Archive for the ‘SF Business’ Category

Print or Electronic Short Fiction Magazines?

Posted on:

There’s some great con­ver­sa­tion going on over at the Tor site about mag­a­zine mod­els again.  John Klima is tack­ling the whole print vs. elec­tronic delimma.

Personally, I think if you can do print, do it.  But elec­tronic edi­tions should be a given. It costs maybe an hour of your time to take your files and con­vert them into the pop­u­lar for­mats.  There are web­sites that do it for you. If any­one wants to know about those, I’ll dig up the links.

Cory Doctorow has talked about this in the past, and I agree with him.  Sell a nor­mal sub­scrip­tion for print, but those peo­ple get a free elec­tronic ver­sion as well.  The elec­tronic ver­sion sup­ports the print ver­sion.  It’s eas­ier to search, and, hon­estly, eas­ier to share, which at the size we’re talk­ing about?  People pirat­ing your sto­ries around is a good thing.  Anything that makes it eas­ier for peo­ple to spread the word about your pub­li­ca­tion is a plus.

Also, sell a cheaper straight elec­tronic ver­sion.  If some­one really wants to just get a PRC file every month, then let them.  But I think you’ll find that the elec­tronic ver­sion is a sell­ing point of the print ver­sion.  I can’t guar­an­tee it will increase sales, but I think it’s the best of both worlds.  It’s your choco­late in my peanut but­ter, my peanut but­ter in your choco­late.  Mmmm!

I’d be ecsta­tic if every book I bought came with an elec­tronic ver­sion so that I can search it after­wards, or even bet­ter, while I’m wait­ing for the book to arrive via Amazon.  In fact, yes­ter­day, I ordered some web appli­ca­tion design texts and after I placed my order, Amazon tried to sell me a $15 e-​​book copy of one of the books so I could start read­ing right away.  That’s great–only I sure as hell ain’t going to pay another $15 for a $50 book for that promise (and prob­a­bly find that it is full of DRM that pre­vents me from really using it).

There are things I can do so much bet­ter on a com­puter or e-​​reader than I can do with a book.  But paper is still eas­ier to read until we see e-​​ink really take off (the Kindle is appar­ently cool, but I’ve never seen one in the wild).    The two for­mats are com­pli­men­tary, and I’d really like to see some­one try out the model I’ve out­lined above.  I’d sub­scribe, any­way, and I cur­rently sub­scribe to no mag­a­zines (although that’s a fac­tor more of my recent unem­ploy­ment than it is any prob­lem with the magazines).

Are you pub­lish­ing a print zine and giv­ing away e-​​copies to your sub­scribers for archiv­ing and easy index­ing?  Let me know in the comments.

A new pro rate fantasy e-​​zine?

Posted on:

Someone passed this link on to me via deli­cious. Does any­one know any­thing about Beneath Ceaseless Skies? What’s their oper­at­ing model? Looks inter­est­ing, content-​​wise, and there’s some nice art fea­tured. I’m not famil­iar with the edi­tor, however.

Five reasons this book trailer rocks

Posted on:

I for­get where I got this, but I think that it’s the level of qual­ity I’d like to see in more book trail­ers online:

Having Tim Curry as a nar­ra­tor is prob­a­bly out­side of the range of what we can afford as SF/​F writ­ers, but still.  Let’s go over what makes this awesome:

  1. Tight pac­ing. 2 min­utes long, and packed with infor­ma­tion.  If there’s a neg­a­tive here, some of it is too fast.  But that is prefer­able to too slow.
  2. Rapid-​​moving, well designed motion graph­ics. The move­ment is var­ied. It’s not a bunch of slow zooms or pans on a graphic like many book trail­ers I see. Stuff comes in and leaves the view at an angle.  There’s per­spec­tive.  It has a coher­ent visual style also.
  3. Illustrations! This is much eas­ier when your book has illus­tra­tions already, but maybe an invest­ment in an illus­tra­tor would increase the “stick­i­ness” of a book trailer.  It’s a visual medium, and you need some imagery to catch the eye.  Simple stock pho­tos prob­a­bly aren’t good enough. And you can only use your cover so many times.
  4. Professional nar­ra­tion, with the high­est qual­ity sound. So many book trail­ers I have seen end up sound­ing like they were recorded in a bath­tub.  PC micro­phones are a trav­esty.   Studio-​​quality audio is not cheap.  Alas.
  5. Prominently dis­played URL at the end. This isn’t a crit­i­cism of other book trail­ers as I usu­ally don’t make it to the end in other ones I have watched.  But I liked how it left you with a call to action (go to the web­site!)  I don’t know how much pro­mo­tion Lemony Snicket really needs for these books, but if I didn’t know about them already, this would have sent me run­ning to the site.

