Warren Ellis on the state of the big three of fantasy and scifi magazines:
ASIMOV’S, ANALOG, F&SF; they don’t think they need saving. I mean, they haven’t changed for years, have they? They’re not designed to be wanted because they don’t want to be wanted, not really. They want to be left alone to do their thing, and they don’t want any loud new people in the room. They serve a dwindling audience, and they have to be aware of that so they have to be in it to simply serve that audience, to provide that presumably cosy experience to their people until the last light goes out. Otherwise they would have done something different years ago. This is why those three magazines have a web presence that can charitably be described as vestigial.
The man has a point. I look at the covers of some of these magazines and I see images too similar to what I saw in 1985, or even earlier, cover art that wasn’t even progressive when Omni’s covers looked roughly the same in 1979. It’s sad to me, as a writer, because those are the shining three beacons of publishing success–at least in the short fiction market–for a speculative fiction author. Mr. Ellis is speculating on writing another article on what might be done to save them and I’ll be very interested to see it. For my own part I subscribe to both Asimov’s and F&SF, but I’m not particularly happy with either. Of course, I always believe they’d do much better if they’d publish some of my stuff :-)
Also see this article by the same man, and this one by someone else entirely (Cory Doctorow).
And I’ll end this in the same way Warren ended his article:
And then someone else asked me why there’s still an sf magazine called “Analog.”
Update: 10-24-07
John Scalzi has thrown his voice into the fray on this topic which has attracted a lot of attention. He’s given this useful quote, a bit of positive spin for a guy like me, who (so far) has no large readership or SFFWA publishing credits to his name:
I suspect it’s not that hard to raise consciousness of new work online to the level you’ll find in the pages of the Big Three, given their current circulation numbers. That gives emerging writers a way to build careers outside those magazines, and it means the Big Three run a further risk of isolating themselves, both from where science fiction literature is going, and from the audiences building around these new writers.
And Warren has added to his original thought with another post.
If you liked that post, then try these...
Review: Greatest Uncommon Denominator Magazine (GUD) on November 18th, 2007
Tor on March 19th, 2008
Mermaid on November 13th, 2007
Scalzi's ARC contest on May 19th, 2008
October 28th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
So what do you think of other mags trying to break into it? Some of us are trying awfully hard to be dynamic. Here’s Greatest Uncommon Denominator Magazine’s response so far:
http://www.gudmagazine.com/blog/archive/2007/10/28/the-life-and-times-of-a-startup-magazine/
October 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I think the impending demise of the “big three” couldn’t mean anything but good news for smaller markets trying to become big markets. In fact, at this stage in the game, it’ll likely be the smaller markets that wind up killing the larger ones, who’ve become static, stuck in the 1950s and are unwilling to open their eyes and see that the world is no longer “Analog.”
October 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’ll keep my fingers crossed. ;) I have a regular subscription to F&SF and have had for years–it’s always fun-not always _great_, but it definitely fills a niche, I think, and I’m glad it exists.
At the same time, it feels more like a decline in readers–but perhaps that’s the smaller presses “diluting” the market, each taking a tiny share. Not enough for any (or many) of them to live on, but enough to make a dent.
I’ll keep striving, of course. :)
Any interest in a PDF of GUD to consider mentioning on your blog at some point, good or bad? :)
October 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Absolutely! I’d love to give it a read… although I’ll warn you if I like it you’ll likely be getting a sub or two from me ;-)
Also: I was thinking about your comment later this afternoon and it occurs to me that the small presses are steadily overtaking the “Big Three,” not individually, but en masse, y’know? In that way, it’s entirely possible that the success of the forward-thinking small presses may very well spell the end for the big presses which are stuck in the past. It’s just something you don’t hear about very much, you know? The little guys beating up the big guys? … I don’t know, this is a topic that could keep me talking for a long, long time. /rant
October 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Cool. Umm. Email me ? I’m not seeing an easy contact address anywhere here. :)
We’re always open to submissions (we’re currently reading on the theme “mechanical flight” - though pieces under 1000 words are considered ignoring that theme).
It’s an interesting picture, the little guys beating up the big guys. But really we’re all trying to fish from the same small pond… the big guys are getting enough to feed themselves–they’ve got the fancy poles and years of technique, and perhaps they’ve figured out the best spots of the pond to sit and (stand in?). And us little guys are zipping around for a fish here, a fish there–we’re birthed quickly, and for all that we take away from the big guys, all too often we don’t find enough food to make it through the winter. ;) :)
Keep on talking! :)
October 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Hmm. More to point, I think, is the big guys have more stored energy (so that’s what that is around their waists ;) ), so they can afford to “not catch enough fish” for a while longer.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Good analogy. I can definitely see that: the big three standing there in their stagnant pool as it grows more stagnant, casting for fish who’re too old to remember what it was like to be young… and then the small markets, over in a fresh corner of the pond, catching the small fish and waiting for them to get bigger. Makes sense…
Sorry about the contact address: I’m at mattmitchell8 at yahoo.com.
Thanks!
November 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Sent! Thanks. :)