The fact that I know about and am a patron for Cirsova, yet know next to nothing about the current state of The Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy, means that NewPub is doing something right.
Don't understand why anyone would have a problem with Cirsova.
Yes, the perniciousness of DEI applies across the board. But that's part of its mission, if I understand it correctly. The word "dismantle" turns up a lot.
Its adherents seem to take particular pleasure in burning something to the ground and then walking away saying "evil has been eliminated; my work is done."
F&SF was actually a monthly from about 1952 until 2009. Then it went bi-monthly.
I was a subscriber for many years, and have bought & read the earliest ones more recently (1950s-60s)
Poul Anderson wrote many fine stories for F&SF back then, writing both SF and fantasy, and I had no problem with them all appearing in the same magazine. I like both genres.
I was born in 1952 and my dad was a subscriber until late in his life. F&SF was my introduction to sci-fi and fantasy, and I also have no problem with them both appearing in the same magazine. It all depends on the quality of the writing.
Who do I prefer, Philip K. Dick, Cixin Liu, Octavia Butler, or J.K. Rowling? Don't ask me to choose.
You can see it creeping in in European countries now, too. Whites are still the main protagonists, but non-Whites tokens are inching their way into view. Collect hard copies now while you can.
It’s a shame. My mother has been a subscriber for decades, she has a closet full of old issues that I grew up reading.
I’m amazed at how direct and indisputable the decline has been in organizations that have embraced DEI. They flocked to “diversity improves the organization” with all the wisdom and foresight that we’ve seen in the Troon wars, where wishful thinking made something true.
First; they should never have mixed Sci-Fi & Fantasy. They are opposite genres, with nothing in common. They ought to have released two different set of magazines to chase both audiences in this way they might also because they'd need more Sci-Fi authors to fill out that slot give more chances to them.
Second point; what we need is a new magazine. One for Sci-Fi, and another for fantasy. We need to make our own stuff, make our own magazines and bring in new writers. Not old established ones, but establish new ones.
The Pulp Era says otherwise. There really wasn't a distinction between these two types of Romantic Adventure stories until the cancer of Fandom took hard control of the Pulps from WW2 to their demise in the 50s. Futuristic Adventure Fiction and Mythic Adventure Fiction. See JD Cowan's book The Last Fanatics, especially Part III.
There are a number of new genre fiction and short fiction magazines now that do what you ask. Cirsova in the above link is one. We need to find and support these mags and their authors.
A lot of writers right now, regardless if they're /ourguys or not, effectively write in a manner where both are treated similarly. And considering their shared origins in Adventure fiction, this is more a bizarre return to form than any deviation.
If anything, the attempts to separate the two and try and make each distinct did more to alienate audiences from the fiction being written and it shows in that the "Science Fiction and Fantasy are different" push coincided with the decline in sales.
This isn't a "Genre X must be liberated from Genre Y" situation, it's a "Agenda based editors push stories and writers that need years of previous context in terms of literary ideas to understand, thus alienating anyone but fans.
In this light, the Pulps really do light the way as far as how to get back to a better place for science fiction and fantasy, mostly because people currently aren't interested in reading 500-1200 page tomes that have anywhere from 2-4 years worth of history behind them, but are open to reading shorter stories that are pick up and read.
And I do think it's worth noting that a good writer can write a great yarn regardless of length. I hear a lot of praise for the likes of Tolkien in these parts, but Walter B. Gibson deserves some cred for pumping out a horde of quality Shadow stories that are just as worthwhile to read as the Journey in Middle Earth.
We have many good examples to lean on, and even if we take different tacks on solutions, we can advise one another on what aspects work and which ones don't. These are white pill opportunities we face together.
Hmm, yes but not everything must be done as in the age of Pulps. For one thing anti-heroes for example lie at the heart of the rot pervading culture.
What is more is that we need to recognize the differences in the genres, rescue them one at a time. For ex; Bouvines is in the north of France, leave it to be won by those of the North, while those of Bretagne in the west, win the west of France back.