My After Effects and Premiere skills are pretty rusty, but I think I’m going to try and add them back into my skillset.  I have a voice actor stu­dio I’ve done work with in Denver at the old day job, and so I think I could prob­a­bly offer a decently afford­able, high qual­ity book trailer ser­vice.  Youtube is the third most vis­ited web­site on the web.  It’s power to bring your book before a new audi­ence is unpar­al­leled.  I’d really like to offer a ser­vice to tap into that power.

Five Unconventional Zine Model Ideas

Posted on:

The Dream Zine?

I hear what you’re think­ing, “You mean your dream mag­a­zine wasn’t the Fortean Bureau?” At the time, it was every­thing I could make it be with the con­straints (finan­cial, con­tent, for­mat) I worked under. And even though the mag­a­zine is on semi-​​permanent hia­tus, I still fol­low the pub­lish­ing side of ‘zines, and I’m still com­ing up with ideas for what I would do dif­fer­ently the next time. Here are a few of the ideas that I can’t stop think­ing about and wanted to share with you and see what you think. Many of them shake up the way things work now in a fun­da­men­tal way. Don’t take these ideas as to be an assault on the old ways, your favorite mag­a­zines, or your favorite writ­ers. These are thought exper­i­ments and can’t do you any harm.

Play With the Creative Commons: The Story Factory

Many writ­ers have released con­tent under the Creative Commons license, giv­ing explicit per­mis­sion for the kind of shar­ing that can­not be stopped thanks to the real­i­ties of the web. I think we’ve gen­er­ally reached a point where most non-​​Luddites accept the web for what it is. Many of us are hop­ing there will still yet be a way to give away con­tent online and still make some money with­out being famous in the first place. But that’s another topic for another time. I want to talk about the other types of Creative Commons licenses as a foun­da­tion for a dif­fer­ent kind of magazine.

The idea here is to pub­lish work, and pay very well for it, under the stip­u­la­tion that it must be released under a cre­ative com­mons license that allows for com­mer­cial deriv­a­tives. Essentially– pay authors to open source a story entirely. That’s step one.

And in an acknowl­edg­ment that the line between writ­ers and fans has blurred, in step two, you solicit sub­mis­sions that are built with the open source tools pro­vided by your core writer. Each pub­lish­ing cycle, you have one new open-​​source piece, and the pre­vi­ous month’s deriv­a­tive works. If you want, use the orig­i­nal author to help select the issue’s sec­ondary wave content.

Step three, once a year, you accept sub­mis­sions that are deriv­a­tive from every­thing from the pre­vi­ous year, which includes all second-​​wave works too (which were required to be released under share-​​a-​​like licenses as well). So, you end up with the orig­i­nal, the first wave of deriv­a­tive works, and then a third wave of deriv­a­tive works that can draw from all of the above. Essentially, a CC-​​licensed enforced shared world process, paid for by the mag­a­zine. Creating a form of legal fan fic­tion, but with the gate­way of an edi­tor to ensure qual­ity. Authors can always play in the worlds they cre­ated, but they open those worlds up from the start for oth­ers too.

Underlying all of this is link­ing tech­nol­ogy that threads the sto­ries together on the site, mak­ing it easy to find related con­tent. Wind this sucker up, and watch it go. Sell adver­tis­ing as your rev­enue model, maybe. Or pos­si­bly use the fund drive model.

User-​​Selected Content: The Mob

Digg is a social web­site that selects its con­tent by user con­sen­sus. Each mem­ber of the site can dig or bury a story, and these cause con­tent to rise to the front page, where it is seen by hun­dreds of thou­sands of read­ers. Take this model and apply it to the pub­lish­ing of a zine, with some modifications.

