost. The adolescent drivel has triumphed. But then, short fiction of all types is endangered.

      Of course, written science fiction of all types has been diluted by the inanity of Hollywood. For instance, Gort was the Martian emissary in the original short story of "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Instead, we get Michael Rennie (or Keanu) as a leading man.

    2. Re:these things still exist? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No they haven't died out, the heydey of Analog was actually in the 60's. Analog went through a few years when it was published in a large format offset printed magazine with some very nice artwork. And the content was wonderful. Among other things Dune was serialized in Analog during those years.

      There was some good stuff in the 70's too. Joe Haldeman's Forever War, which Ridley Scott is planning to make into a movie first appeared as a serial in Analog then.

      I still have my old large format Analogs in a box in my garage. I've been a continuous subscriber for 43 years... since I was about 12. It is now quite painful to read knowing the former glory. I have about 3 years of back issues now that I haven't read.

      The publication volume numbers are also painful to look at. They are less than 10% of what they were in the 60's.

      Given the tough economy and the general trend away from the sciences and worse yet reading anything longer than a web page it would not surprise me to see Analog stop publication for a while. Or forever.

  3. Their subscription model is screwed up. by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been buying Asimov, Analog, and S&SF for a LONG time, but I won't subscribe to them. The extra cost involved if you don't live in the US means it's the same price - or less - to buy it at the local book store. AND, unlike when I *did* subscribe, it arrives at the book store a month earlier. WTF is up with that? What are they doing - taking back the overstock and mailing it out to subscribers?

    1. Re:Their subscription model is screwed up. by microcars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I publish a magazine, so I understand what the problem is:
      When the magazine is printed, one pile gets sent to the magazine distributor who gets them to the bookstores.
      They have a relatively efficient system and they get to the stores in a timely manner.

      The other pile goes to the mailing distributor who puts labels on them and then they are at the mercy of the USPS.
      These are NOT sent First Class Mail, but Periodical rate or "STANDARD" (used to be called BULK)

      It can take from a week to 4 weeks for the mailed copies to make their way across the USA.
      I have seen people on both coasts get theirs while other people that are a 6 hour drive from where they were originally mailed wait 4 weeks!

      Some mail bags are held until there is "enough" mail to get moved from a main USPS point to someplace else. All this used to work much better when there was a lot of other BULK mail in the system, but now that there is less, a lot of this stuff just sits waiting for enough for a full truckload or something.
      It is extremely frustrating and has gotten much worse in the last year.

      This is how it works for smaller publications.
      Larger ones like TIME, NEWSWEEK, etc have their own PRIVATE Distribution system that gets all the magazines delivered to the main Post Offices around the country so they can ALL be delivered on a Friday or Saturday and that is when they also hit the Newstands.
      They can benefit from the economies of scale of their operation, smaller pubs cannot.

      --
      I like microcars
    2. Re:Their subscription model is screwed up. by JohnBailey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but if you buy it at a bookstore the checkout clerk will be able to judge you for your terrible taste.

      Only a problem for those insecure enough to care.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  4. Well worth it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Subscribe to these magazines. I have particular experience with Analog & Asimov's and the amount of quality stories in each issue is quite high, providing many hours of good reading each month.

    I would have never discovered either if it weren't for downloading 'illegal' digital copies via IRC. One of the biggest problems of these magazines is people just don't know, the more exposure they get the better off they will be. I would advise them to freely post a certain number of back issues online to entice potential subscribers. I think they need to re-invent their content delivery model if they want to stay afloat. It would be a great loss if they faded away.

  5. Not just Science Fiction magazines by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Magazines in general are hurting. Mad magazine also cut down from being a monthly magazine to being a quarterly. It's rival, Cracked, has been doing well because they adapted to the internet (cracked.com vs mad's crappy website).

    Sorry guys, it's a brave new world, it's not 1984 anymore. Get with the program.

    BTW, I don't read a lot anymore, but besides the odd fanfiction (fanfiction.net), I find fictionpress for original stuff a decent place to read. Perhaps there are others. The problem is (and what magazines with editors used to do) was picking out the gems from the crap. There are various ways to do this on those type of sites, but many still still don't make any effort and dump the whole lot of listings on you.

    1. Re:Not just Science Fiction magazines by artor3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW, I don't read a lot anymore, but besides the odd fanfiction (fanfiction.net), I find fictionpress for original stuff a decent place to read. Perhaps there are others. The problem is (and what magazines with editors used to do) was picking out the gems from the crap. There are various ways to do this on those type of sites, but many still still don't make any effort and dump the whole lot of listings on you.

