More from _Wireless_
Michael Stemper
in current science fiction. Charles Stross's recent collection, _Wireless_,
shows that it's "not dead yet".
I've already made some comments on "Missile Gap" (spelled correctly
this time). The next few stories that I've read follow.
In "Rogue Farm", I see echoes of the situation on Novy Petrograd in
_Singularity Sky_. The "farm" seems like something that would have
been wandering around there.
"A Colder War" seems stylistically reminiscent of "Missile Gap". The
two, taken together, also give an impression of a nascent alternate
history arc, with the point of difference being the outcome of the
Cuban Missile (still spelled correctly) Crisis. Presumably, true
alt-hist fans won't like it since, even though JFK was a one-term
president due to a scandal rather than death, Johnson, Carter, and
Reagan still followed him.
"Maxos" is only a story in the sense that "The Endochronic Properties
of Resublimated Thiotimoline" is. This soi-disant technical paper has
footnotes, two of which (numbers 1 and 4) refer to people whose names
I actually recognize -- since they've posted here.
"Down on the Farm" is a Laundry story. If advanced computation and
black magic are equivalent, the obvious solution is to separate
potential wizards from any computers. Unless you're familiar with
the Church-Turing Hypothesis, that is.
"Unwirer" is the sort of story that would have been in _True Names_
if had been written sooner.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Much has been said of the recent decline/extinction of short stories
> in current science fiction. Charles Stross's recent collection, _Wireless_,
> shows that it's "not dead yet".
I don't think anyone's contended that short SF is dead or even dying,
but that the MARKETS for it mostly are. Time was that the biggest
markets for SF were the magazines, and they sold lots of copies
(comparatively speaking) and made money for the writers and editors and
publishers.
Nowadays, not so much.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>> Much has been said of the recent decline/extinction of short stories
>> in current science fiction. Charles Stross's recent collection, _Wireless_,
>> shows that it's "not dead yet".
>
> I don't think anyone's contended that short SF is dead or even dying,
>but that the MARKETS for it mostly are.
From a reader's point of view, if there aren't markets for SF, then it's
not being bought and published, and not getting to us. If writers are
sitting in their garrets writing short SF for their own enjoyment, it's
effectively the same to us as if it wasn't being written.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.
Norm D. Plumber
>In article <i3ej8r$fb9$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>Michael Stemper wrote:
>
>>> Much has been said of the recent decline/extinction of short stories
>>> in current science fiction. Charles Stross's recent collection, _Wireless_,
>>> shows that it's "not dead yet".
>>
>> I don't think anyone's contended that short SF is dead or even dying,
>>but that the MARKETS for it mostly are.
>
>From a reader's point of view, if there aren't markets for SF, then it's
>not being bought and published, and not getting to us. If writers are
>sitting in their garrets writing short SF for their own enjoyment, it's
>effectively the same to us as if it wasn't being written.
Yes, but a lack of markets makes the "starving" part of "starving
artist" ever so much easier to accomplish.
You could organize your friends and neighbors to riot for "more short
SF on the shelves!" but that would take time away from reading novels.
Or you could take a different approach and riot to get publishers to
hire more editors who have the cojones to throw bad manuscripts back
and read the good ones and publish them so there are more good novels
to read.
I'm going to avoid rioting and let the perfect market equilibrium deal
with it because none of the alternatives seem likely to pay a decent
return on the effort involved. There seems to be a clear and massive
oversupply of manuscripts and eventually it will be worked out by all
the perfect markets of the world (although a pogrom against writers
may be called for). And with the growing level of unemployment there
will soon be even more bad manuscripts in every publisher's queue so
the pre-pogrom wait is likely to shorten rather than lengthen.
Readers just cain't hardly lose.
--
Murphy's Law? Never underestimate superstition that works!
Gene Wirchenko
(Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <i3ej8r$fb9$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>Michael Stemper wrote:
>
>>> Much has been said of the recent decline/extinction of short stories
>>> in current science fiction. Charles Stross's recent collection, _Wireless_,
>>> shows that it's "not dead yet".
>>
>> I don't think anyone's contended that short SF is dead or even dying,
>>but that the MARKETS for it mostly are.
>
>From a reader's point of view, if there aren't markets for SF, then it's
>not being bought and published, and not getting to us. If writers are
>sitting in their garrets writing short SF for their own enjoyment, it's
>effectively the same to us as if it wasn't being written.
Some crims raid marijuana grow operations.
What could rabid sf fans do?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
W. Citoan
> In article <i3ej8r$fb9$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk
> E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
> >Michael Stemper wrote:
>
> >> Much has been said of the recent decline/extinction of short
> >> stories in current science fiction. Charles Stross's recent
> >> collection, _Wireless_, shows that it's "not dead yet".
> >
> > I don't think anyone's contended that short SF is dead or even
> > dying, but that the MARKETS for it mostly are.
>
> From a reader's point of view, if there aren't markets for SF, then
> it's not being bought and published, and not getting to us. If
> writers are sitting in their garrets writing short SF for their own
> enjoyment, it's effectively the same to us as if it wasn't being
> written.
There is a difference between the market shrinking for authors and the
stories not getting to us. Authors may or may not be getting paid as
much for it (cannot speak to that one) and it may not bring in as much
money, but it is still getting published. A lot of it has moved to the
web. For example, Tor routinely publishes free shorts.
A look at ISFDB shows short fiction well and alive. How much money it's
making is a different story (sorry for the pun).
- W. Citoan
--
Behold the dreamer, let us slay him and see what becomes of his dream.
-- Genesis
Greg Goss
> I don't think anyone's contended that short SF is dead or even dying,
>but that the MARKETS for it mostly are. Time was that the biggest
>markets for SF were the magazines, and they sold lots of copies
>(comparatively speaking) and made money for the writers and editors and
>publishers.
Apocryphal quote from 1948 worldcon.
Panel Member A: If you want to make a living at it, you have to write
novels. You never make any money writing short stories.
Panel Member H: But I'm not in it to make money. If I really wanted
to make a million dollars, I'd invent a religion.
This mythical but frequently cited conversation seems to imply that
there wasn't much money in short fiction even sixty years ago.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27