First of all, you have an edi­to­r­ial board that applies loose stan­dards, weed­ing out the truly awful stuff. The work above a very basic level of com­pe­tency is paid a small fee, say $10, and held for fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion, with a max­i­mum limit set.

Create a mem­bers only, password-​​protected area for your core fan­dom. They pay a small yearly fee to have priv­i­leged access to con­tent. Then you dump the incom­ing slush pile into the hop­per and your core fans go to town, rank­ing and rat­ing the sto­ries, ulti­mately, giv­ing it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. At the end of a pub­lish­ing cycle, you take the best-​​rated sto­ries, and you pay them a larger fee, and then you reject the rest.

Some pub­lish­ers will argue that being taken to the sec­ond level of con­sid­er­a­tion will con­sti­tute being pub­lished. An adopter of this model should remain neu­tral on the issue, say­ing that this assess­ment is up to the indi­vid­ual mag­a­zines. Your rec­om­men­da­tion would be–send your work as a last resort, if this is a con­cern you have. The details will fall out over time, and other edi­tors will decide how they feel about work that’s been through your system.

Go Really Multimedia: The Soup

Let’s face it. You auto­mat­i­cally limit your audi­ence by focus­ing on genre lit­er­a­ture. The web allows you to pub­lish any infor­ma­tion at all. Take advan­tage of that. Publish comics, videos, ani­ma­tions, Flash games, illus­tra­tions, audio plays. Publish all of it, and most impor­tantly, don’t sec­tion every­thing off into lit­tle ghet­tos. The illus­tra­tions are not sec­ondary to the sto­ries. Everything is pre­sented on an equal foot­ing. It’s all spec­u­la­tive art.

Accept reprints here. You prob­a­bly can’t afford to demand exclu­sive rights in per­pe­tu­ity from the video mak­ers or illus­tra­tors, and your best work is going to be stuff that’s been out on the web already. The value of your zine is not its exclu­siv­ity but in the way it aggre­gates the best con­tent together. A one-​​stop shop for all the SF things you like. There’s a wealth of artists work­ing in a vari­ety of medi­ums, and the peo­ple that are fans of each one of these medi­ums could poten­tially be brought together under one roof, and then you could see more cross-​​pollination. Video watch­ers occa­sion­ally read­ing a story, maybe? A lot of genre fans don’t even know genre mag­a­zines exist. Bring those peo­ple in with the other con­tent and expose them to great con­tent. It’s a win for everybody.

Publish and Fund Alternate Reality Games: The Metaverse

I’ve nat­tered on about ARGs in the past. Some of the genre’s best writ­ers are mak­ing a par­tial liv­ing writ­ing for really big bud­get ARG games for com­pa­nies like Microsoft or the Beijing Olympics. There’s no rea­son we can’t take the gen­eral model here and build a mag­a­zine around it, except that they are gen­er­ally mas­sive undertakings.

So limit their scope. Think of the pre-​​existing ARGs as nov­els in scope. Take the con­cept and bring the expe­ri­ence down to one that can be played out in a few hours, or a month, here and there. As a pub­lisher, you would pro­vide tools to facil­i­tate the cre­ation, as well as edi­to­r­ial guid­ance. Perhaps a social net­work­ing tool to encour­age ARG mak­ers with dif­fer­ent skillsets to col­lab­o­rate and cre­ate the projects. Once projects are com­pleted, they are then sub­mit­ted for review. You can choose to pay for the project and run it as your con­tent, or not. If not, the team can take their game and pub­li­cize it themselves.

I leave the fund­ing model as an exer­cise for the reader, because I don’t have a clue.

Help the Fans Put their Money Where their Mouth is: The Rocket-​​shaped Piggy Bank

A com­mon com­plaint among fans is that they can’t find the work that they want to read. So build a mag­a­zine that uses basic eco­nom­ics to deter­mine which authors you pub­lish. Underlying it is a social net­work­ing tool that allows fans to find other fans with com­mon autho­r­ial inter­ests. Coalitions can be formed, and a data­base of work­ing SF authors is pro­vided. Authors can take con­trol of their pro­files and pro­vide infor­ma­tion to the fans–but the main idea here is to say “here’s what I need to do what you want.”

