Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
I haven't got a copy of any SF magazine since the Covid shutdown and I
was shocked at how poor the physical quality was. The paper on the
covers is much thinner and poorly-made than in previous years, and the >>printing was very uneven with some streaks of very light printing and some >>streaks of very heavy printing, like a badly-worn and poorly-adjusted
web press. Nothing was illegible but some pages took some studying.
See, well-printed & well-bound *is* important :-)
I wasn't expecting National Geographic quality... and these days National >Geographic doesn't even come close to National Geographic quality...
but this was just no good.
--scott
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
I haven't got a copy of any SF magazine since the Covid shutdown and I
was shocked at how poor the physical quality was. The paper on the
covers is much thinner and poorly-made than in previous years, and the
printing was very uneven with some streaks of very light printing and some >>> streaks of very heavy printing, like a badly-worn and poorly-adjusted
web press. Nothing was illegible but some pages took some studying.
See, well-printed & well-bound *is* important :-)
I wasn't expecting National Geographic quality... and these days National Geographic doesn't even come close to National Geographic quality...
but this was just no good.
--scott
So, given the worries about F&SF, I picked up the latest copy at mylocal
Barnes and Noble, along with the latest Asimov's. Both seem to betwo.
published now by Must Read Magazines. There were two copies of F&SF at
the store and both were pretty ripped up, so I got the better of the
I haven't got a copy of any SF magazine since the Covid shutdown and Isome
was shocked at how poor the physical quality was. The paper on the
covers is much thinner and poorly-made than in previous years, and the >printing was very uneven with some streaks of very light printing and
streaks of very heavy printing, like a badly-worn and poorly-adjustedinclusive.
web press. Nothing was illegible but some pages took some studying.
The contents? I will give the new editors credit for trying to be
Almost all the fiction authors were bipoc folks, and there was a verynot
good article reviewing a survey made of minority authors. None of the >stories were terrible, but every one that I read made me think that it
could have been made into a better story by a good editor. There were >stories that were too long, stories that had some clumsy parts, and
stories with some problems with their technology. Nothing that could
have been fixed up very quickly by John Campbell, but there was nowhat
John Campbell with his red pencil there to do it.
So... I wish them luck, and I might consider subscribing just to see
happens, but this is a magazine that feels like it has some problems.
Not insurmountable ones, but time is running out.
I could not find a way then to subscribe to
the magazines aside from the Linux magazine. It is very depressing to read
of their present condition.
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
I could not find a way then to subscribe to
the magazines aside from the Linux magazine. It is very depressing to read >> of their present condition.
The asimovs.com and analogsf.com websites should have ways to take your
money for subscriptions. Or send $57.75 for each magazine subscription
you want for Analog, F&SF, and Asimov's, check payable to Must Read Magazines, 6 Prowett st, Norwalk, CT. 06855-1220.
--scott
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 25:44:36 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 368 |
| D/L today: |
561 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,949 |
| Posted today: | 26 |