Back in 1993, once readers had digested a few issues of Science Fiction Age, we wanted to find out what they thought of it. (And we also, as you’ll see, wanted to at the same time nudge them to re-up their subscriptions.)

So out went a questionnaire …

… resulting in a suggestion with which no one could disagree. (more…)

Mike Ashley, who for years has been hard at work on his multi-volume series The History of the Science Fiction Magazine—there have been four installments so far, covering 1926–1935, 1936–1945, 1946–1955, and 1956–1965—is finally into modern times, which includes Science Fiction Age, the magazine I edited from 1992-2000.

That means I spent a few weeks recently struggling to remember all I could about editing the magazine, as well as the planning that went on long before you saw the first issue, which launched at the 1992 World Science Fiction Convention in Orlando. Luckily, I didn’t have to rely entirely on memories, because when I was trying to convince Mark Hintz and Carl Gnam to choose me as the editor for their as-yet-unnamed science fiction magazine, I proactively prepared an 11-page document analyzing the periodicals market of the day and what could be our place in it, which I presented to them during our second meeting, held September 15, 1991.

I didn’t share the whole thing with Mike, nor will I share it with you—perhaps someday—but here are two excepts you might find interesting. So let’s go back more than 22 years, back to when I was hoping to persuade a couple of guys I’d only met a few days before to let me edit a new science fiction magazine for them. (A magazine which was their idea to begin with, but only a vague idea, as when they’d advertised in the Washington Post for a part-time editor they knew very little about the field, only that they perceived SF to be an underserved niche.) (more…)

I was too busy having fun during the World Fantasy Convention to download the new issue of Locus, so it wasn’t until today that I discovered Dick Kearns had died.

We’d crossed paths several times in the early ’80s because he’d attended Clarion in 1978, the year before I did. I doubt we’d seen each other since the late ’80s, but I remember him as being a good writer and a fun person to hang out with. That’s not why I called you all together, though.

His Locus obituary contained a typo that had me scratching my head at first. But once I figured out what was really meant, I thought … oh, that’s wonderful. Dick would have gotten a kick out of it.

It’s a typo I’m sure someone would have mentioned somewhere online had it been read, but as I haven’t seen any of you mention it, I’m guessing, sadly, that no one’s bothered to read it.

Can you spot the typo?

Did you see it? (more…)

I was just reading the latest issue of Esquire, which is a better magazine than you probably give it credit for. In his editorial, Editor-in-Chief David Granger recounted a trip to his father-in-law’s memorial service, and how Bill Dodson’s eldest son, Dick, praised his father by comparing his traits to those listed in the Boy Scout Law.

Granger then included a condensed version of those suggested behaviors, which I share with you here.

As I read through the list of attributes to which we should all aspire, I kept thinking to myself, “Yep, yep, trying to do that, and that, too”—until I got to one which instead had me thinking, “No way!”

Do you know me well enough to be able to tell which of the rules rubbed me the wrong way?

Let’s see!

So there I was in a checkout line at Walmart (which I know many of you have an objection to that reaches an almost religious fervor, but let’s leave the discussion of that for some other time, OK?) when I noticed something intriguing about the latest issue of Cosmopolitan. You know all about the brouhaha over the magazines, right, how many stores hide most of the covers, leaving only the logo visible, so cleavage doesn’t offend the unwary?

One example—my local supermarket, which only let me see Zooey Deschanel from the lips up this afternoon.

Walmart, on the other hand, was OK with letting me glimpse Deschanel’s cleavage, as you can see from the U-shaped shield below— (more…)

Seventeen years ago this month, the first issue of Science Fiction Age magazine made its debut at MagiCon, the 1992 World Science Fiction convention held in Orlando. On page 20, in the middle of Jim Steranko’s “Movies” column, we printed a sidebar announcing the launch of something called … the Sci-Fi Channel, which went on the air exactly 17 years ago today.