      Having not read much amateur writing myself, I think you make an interesting point. I wonder if a magazine like F&SF could have any success by having a website on which anyone could submit stories, and their editors read through, find the good ones and publish them. All the stories could be available for users to browse through and rate, but the prospect of being put into print might attract more authors and make the site a success.

    2. Re:Not just Science Fiction magazines by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having not read much amateur writing myself, I think you make an interesting point. I wonder if a magazine like F&SF could have any success by having a website on which anyone could submit stories, and their editors read through, find the good ones and publish them. All the stories could be available for users to browse through and rate, but the prospect of being put into print might attract more authors and make the site a success.

      Probably not. The sticking point is-- how do you pay the editor? Editors (of the good/reputable magazines, at least) tend to be educated, and have a knack for the language, and are in tune with the "art" of writing. In short, they're talented, and this is their livleyhood. Given that:

      1) You pay for these editors

      2) You use free editors.

      With #1, you need a website making money to pay them for making the content of the website good enough to pay money for. I wonder if ouroboros.com is available?

      With #2, you're hoping for the best. You might get good editors, you might not. Would you want to read fiction controlled by Wikipedia editors?

      The last thing is the sheer volume of entries you'll get. Just ask any editor about the slush pile. Buy them a drink first. F&SF has a turn-around time of about 2-3 weeks-- and that is a phenomenal feat. Most magazines will take 1-2 months for a submission to make it through the queue. That's a lot of submissions, given that people (in most cases) still need to snail mail it. Can you imagine what will happen when you open it up electronically, and everyone including every Harry Potter/Picard fanfic writer submits? That is a lot of slush.

      I'm not saying it's not possible, but it would be quite the challenge to find a working, profitable sweet spot between amature free-for-all and professional tightly-run-ship

      --
      UTF-8: There and Back Again
  6. New Writers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As an unpublished writer myself, I think what this means is that writers are going to have to get their starts by posting their stories on the Internet. If they write well, perhaps they will build a following, and that will make it easier for them to get published by more regular means (which pay better, but beginners never made that much money anyway).

    It is too bad for me that I seem to complete one short story or novella every four years, but that is my own problem... I could always put out the stories I have...

    Posting on the Internet is currently easier for novelists than it is for short story writers. Magazines want first serial rights and that means they want to get your story before the Internet does. Book publishers don't care so much about being first as about having exclusivity. So you can put your book out, and if it becomes popular, some publisher might pick it up without you having to write another one. But then book publishers prefer to keep a book in print for a while, if it keeps selling.

    It can still work for short story writers to give stories away, but only if they complete stories fairly often. If I could complete a story every month, I could offer it to the magazines first and then put it on the Net. Maybe eventually I would write something good enough that a magazine might decide to catch the next one...

    1. Re:New Writers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The issue (pardon the pun) is that having one's story in print physically sitting on store shelves gives one significantly more notority than having a story on a website. Internet only, its extremely difficult to separate the good writings from someone's crossover slash fanfic of Drizzt on Legolas while being flogged by Commander Rico under the supervision of Corwin, with many Lensmen watching the show.

      I am going to subscribe to the magazines mentioned. Even if I don't read them, there is something nice about reading a book and quality fiction, as opposed to having to separate the good stuff from the garbage. Call me an old fogie, but I can't bear to sit on a computer and read even a short story. I rather buy a book.

    2. Re:New Writers by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an unpublished writer myself, I think what this means is that writers are going to have to get their starts by posting their stories on the Internet. If they write well, perhaps they will build a following, and that will make it easier for them to get published by more regular means (which pay better, but beginners never made that much money anyway).

      The problem is, it's like indie music. First, publishing on the Internet doesn't mean you'll get noticed. You may have written mankind's best SF story, but if it sits in some dark corner of the Internet that no one ends up going to, well, it sits, stagnant. You can get a few hits by using blogs and what not, but driving traffic that way gets difficult, fast. If you're lucky you'll get hit with some article in a newspaper or popular website.

      That's why the magazines got people discovered - you had the usual brand-name authors beside the more obscure ones. Flipping through the mag trying to get to a story, you may stop by the obscure author's few closing words, get intrigued, and read from the beginning. Others do the same, and some obscure author gets boosted. Or heck, being stuck with the mag and having nothing else to do, you may read some of the other stories to pass time.