Inspired by the site Fundable, you take the basic idea of group fundrais­ing that doesn’t take any money until the goal is met, and you make it pos­si­ble for fans to pool resources and directly con­tract with authors to write sto­ries. At least at first, the fundrais­ers prob­a­bly shouldn’t be able to require any­thing spe­cific about the work other than its author, but it’s pos­si­ble that you could open up the model so that a group could offer boun­ties on sto­ries with ele­ments they like. For instance, The Coalition For More Robots raises $500 in pledged dona­tions for a story fea­tur­ing the kind of robots Asimov used to write about. The Coalition must elect edi­to­r­ial lead­ers. These lead­ers then receive offers from authors and choose whether or not to accept them as meet­ing their fund require­ments. The sys­tem would han­dle all the money side of things in addi­ton to the social net­work­ing aspects.

Part of your job as an edi­tor would partly be con­tact­ing the authors who have funds raised request­ing work from them and let­ting them know your site exists. Most SF writ­ers have some access to the web, so this would be easy with at least a cer­tain tier of writer. I have a feel­ing that the kinds of funds we would see would be directed at much big­ger name authors, like Martin, King, etc. Those may present dif­fi­cul­ties. You would have to develop a black­list of authors who would not take com­mis­sion work from the site for any amount of money, maybe, but even with­out it, nobody is under any oblig­a­tion to accept the com­mis­sions that the site helps organize.

In Conclusion

Some of the above, per­haps all of them, would fail. There are cer­tainly prob­lems with each one that I haven’t gone into here. I may pos­si­bly expand on each of these ideas in future posts, exam­in­ing how they might suc­ceed, or not, and pay­ing atten­tion to what kinds of fund­ing mod­els could keep them run­ning. And hey, if you want to launch a busi­ness based on any of these, just give me an oppor­tu­nity to invest early on, that’s all I ask.

What do you think? Do any of them spark your imag­i­na­tion? What is your dream zine?

An (Incomplete) Survey of Current Genre Magazine Covers

Posted on:

Paul Raven made a com­ment today on his blog com­par­ing the art­work on a cou­ple of dif­fer­ent mag­a­zine cov­ers. Warren Ellis has recently been on about cover design as well. So I thought today, I’d look at the lat­est batch of cov­ers for every mag­a­zine I could remem­ber, and write some gen­er­al­ized thoughts on the design. I’m a self-​​taught designer, so take my com­ments and crit­i­cisms with a grain of salt.

Continue read­ing ›

5 Reasons Why SF/​F Author Websites should be (more) standards-​​based

Posted on:

I am often asked to com­ment on the web designs of friends and asso­ciates. It’s a tricky sit­u­a­tion for me. Regardless of the visual design, which is usu­ally fine, often, I find prob­lems under­neath the hood that are dif­fi­cult to explain. What I find are sites designed with tables-​​based lay­outs, using older HTML tech­niques. Today, I’d like to make the case for why you should dis­card that old way of design and move to standards-​​compliant design.

1. Accessibility

A web design done with stan­dards in mind is broadly acces­si­ble. I have noticed that the SF/​F fan­dom is par­tic­u­larly accept­ing of those with hand­i­caps and dis­abil­i­ties, but many SF-​​related web­sites do not take these fans into con­sid­er­a­tion. A prop­erly designed web site takes makes allowances for the use of screen read­ers and other acces­si­bil­ity tools. Tables based designs make a mess of this. Accessibility is a small part of standards-​​based designs, based on the num­ber of peo­ple that it effects. But do you really want to run the risk of alien­at­ing any poten­tial fans?

