An untapped market?
I wasn’t going to write about this as I couldn’t honestly see that it deserved a response; but apparently others though it did. Rather than add my thoughts on the matter to the comment thread of the original blog post, I’m writing my own piece here.
“This” is a blog piece here about sf magazines. According to it, current sf magazines are badly-designed, do not contain "the best writing", and cater solely to “extended fandom”. What they need to do is appeal to all those people who consume science fiction in all its forms. Not sf readers, because sf readers are “extended fandom”. No, sf “consumers” who watch films, play games, watch television series, collect action figures, etc., but don’t actually, well, read.
To do this, the next generation sf magazine needs to drag its design into the twenty-first century and publish only the best fiction.
Rubbish.
A magazine needs to consider four areas in order to succeed:
Design
I have to wonder if the poster was referring only to the Big Three sf mags - Asimov’s, Analog and F&Sf - when he complained about appalling design. He’s right in that respect - those three magazines are indeed boringly designed. They’re intended to fit into a pocket and be convenient, but that’s no longer a design criterion these days. However, there are a number of well-designed sf magazines currently being published, such as Interzone.
(Rest of post on It Doesn't Have To Be Right...)
“This” is a blog piece here about sf magazines. According to it, current sf magazines are badly-designed, do not contain "the best writing", and cater solely to “extended fandom”. What they need to do is appeal to all those people who consume science fiction in all its forms. Not sf readers, because sf readers are “extended fandom”. No, sf “consumers” who watch films, play games, watch television series, collect action figures, etc., but don’t actually, well, read.
To do this, the next generation sf magazine needs to drag its design into the twenty-first century and publish only the best fiction.
Rubbish.
A magazine needs to consider four areas in order to succeed:
Design
I have to wonder if the poster was referring only to the Big Three sf mags - Asimov’s, Analog and F&Sf - when he complained about appalling design. He’s right in that respect - those three magazines are indeed boringly designed. They’re intended to fit into a pocket and be convenient, but that’s no longer a design criterion these days. However, there are a number of well-designed sf magazines currently being published, such as Interzone.
(Rest of post on It Doesn't Have To Be Right...)