Leave the Sci-Fi writers to rescue Sci-Fi, and Fantasy writers to rescue Fantasy.
Each genre faces very particular challenges. Also intermingling them has only led to the creation of the Woke notion of ‘Speculative’ Fiction that has allowed them to destroy them all. By refusing to play on their terms, and playing on our own and recognizing the difference in audiences we can secure greater gains.
Ever hear the phrase; 'if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both?' same thing applies to Marketing/Magazines chasing 3-4 different audiences at the same time.
Fantasy must be liberated from Sci-Fi, just as Sci-Fi must be set apart, and Mystery, and so on. What is more, is that given there can only be so many writers per issue, you limit the number who might get their stories published that month. So this actually works against the writers also.
I agree with Cowan's analysis that the genres of Science Fiction and Fantasy are non-existent. They cannot be defined as genres separate from Adventure. Subdivision is typically not a winning strategy, and especially with SF&F at the very bottom of the fiction pile by sales.
We are better served returning to Romantic Adventure.
"Asimov's Science Fiction" is a bi-monthly publication of sf, including sf-related poetry (!). It's a nice mix of new authors, established authors, and columns on sf topics. The editor, Sheila Williams, took over for Gardner Dozois (sp?). Is there woke content in the stories? Yes, many of them, some more overt than others. In the hands of a skillful author, "woke" is just part of the background of the character. Unfortunately, for some authors (and book reviewers), woke IS the story.
As I like to paraphrase John Lasseter's (formerly of Pixar & Disney) comment: "It's the story, stupid!"
I have been a subscriber to F&SF for 51 years, and I've never considered canceling my subscription -- until a few years ago, right after Ms. Thomas became Editor. It was around this time that a few issues of the magazine were printed on some very thin, very white and nearly translucent paper that made reading it a chore. So I subscribed to both the magazine and to the Kindle edition, figuring they could use the money. Pretty soon Amazon stopped handling Kindle subscriptions for magazines (the buggers!) and there went another small revenue stream for F&SF.
Take that and Sheree Thomas's tedious insistence on didactic fiction, and you have a disappearing base of subscribers.
I'm heartbroken to even consider a world without this magazine. I wish we could get a decent editor, but who wants to work for a magazine that now prints around 12,000 copies every other month, down from 80,000 not long ago? Well, I've kept nearly every issue since 1973, so I can always go back to an earlier issue. I'm sure I don't recall what Isaac Asimov's science column was talking about in 1978.
I might have only picked up two or three issues of this magazine over the years from the newsstands, but this publication, and others like it, provided the content of the annual "Year's Best Science Fiction" that I read religiously until the late 2000s. At the time, I thought that I might have been growing out of the genre or that my tastes had shifted. In retrospect, perhaps I was sensing the early DIEing of these stories in these publications.
Sad to see another institution be gutted by the gay race communism that is currently destroying Western civilization. I hope to see its successors rise from the ashes.
F&SF was a place where quality fiction always could be found. All of us writers wanted to published there because it was a kind of a validation that you had "made it". I think I'd sent editor Ed Ferman around 20 stories before he bought and published one . . . Back in 1981(!) And it was like a blessing from the Pope. I was a faithful reader until Ferman sold it . . . and the decline in quality became an obvious and palpable phenomenon. So sad to see it be so disrespected by meritless poseurs.
DEI infections are terminal ones.
Burn it down, scatter the ashes, and plant new seeds in its wake.
Come the Inheritors!
https://cirsova.wordpress.com/
Sad. I subscribed to F&SF for many years, letting it lapse sometime around the end of the last century.
The fact that I know about and am a patron for Cirsova, yet know next to nothing about the current state of The Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy, means that NewPub is doing something right.
Don't understand why anyone would have a problem with Cirsova.
CC Finlay gave me the best rejection I've ever gotten, full of warmth and excellent suggestions for how to improve my story. I'll miss F&SF!
It's always nice to see rejections paired with actual, helpful feedback. He sounded like a great editor.
What's Gordon Van Gelder thinking about it? It's his money after all.
DEI is gangrene in any business. Fatal unless excised.