A graphical depiction of a very simple css documentImage via Wikipedia

2. Ease of Maintenance

With css/​xhtml-​​based designs, the con­tent is sep­a­rated (mostly) from the pre­sen­ta­tion. Here’s what this means: say you have a new book com­ing out that you want to pro­mote. If your site is built with old tech­niques, updat­ing your design involves a com­plete tear­down and rebuild. However, if your site has been built with stan­dards, you could sim­ply replace the stylesheet and have an entirely new design that reflects your pri­mary project. In gen­eral, these web­sites are very easy to make changes for, as far as pre­sen­ta­tion is con­cerned. Don’t like that link color? Edit the CSS, and it’ll change across the site.

3. SEO Implications

A standards-​​based design takes search engine opti­miza­tion into account straight away. Proper page struc­ture, even if it is not per­ceived by humans using browsers, will be picked up by index­ing ser­vices. Building your site with stan­dards in mind does not auto­mat­i­cally mean higher rank­ings, but it cer­tainly helps.

4. Less Bandwidth Intense

Standards-​​based designs are lean and quick. CSS is down­loaded once, whereas in the old way, the pre­sen­ta­tion would be down­loaded over and over again. Your file sizes are all-​​around smaller, which means a faster web­site, and hap­pier visitors.

5. Your web­site is like the cover of a book.

A standards-​​based design can look good or it can look bad. But more often than not, they look pretty good. Your web­site is like a book cover. Whether you know it or not, poten­tial read­ers are eval­u­at­ing whether or not to pick up your work based on your web­site. They may not even know it–it may just be sub­con­cious. But good design facil­i­tates the pre­sen­ta­tion of infor­ma­tion, and you are in the busi­ness of sell­ing that. Your web­site should reflect a level of pro­fes­sion­al­ism at least on par to the cover design of your books. Don’t com­mit a sin on the level of the SFWA web­site, please.

Afterword

Despite all this, I am not a stan­dard­sista. Sometimes to sat­isfy the desires of your client, you need to bend the stan­dards a lit­tle, and I still sleep okay when I have to do so. Like any­thing, you can go over­board with the idea of standards-​​based design. But in gen­eral, the above are some very good rea­sons for hir­ing a pro­fes­sional designer who is famil­iar with stan­dards to pro­vide your site–or if you are a do-​​it-​​yourself-​​er, pick­ing up some books on XHTML and CSS. This is the part where I plug me. You already know I do web design, but if you’re inter­ested in learn­ing more about my client process, visit my free­lance infor­ma­tion page.

Clay Shirky and The Cognitive Surplus

Posted on:

Continuing on the thoughts of yesterday’s post, I’ve recently read Clay Shirky’s speech, “Gin, Television, and Social Surplus.” You can read a tran­script of it, or watch a video. I highly rec­om­mend check­ing out one or the other and com­ing back here. I’ll wait. For the lazy, here”s a choice bit that explains much of it:

If I had to pick the crit­i­cal tech­nol­ogy for the 20th cen­tury, the bit of social lubri­cant with­out which the wheels would’ve come off the whole enter­prise, I’d say it was the sit­com. Starting with the Second World War a whole series of things happened–rising GDP per capita, ris­ing edu­ca­tional attain­ment, ris­ing life expectancy and, crit­i­cally, a ris­ing num­ber of peo­ple who were work­ing five-​​day work weeks. For the first time, soci­ety forced onto an enor­mous num­ber of its cit­i­zens the require­ment to man­age some­thing they had never had to man­age before–free time.

And what did we do with that free time? Well, mostly we spent it watch­ing TV.

And this is the other thing about the size of the cog­ni­tive sur­plus we’re talk­ing about. It’s so large that even a small change could have huge ram­i­fi­ca­tions. Let’s say that every­thing stays 99 per­cent the same, that peo­ple watch 99 per­cent as much tele­vi­sion as they used to, but 1 per­cent of that is carved out for pro­duc­ing and for shar­ing. The Internet-​​connected pop­u­la­tion watches roughly a tril­lion hours of TV a year. That’s about five times the size of the annual U.S. con­sump­tion. One per cent of that is 100 Wikipedia projects per year worth of participation.

Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky Pretty cool, huh? I think Clay is describ­ing the under­ly­ing force behind the New York Times arti­cle from yes­ter­day. The cog­ni­tive sur­plus is lead­ing to many peo­ple using the time for­merly soaked up by the one-​​way media to cre­ate things them­selves, and to share them. Which causes a glut in the choices for actu­ally con­sum­ing, and results in the para­dox of choice. Making things col­lab­o­ra­tively like Wikipedia makes us happy, but hav­ing all those other options makes us unhappy. Another para­dox, of sorts.