      A website trying to emulate this behavior won't have the same effect - if you stick with the standard Table Of Contents model, people reading a certain author will just click straight to that author's story and stop. Then they'd go off for their next distraction (another website), while the more obscure authors go unclicked.

      While the mag's story has a few lines to possibly hook a reader, a website only has the title/subtitle to do so (leading to the "Short Catchy Title - Long explanatory subtitle" titling format we see today).

      But I suppose the demise of the mags comes from the fact that quality is going down - good authors don't need mags - they'll just post it online and get other blogs to generate traffic for them. The so-so kind either try to submit into a mag and hope, or expect to post it on the Internet and have it magically generate publicity to them. Unfortunately, getting noticed on the Internet is difficult, because with literally everyone publishing, there's way too much content out there.

    3. Re:New Writers by YourExperiment · · Score: 4, Funny

      crossover slash fanfic of Drizzt on Legolas while being flogged by Commander Rico under the supervision of Corwin, with many Lensmen watching the show

      I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your magazine.

  7. Which to get? by urbanmapper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, I'm game. I have always loved SF, and read quite a lot of it. I have never got into the magazines, though. Which are your favorites, and why?

    1. Re:Which to get? by htiefshorty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a matter of taste. Analog is more geared towards hard SciFi. There are also science articles geeky enough to make anyone happy. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction accepts, well, fantasy and science fiction. Even the occasional ghost story. Stephen King publishes in F&SF. I think Flowers for Algernon was first published there. Analog has published more Nova winning stories in recent years.

  8. Re:Two words... fan fic by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    fanfic is the craigslist of the publishing world.

    And just like craigslist, 2/3 of it deals with sex and some kind of disturbing fetish.

  9. A real problem? by Facegarden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the summary:
    "This is a real problem, since short fiction is generally where new writers cut their teeth..."

    A real problem my ass... I'm sure new writers can find a place on the internet all the same. In fact, anyone who really thinks it's a problem should go start a site right now. With the right business model, you could provide the same service to new writers and readers alike. There are all kinds of ways this could be done where writers even get paid.

    There is no problem, chill out. Print media is dead, the internet is the new library... or something. Either way, calling this a problem is like when the RIAA thought the internet was a problem for music... but it was really the answer to better accessibility.
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    1. Re:A real problem? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are sure.... I'm not. I don't know of any place on the Internet where an author can get paid for a science fiction story.

      It is very hard way to make a living. The only way Niven was able to get started was because he had the right parents. Asimov had a flexible day job.

      The pulps dying is a bad sign.

    2. Re:A REAL problem? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They can make more selling google ads on any blog site than they ever could have getting published in a low-volume sifi rag.

      Speaking from experience:

      Bullshit.

      Seriously. It's not as easy, nor as profitable, as you think. Furthermore, your stupid (and it really is stupid) assumption that a blog will provide the same kind of exposure is...well, exactly that: stupid. The magazines are used to find out who are the good authors. Somebody published in Analog is automatically considered better than Joe Fuckstick who posts his stories on a blog, no matter how many readers he has. The separation of wheat from chaff is largely done there.

      (This excludes stuff like Jim Baen's Universe, which are online magazines of wonderful quality. You can get Analog and the rest through Fictionwise just fine, too, however, though that's not where the majority of their subscribers come from by any means.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    3. Re:A real problem? by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know of any place on the Internet where an author can get paid for a science fiction story.

      At pro rates (ie, SFWA qualifying), there's Jim Baen's Universe and Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show. There are a few others around (eg, Raygun Revival) that pay quite a bit less than pro rates. (And even pro fiction rates are far, far below typical non-fiction rates. Back when, Byte magazine paid me for an article the better part of an advance on a first novel, and that's not too atypical.)

      But the exposure on the internet fiction sites is far below what the magazines, even in these days of declining circulation, can give. And you can pick up a magazine years later and 'discover' an author you hadn't read before, but internet stories are (often) evanescent.

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:A real problem? by Nekomusume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Real publishers, as a general rule, don't count anything that was only published online as a real credit. Being printed in a reputable magazine means your work has withstood editorial scrutiny. The web is basicly a huge step down from vanity presses in their eyes. They don't really count those either. On the internet, you're basicly an independant. If you don't already have a name for yourself, good luck getting anyone to read your work, because nobody will find your work in the first place, amongst other issues.