I could already tell that Science Fiction Age had changed my life, even with only that single issue, let alone the many more to follow. I was to edit it until 2000, the same year (after a brief break editing Satellite Orbit for a company called CommTek) I started editing Science Fiction Weekly nine years ago this month for … the Sci-Fi Channel. (more…)

The February 2009 issue of SCI FI, the SCI FI Channel’s official magazine (which I happen to edit), goes on sale today. The issue will remain on sale at newsstands and in bookstores through February 16.

In addition to a 12-page section devoted to the return of Battlestar Galactica as it comes back to SCI FI for its final episodes, there’s also a story on the end of Stargate Atlantis, as well as additional features on the films The Spirit, Push, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Inkheart, Coraline, Friday the 13th, The Unborn, and The Uninvited.

The issue also contains the usual departments reviewing books, games, DVDs, and more.

I’m working with my writers right now on the following issue, which will feature a little indie movie called Watchmen on the cover. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

In her March 2008 Asimov’s editorial, “Panning for Gold,” Sheila Williams shares the following nugget of information about her readership:

I think that at least 10 percent of Asimov’s readers are currently trying their hands at writing. I suspect that over the years Asimov’s editors have seen stories at one time or another from at least 20 to 30 percent of you—perhaps even more.

I must admit to being surprised that the number is so high. Perhaps it’s because I never tried to calculate such a percentage for Science Fiction Age back when I was editing fiction, and if I’d been paying attention, I would have already been aware of such a large overlap.

Oh, I tallied other numbers on and off, such as the percentage of submissions by women compared to the percentage of published stories by women, so that I could respond when people took me to task for the magazine not being representative of the pool of available stories—but I never thought to examine readers and writers as a sort of Venn diagram in an attempt to divine the correlation.

I trust that Sheila’s observation is correct. I’d love to know whether this fact holds true for other magazines, and for book publishing as well, both within science fiction and without. Is the reader/writer relationship similar in mysteries? How about romances?

I also wonder whether this carries over to other creative fields. What percentage of movie audiences want to make movies? What percentage of people who go to the theater hope to someday work in the theater? Is Asimov’s an anomaly, in that it’s so heavily supported by those who want to be a part of it? Or do Sheila’s numbers hold true for all artistic endeavors?

I’m not sure that there’s any way of finding this out. Any ideas?

The Fix has just run a review of the November 2007 issue of Lady Churchill’s Rosebud Wristlet which contained a sentence that raised my hackles. (Not a pretty sight.) Reviewer Martin McGrath started off his piece by tackling the very title of the magazine, stating that “Pretensions to literary stylings would seem to be a certainty, but does the obscure title also hint at a deliberately obscure approach to story and language?”

Personally, I’ve always felt LCRW‘s title to be whimsical rather than obscure, but no, that wasn’t what bothered me. The sentence that irritated me was still to come. McGrath continued by stating:

There are those writers whose primary purpose is to communicate with their readers, to tell a story, make a point, or engage in a conversation, and there are others who seem primarily concerned with demonstrating the range of their command of the English language and the scope of their intelligence.

My immediate response to this statement was to think—where are these writers who are just trying to show off how smart they are, who care nothing about touching readers? Because I’ve never met them. (more…)

Once you’ve completed the homework I handed out a few days ago of designing the cover to a new edition of J. G. Ballard’s Crash, it will be time to turn your hand to re-envisioning Eustace Tilley, the monocled character who has been The New Yorker‘s iconic mascot since 1925.

Those unfamiliar with this cover boy can find an essay laying out the history of Eustace Tilley here.

Contest rules, plus some of the more unusual versions already done of the character, can be found here.

The most bizarre? This unsettling riff by Charles Burns, whose work I first became familiar with in magazines such as Raw and Heavy Metal. Back then, I’d never have dreamed that he’d be allowed in the pages of The New Yorker. But the same can be said of Robert Crumb, Chris Ware, and Art Spiegelman, all of whom share their takes on Tilley.

As the entries pour in, you’ll be able to check in on your competition here.

I’m counting on you!