Wikipedia is a bit of a dif­fer­ent from, say, writ­ing fan fic­tion, because Wikipedia has a core use­ful­ness that is more broad in appeal. You could say that Wikipedia pro­vides a clear ben­e­fit to soci­ety, whereas the ben­e­fit to soci­ety of more fic­tion, or more music, or more pho­tog­ra­phy is less read­ily appar­ent. I’m not say­ing that your X-​​Files/​Evil Dead crossover fan­fic doesn’t pro­vide a ben­e­fit. I just think it’s harder to make the case for it. I’m not going to do it for you, anyway.

The real mind blower here for me is this idea of think­ing about the cog­ni­tive surplus–not think­ing about it as leisure time, but think­ing about it as hours spent think­ing. That sur­plus has always existed, but some­thing about the Internet has pro­vided an entirely new means of tap­ping into it. Sure, some have cho­sen to express their sur­plus by launch­ing flame wars over which Doctor was the best (clearly the 7th), but I think Shirky is right in point­ing out that this is all embry­onic still. We’re going to see some amaz­ing things soon. What forms will they take? My think­ing along these lines before was lim­ited to the idea of crowd­sourc­ing, but I’m start­ing to see that it’s so much more than that. I really need to read Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody.

What prob­lems can we solve using the inter­net and our cog­ni­tive surplus?

More Thoughts on the Depression of Science Fiction

Posted on:

Charlie Finlay said in the com­ments on the last post that, for the past sev­eral years, every SF novel he’s read has seemed this way, which is why he’s trended towards fan­tasy. So I put some thought into what SF nov­els I had read recently.

The Execution Channel was the most recent one. Holy smokes, was this depress­ing. So it fits the bill. Postsingular seemed a lot more upbeat. In fact, it was the first near-​​future SF any­thing that I’ve read in a while that didn’t men­tion ter­ror­ism. So I haven’t really noticed a trend of depres­sive ele­ments in my most recent read­ing of nov­els, but then, I don’t read a lot of SF novels.

I do know that Gordon has been talk­ing about get­ting a lot more sto­ries about death for a while now. Maybe I’m just now start­ing to see those sto­ries being pub­lished here and there.

It’s odd, because I’ve spent the past cou­ple of years kind of obsessed with death and the after­life, and now that I’m com­ing out of that obses­sion and start­ing to feel bet­ter, I find death all over the place in my read­ing. Was it that com­mon of a theme before? Not sure. I don’t remem­ber it being so, but it’s prob­a­bly a mat­ter of my changed per­spec­tive as much as any­thing else.

Some ques­tions.

1. Does any­one know how rel­a­tively opti­mistic the SF pub­lished in China is?

2. I don’t read Baen’s–are they more upbeat?

3. Do you think British writ­ers have been more prone to depres­sive stuff since their own ter­ror­ist attacks recently?

4. Is there a need for upbeat SF? Not nec­es­sar­ily more pos­i­tive, but maybe less, well, grim?

On the Merits of Asking What You Hate (or Love)

Posted on:

Jason Stoddard has asked “What do you Hate Most about SF Short Fiction?”. I must say, I was dis­ap­pointed with the responses. There’s no con­sis­tency among the com­ments, just like there’s no con­sis­tency in the tastes of any large, diverse audi­ence. I haven’t got­ten to read the Something Awful responses yet, but I am look­ing for­ward to see­ing if they are more use­ful to me as a writer than “Put in more robots” and “too much char­ac­ter devel­op­ment” (a com­ment quickly fol­lowed by some­one com­plain­ing about too lit­tle char­ac­ter development).I kind of hoped a pat­tern would emerge, that we would diag­nose the prob­lem that every­one is so sure is there, because of the num­bers. We’re like doc­tors hud­dled around a comatose patient we believe to be dying because of the mon­i­tors, each shout­ing their own diag­no­sis. We’ll never come to any kind of con­clu­sion because it’s all a mat­ter of opin­ion. And you know what? I’m sick of opin­ion. Give me infor­ma­tion, sto­ries, humor, not opin­ions. Anything but those. Everyone has one, and every­one is always wrong.* As an aggre­gate. Being sick of opin­ion prob­a­bly means I am suf­fer­ing blog burnout. Anyway–

What I am begin­ning to hate most about short SF is its inces­sant need to talk about itself. If I put half as much energy into talk­ing about it and think­ing about it, I prob­a­bly would have got­ten a damn novel writ­ten by now.