Yes, the perniciousness of DEI applies across the board. But that's part of its mission, if I understand it correctly. The word "dismantle" turns up a lot.
Its adherents seem to take particular pleasure in burning something to the ground and then walking away saying "evil has been eliminated; my work is done."
F&SF was actually a monthly from about 1952 until 2009. Then it went bi-monthly.
I was a subscriber for many years, and have bought & read the earliest ones more recently (1950s-60s)
Poul Anderson wrote many fine stories for F&SF back then, writing both SF and fantasy, and I had no problem with them all appearing in the same magazine. I like both genres.
I was born in 1952 and my dad was a subscriber until late in his life. F&SF was my introduction to sci-fi and fantasy, and I also have no problem with them both appearing in the same magazine. It all depends on the quality of the writing.
Who do I prefer, Philip K. Dick, Cixin Liu, Octavia Butler, or J.K. Rowling? Don't ask me to choose.
Who currently owns SF&F, and how much did they pay for it?
You can see it creeping in in European countries now, too. Whites are still the main protagonists, but non-Whites tokens are inching their way into view. Collect hard copies now while you can.
It’s a shame. My mother has been a subscriber for decades, she has a closet full of old issues that I grew up reading.
I’m amazed at how direct and indisputable the decline has been in organizations that have embraced DEI. They flocked to “diversity improves the organization” with all the wisdom and foresight that we’ve seen in the Troon wars, where wishful thinking made something true.
First; they should never have mixed Sci-Fi & Fantasy. They are opposite genres, with nothing in common. They ought to have released two different set of magazines to chase both audiences in this way they might also because they'd need more Sci-Fi authors to fill out that slot give more chances to them.
Second point; what we need is a new magazine. One for Sci-Fi, and another for fantasy. We need to make our own stuff, make our own magazines and bring in new writers. Not old established ones, but establish new ones.
The Pulp Era says otherwise. There really wasn't a distinction between these two types of Romantic Adventure stories until the cancer of Fandom took hard control of the Pulps from WW2 to their demise in the 50s. Futuristic Adventure Fiction and Mythic Adventure Fiction. See JD Cowan's book The Last Fanatics, especially Part III.
There are a number of new genre fiction and short fiction magazines now that do what you ask. Cirsova in the above link is one. We need to find and support these mags and their authors.
A lot of writers right now, regardless if they're /ourguys or not, effectively write in a manner where both are treated similarly. And considering their shared origins in Adventure fiction, this is more a bizarre return to form than any deviation.
If anything, the attempts to separate the two and try and make each distinct did more to alienate audiences from the fiction being written and it shows in that the "Science Fiction and Fantasy are different" push coincided with the decline in sales.
This isn't a "Genre X must be liberated from Genre Y" situation, it's a "Agenda based editors push stories and writers that need years of previous context in terms of literary ideas to understand, thus alienating anyone but fans.
In this light, the Pulps really do light the way as far as how to get back to a better place for science fiction and fantasy, mostly because people currently aren't interested in reading 500-1200 page tomes that have anywhere from 2-4 years worth of history behind them, but are open to reading shorter stories that are pick up and read.
And I do think it's worth noting that a good writer can write a great yarn regardless of length. I hear a lot of praise for the likes of Tolkien in these parts, but Walter B. Gibson deserves some cred for pumping out a horde of quality Shadow stories that are just as worthwhile to read as the Journey in Middle Earth.
We have many good examples to lean on, and even if we take different tacks on solutions, we can advise one another on what aspects work and which ones don't. These are white pill opportunities we face together.
Definitely.
Hmm, yes but not everything must be done as in the age of Pulps. For one thing anti-heroes for example lie at the heart of the rot pervading culture.
What is more is that we need to recognize the differences in the genres, rescue them one at a time. For ex; Bouvines is in the north of France, leave it to be won by those of the North, while those of Bretagne in the west, win the west of France back.
Leave the Sci-Fi writers to rescue Sci-Fi, and Fantasy writers to rescue Fantasy.