    5. Re:A real problem? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have 100+ rejection slips (not including emails) disagree with you. Writing is hard. Publishing is harder. Whether in print or online, things are not getting any better.

  10. A REAL problem? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > This is a real problem, since short fiction is generally where new writers cut their teeth,

    Hello! This is the future calling. You know, the one the SIFI writers have been writing about all this time...?!?

    The writers have the web. They can make more selling google ads on any blog site than they ever could have getting published in a low-volume sifi rag.

    I don't see this as a "Problem" for anyone except the publisher, and even they were clearly not in it for profit. It's just another example of people rationally abandoning their failed business model for a more high-tech one.

    Do this: Grab last year's copies of any of these rags and google some of the authors you find in there. You will find they are not dead, merely transported to another reality.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  11. I subscribe to four SF Magazines Electronically by sehlat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jim Baen's Universe - http://www.baens-universe.com/

    Always been electronic, and I'll keep this subscription going as long as I'm breathing.
    Worth every penny of what they charge and there are membership bonuses. Some of the
    best short fiction I can find comes out of this shop.

    Fictionwise - www.fictionwise.com Carries Analog, Asimov's and F&SF. I've had
    subscriptions to all three since 2000 and intend to continue them until either they
    or I fold.

    Print may be dead, but these guys publish zero-DRM and I can stuff them into my Palm and
    go. That was the approach that got me back into reading science fiction.

    1. Re:I subscribe to four SF Magazines Electronically by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think magazines like Analog, Asimov's and Fantasy and Science Fiction should AGGRESSIVELY pursue other means of distribution besides the printed magazine format. Why aren't they making their magazine available in encrypted PDF, Amazon Kindle or Sony Reader format? Or just as good, have the stories in these magazines available as an audiobook from Audible.com?

    2. Re:I subscribe to four SF Magazines Electronically by sehlat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you go to www.fictionwise.com?

      The entry on Analog's April 2009 issue reads:

      Available eBook Formats [MultiFormat - What's this?]: Adobe Acrobat (PDF) [1.1 MB], Adobe Acrobat - Large Print (PDF) [1.2 MB], eReader (PDB) [310 KB], Palm Doc (PDB) [230 KB], Rocket/REB1100 (RB) [251 KB], Microsoft Reader (LIT) [813 KB] - PocketPC 1.0+ Compatible, Franklin eBookMan (FUB) [263 KB], hiebook (KML) [1.2 MB], Sony Reader (LRF) [985 KB], iSilo (PDB) [207 KB], Mobipocket (PRC) [547 KB], Kindle Compatible (MOBI) [601 KB], OEBFF Format (IMP) [390 KB]

      That enough formats for you? Note, Multiformat == Zero DRM.

  12. Science Fiction? by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a "Science Fiction" bookstore near where I live, and they've shifted gradually towards carrying mostly fantasy.

    Genuine Science Fiction has always been rather thin on the ground. Doing it well is *hard*. Hal Clement was one who did it well. Larry Niven occasionally did it well. (Known Worlds series incl. Ringworld et seq.)

    Currently I only know of Charles Stoss, though there may be others. (I've cut back on my reading a lot.)

    But a thing to note is...the Science Fiction book store near me doesn't care the magazines regularly. They can't get the distributors to deliver them. And this is in the SF Bay Area, California, USA. Books they can get, but not magazines.

    Unfortunately, in my opinion the quality of the single magazine I followed regularly, Analog(Astounding) has also deteriorated. Significantly. Very significantly. So much so that a subscription is practically a waste of money. (There have been a few periods when I also regularly followed Galaxy or Worlds of If...but those are now decades in the past.)

    And it's not that I don't still like good Science Fiction...or even good fantasy. I still buy many books. (*Almost* all of which I count as fantasy of one sort or another...but NOT Science Fiction.)

    I wish Randall Garrett had lived. *He* could have written decent Science Fiction in the current age. (He wasn't just the Lord Darcy series. There were long periods when he was the most prolific writer that J.W. Campbell had writing for him...under lots of pseudonyms.) He wouldn't have written the same stories that Charles Stoss writes...and nobody will ever know what he would have written. Sigh.

    But, in my opinion, most of the magazines don't really deserve to live. It's a real pity, because the magazines is where authors used to develop their skills. Now ... now there doesn't seem to be any decent place for such development. Which means that the people who can become authors are far fewer.