I’m just going to shut up and write now.

*Exceptions made for Nick Mamatas and David Moles.

To Save SF Short Fiction, We Had to Destroy It

Posted on:

(Warning, the below is poorly thought out and writ­ten hastily. I will write more later this week.)
Doug Cohen has recently launched a sub­scribe to a SF mag­a­zine drive via his Livejournal.

I have a sus­pi­cion that telling the SF writ­ing blo­gos­phere to sub­scribe to short fic­tion mag­a­zines in an effort to save short fic­tion is like instruct­ing a bunch of buggy whip mak­ers to buy buggy whips to save the buggy whip man­u­fac­tur­ing indus­try.  I know Doug means well, and I don’t mean this as a crit­i­cism of him, but I am very doubt­ful that telling a small group of active online fan­dom to sub­scribe to mag­a­zines will make a bit of dif­fer­ence in the gen­eral decline.   I’ve been just as guilty

The gorilla in the room that we rarely acknowl­edge is that nobody wants to read short fic­tion.  If they did, then there wouldn’t be this mess. I’ve heard and read hand wav­ing about the changes in dis­tri­b­u­tion mod­els, but hon­estly, I don’t buy it.  In this day and age, if you have a burn­ing desire to read sci­ence fic­tion short sto­ries, you can Google up a mag­a­zine in less than a second.

Do I think that the pub­lic could be mar­keted towards to encour­age the read­ing of more short fic­tion? Maybe.  A good mar­ket­ing team can sell just about any­thing.  Do I think any­one has the money to back a large cam­paign like this?  No.  SFWA would be the only orga­ni­za­tion that I could see such an ini­tia­tive com­ing from, and they’re a mas­sive joke; an orga­ni­za­tion ded­i­cated to inter­nal pol­i­tics and rumor­mon­ger­ing more than the decline and col­lapse of the indus­try around it.

There is no solu­tion.  The public’s inter­est has moved on.  If you’re a writer, go write video games, movies, tele­vi­sion, or books, in that order of pop­u­lar­ity.  That is where the public’s inter­est is right now, and if you don’t like it, then I’m afraid that you should prob­a­bly get used to the idea that short fic­tion is a small, niche hobby of lit­tle impor­tance.  I’m fine with that.  I find that I enjoy writ­ing it, and that’s enough for me.  Short fic­tion for me is a way to learn writ­ing, but I won’t regret leav­ing it behind if I were to crack another (more pop­u­lar and bet­ter pay­ing) medium, or find some amal­gam of sev­eral of my own.

I don’t sup­port the record indus­try for its fail­ing busi­ness model. I don’t think the SF print mag­a­zine world deserve spe­cial treat­ment either.  I do, in fact sub­scribe to quite a few mag­a­zines.  But it’s not out of any effort to save them from the dust­bin. There’s plenty to read online, and will be as long as weirdos like me keep writ­ing it.

I’ve been around and around the fund­ing mod­els for online mag­a­zines in my head.  I’ve con­cocted the most ridicu­lous Web 2.0 mod­els for online pub­lish­ing that you can imag­ine.  But none of them will work, because there’s no evi­dence what-​​so-​​ever that there is enough pub­lic inter­est to jus­tify the build­ing of such a thing.  Every model fails, because there just aren’t enough peo­ple inter­ested in read­ing and sup­port­ing a mag­a­zine mon­e­tar­ily for it to even sus­tain itself.   Don’t quote Strange Horizons at me, either.  Their fund drive doesn’t seem to be doing too well this time around.

Science Fiction, meet the long tail.  It’s not the first, and it won’t be the last.