Each genre faces very particular challenges. Also intermingling them has only led to the creation of the Woke notion of ‘Speculative’ Fiction that has allowed them to destroy them all. By refusing to play on their terms, and playing on our own and recognizing the difference in audiences we can secure greater gains.
Ever hear the phrase; 'if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both?' same thing applies to Marketing/Magazines chasing 3-4 different audiences at the same time.
Fantasy must be liberated from Sci-Fi, just as Sci-Fi must be set apart, and Mystery, and so on. What is more, is that given there can only be so many writers per issue, you limit the number who might get their stories published that month. So this actually works against the writers also.
I agree with Cowan's analysis that the genres of Science Fiction and Fantasy are non-existent. They cannot be defined as genres separate from Adventure. Subdivision is typically not a winning strategy, and especially with SF&F at the very bottom of the fiction pile by sales.
We are better served returning to Romantic Adventure.
I disagree about it not being a winning strategy. I’m talking about Fabian tactics, rather than facing Hannibal Barca so to speak head-on.
Honestly, I’ll never buy a magazine or story which mixes or forces the two genres together.
Fantasy can outsell every other when given a chance, same with Sci-Fi. Its a matter of getting the right writers and editors together.
While I don't agree, I understand your position.
Fair enough, I appreciate the respectful disagreement and courteousness, cheers mon ami.
Maybe on my end down the road I should when I've the funds, put my mouth where my money is.
> Second point; what we need is a new magazine.
Have you looked into Cirsova (https://cirsova.wordpress.com/) or Raconteur Press (https://raconteurpress.substack.com/)?
Cirsova I dislike if I’m being honest. And Raconteur is awesome.
The former is a vulture, while the latter is a hero.
"Asimov's Science Fiction" is a bi-monthly publication of sf, including sf-related poetry (!). It's a nice mix of new authors, established authors, and columns on sf topics. The editor, Sheila Williams, took over for Gardner Dozois (sp?). Is there woke content in the stories? Yes, many of them, some more overt than others. In the hands of a skillful author, "woke" is just part of the background of the character. Unfortunately, for some authors (and book reviewers), woke IS the story.
As I like to paraphrase John Lasseter's (formerly of Pixar & Disney) comment: "It's the story, stupid!"
I have been a subscriber to F&SF for 51 years, and I've never considered canceling my subscription -- until a few years ago, right after Ms. Thomas became Editor. It was around this time that a few issues of the magazine were printed on some very thin, very white and nearly translucent paper that made reading it a chore. So I subscribed to both the magazine and to the Kindle edition, figuring they could use the money. Pretty soon Amazon stopped handling Kindle subscriptions for magazines (the buggers!) and there went another small revenue stream for F&SF.
Take that and Sheree Thomas's tedious insistence on didactic fiction, and you have a disappearing base of subscribers.
I'm heartbroken to even consider a world without this magazine. I wish we could get a decent editor, but who wants to work for a magazine that now prints around 12,000 copies every other month, down from 80,000 not long ago? Well, I've kept nearly every issue since 1973, so I can always go back to an earlier issue. I'm sure I don't recall what Isaac Asimov's science column was talking about in 1978.
Bizarre. It's as if the people running the magazine simply forgot about it.
I might have only picked up two or three issues of this magazine over the years from the newsstands, but this publication, and others like it, provided the content of the annual "Year's Best Science Fiction" that I read religiously until the late 2000s. At the time, I thought that I might have been growing out of the genre or that my tastes had shifted. In retrospect, perhaps I was sensing the early DIEing of these stories in these publications.
Sad to see another institution be gutted by the gay race communism that is currently destroying Western civilization. I hope to see its successors rise from the ashes.
F&SF was a place where quality fiction always could be found. All of us writers wanted to published there because it was a kind of a validation that you had "made it". I think I'd sent editor Ed Ferman around 20 stories before he bought and published one . . . Back in 1981(!) And it was like a blessing from the Pope. I was a faithful reader until Ferman sold it . . . and the decline in quality became an obvious and palpable phenomenon. So sad to see it be so disrespected by meritless poseurs.