    On line? Who pays for on line? IMHO that only works if you are already a well enough known name that a publisher will pick up your work anyway. (I.e., even if they don't have exclusive rights to distribution.) A few authors can get away with that.

    Science Fiction has always been a shoe-string operation. And SF magazines have always been VERY highly dependent upon their editor. A change of editors can make a weak magazine or break a strong one. Astounding/Analog was extremely lucky in having Campbell for so long. Galaxy was lucky in HL Gold. Asimov's ... faded rapidly when he did. I don't think that Stanley Schmidt was as good an editor as Campbell (average rating...Campbell sure had his off periods!), but he was more than adequate. But he didn't keep the spark going. He didn't have the fire that inspires authors and readers. Recently...I haven't been following. Occasionally I see one and pick it up. But rarely...meaning I rarely see one. When I do see one, I'm rarely inspired to buy it.

    All magazines are falling off, but Science Fiction magazines have always lived closer to the edge...so any fall off in business affects them more profoundly.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:Science Fiction? by StonyCreekBare · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I agree that Analog has really, seriously deteriorated. I have been a subscriber since the 1950's. I would eagerly await each issue, devour it in a single sitting, and then impatiently await the next one.

      A few years ago I began to notice I was reading fewer and fewer stories. For every one I enjoyed, there would be one that was inane and incomprehensible. Then there would be more and more worthless ones, and fewer and fewer good ones.

      When I began to see more and more issues that were entirely devoid of Science Fiction content, and filled with inane trash, I became more and more unhappy with them. I started just tossing each new issue on the shelf unopened, perhaps getting around to checking them out weeks later.

      I finally realized I hadn't found an issue worth reading in over a year, and renewal time came up. I wrote them a nice letter and explained why I was dropping them. I promised to check the newsstand issues for content and that I would resubscribe when I started seeing something I wanted to read. That was three years ago.

      They've been dead a long time. It is time to bury the corpse.

      Stony

    2. Re:Science Fiction? by Marticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sean Williams.

      (Then of course, there's Peter Hamilton, Vernor Vinge, Stephen Baxter, Iain M. Banks...)

  13. science fiction vs fantasy by Xolom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SF ceased to be SF long ago. walk into a bookstore, and you'll see books with a cover of a giant muscular thor-looking dude with a huge sword fighting a dragon. that is NOT SF. that is fantasy. that killed true SF (such as heinlein)

    1. Re:science fiction vs fantasy by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly, yes. SF has turned primarily into cyberpunk/biopunk, which is fine (and enjoyable too) and Star Wars knockoffs. Once in a while there are some good surprises, but few and far between these days. :-(

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    2. Re:science fiction vs fantasy by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't really agree with this. There's ALWAYS been crap pulp fiction out there. From Buck Rogers to Asimov's lesser known Lucky Star series etc. S.f.'s origin was not always a lofty highbrow enterprise! Today's pulp fiction stories are every bit as much true s.f. or fantasy as were the pulp fiction of the 1920s.

      I would also draw a divide between s.f. and fantasy....but anyway.

      The difference between then and now--imho--is that the Asimovs, Heinleins, de Camps, etc etc etc are gone, and they haven't really been replaced. My other opinion is that s.f. was largely a product of the zeitgeist of the what, roughly 50 years that it roughly flourished (1920-1970 or so?). We've got HDTVs, the Internet, Star Trek and Star Wars on TV, rovers on Mars, decoding DNA, etc etc. The sense of wonder in s.f. is largely gone because we take so much for granted that was virtually unimaginable back then.

  14. Realms of Fantasy kind of sucks by Khaed · · Score: 2, Informative

    I really don't mean to be a troll with this. But I wanted to read RoF in order to see what kind of short stories were being published, and so I subscribed for a year.

    Most of the story content during the year I subscribed came across as snooty/snobby artsy fartsy junk fantasy. At least as far as I can recall. I have like, zero standards when it comes to reading science fiction/fantasy so long as I can pronounce the character names without needing a guide, and this stuff turned me off. Seriously, I went through a phase where fantasy stories were like crack, and these guys couldn't publish one story in a year that made me feel like the subscription was worth it.

    Maybe some of their problem comes from the fact a bunch of people didn't like the content? Content is everywhere. If you want someone to pay for content, it has to be more entertaining or valuable than they can get for free. I can get snooty art fantasy all I want at deviantart for free.

  15. Intergalactic Medicine Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Orson Scott Card publishes a great, DRM-free, electronic-only magazine called Intergalactic Medicine Show. They don't publish on a set schedule, so you can't buy a subscription, but you can sign up (for free) to have them email you every time a new issue comes out.

    One of the nice things about their lack of schedule is that they don't have any pressure to "fill" an issue and get it to press on time: they collect good stories as they come along, until an issue is truly ready.

    Another aspect of this medium which is a bit of a mixed blessing: no page limits. They don't have to cut stories down to size to get them to "fit," which means that they don't have to sacrifice any part of the story. Unfortunately, it also means that they can be less disciplined about their wordiness.

  16. I just put down the science fiction magazine by DavidHumus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was reading in my comfortable chair, three feet away from where I'm now typing this.

    Am I the only one who still finds it more comfortable to curl up with a book than to read a screen?

    I really, really like modern digital stuff as much as any slashdotter out there but a book, or magazine, is still a superior technology in many ways: it needs no power, it's durable, I can stuff it into a pocket and take it with me, I can read anywhere there's enough light, from any position I find comfortable; if I lose it or drop it in the bathtub, no big whoop.

    Some of these advantages would go away if I had one of these new-fangled readers, I suppose, rather than the laptop I mostly use but dead trees are still more "user-friendly".

  17. RoF deserved to fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem with this story? RoF deserved to fail years ago. Shawna McCarthy and friends have been publishing the most unimaginative, lame-footed fantasy and milquetoast editorials in the business and made the entire genre look like guilty pleasure mush for middle aged women. Even the barest acknowledgment of slipstream fiction, edgier urban fantasy, or anything genre-bending in the way that moves things forward would have saved them. It has nothing to do with "print is dead" -- it has everything to do with being out of touch with the larger audience.

    But, alas, now they're taking down a full-color glossy with street cred. Writers will suffer, regardless of what business model emerges.

  18. Actually by Renraku · · Score: 2, Informative

    The entire magazine distribution system in the United States is about to crumble. Two of the major wholesalers/distributors..Source and Anderson..have decided to up their rates to cover costs. Since they never upped their rates before, like most other companies.

    Now the publishers, for the most part, are telling them to go fuck themselves.

    Expect to see a major disruption and change in the way all magazines are handled in the US.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  19. Buy An Ad by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These magazines carry almost no advertising, which is where the money is. Maybe that's because their sales people aren't pushing hard enough. But, I suspect it is really due to poor and declining circulation numbers combined with the widespread assumption that everyone who reads science fiction is an adolescent acne-ridden geek with no money.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  20. The difference between Sci-Fi and Fantasy by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > But there's a difference between fantasy and science fiction: scifi tries to "explore the human
    > condition", while fantasy tries to entertain.

    You couldn't be more wrong. The line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy is simply that Sci-Fi makes an attempt to ask "what if" while constrained by the limit that what is proposed COULD possibly be while Fantasy disposes of that limitation. Both should 'explore the human condition' AND 'entertain' if they hope to find success. Lord of the Rings is most certainly fantasy yet asks quite a few questions about the larger moral issues concerning duty, loyalty, power and it's abuse, etc. Meanwhile lots of Sci-Fi doesn't, getting too lost in the tech to remember to relate it back to people and how it might impact US. And then there is the stuff that calls itself Sci-Fi and is just fantasy tarted up with spaceships and rayguns. (I'm looking at you Mr. Lucas.)

    Note that you have to give a historical qualifier with my rather strict Sci-Fi definition. If it COULD be when written it counts even if we later learn it couldn't. And it helps to be rather generous and even allow a few things in teh name of artistic license. If the story is ABOUT FTL travel the author is obliged to be exploring a new proposal in that area and talk a bit about the science. But if that isn't what the story is about ya have to let em get away with the usual handwaving about warp|hyperspace|wormholes|etc so they can get on with their story. Because it is still a little early to say FTL is 100% impossible and without it a while bunch of stories aren't possible to tell.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  21. It's a minor miracle by gevantry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's a minor miracle that the print SF/F magazines are still making a go of it. They have always had a precarious fingerhold in the first place, compared to other publications. Nowadays, with major newspapers like The New York Times and Chicago Tribune having a tough go of it, I'm surprised that Asimov's, Analog, and F&SF are still managing print versions. Lately it's all moving online, which is where I expect to see the SF/F zines to eventually migrate.