Heritage.

I've always found it curious that companies advertise how long they've been in existence. A store that has been running since 1758, or the ubiquitous on generic t-shirts "Since 1987", or "Established 1926" - all as if it mattered to the consumer. I mean, it's hardly the same company it once was, is it?

In some cases it's still in the same family, but of course with companies that are of some age, it's crazy to think any of the original employees or managers are still there. In these days of multi-national takeovers, the company you see is probably operated by a conglomeration based in Europe or the USA. And with companies that manufacture or sell products, it is extremely unlikely they make or stock the same products they originally did. And if they do, I can almost guarantee the recipes, ingredients and manufacture methods have changed beyond all recognition.

So why are companies so proud of their heritage? I figure it's simply an appeal to the consumers' sense of nostalgia, old fashioned values and a sense that if they've been doing something for so long, they must have got it right.

I was thinking about this recently. Steve Davidson has acquired the rights to Amazing Stories magazine, and has successfully published its first issue (in order to satisfy legal requirements over the acquisition of the brand) and plans to launch properly next year sometime. (originally as an e-publication, but I truly hope they quickly include a paper release as well) While I thought this re-launch was a good thing, a friend pointed out that it held absolutely no connection to the original magazine, although from all initial reports it seemed as though Davidson was approaching the 'reboot' in the spirit of the original. Later, we discovered that he put together an editorial advisory board that included four past Amazing Stories editors. The links to the past were stronger then I'd imagined. 

But this got me thinking. Analog and Fantasy & Science Fiction aren't owned by the original companies and have both changed ownership several times. Even Asimov's, in it's short thirty-five year history, has changed owners and editors more than once. So why do we accept change in some 'institutions' and not in others? The recent debacle with Weird Tales has shown that a change of ownership does not always continue a tradition, and I suspect the brand name has been damaged more than the owners realise. Perhaps it would have been wise to have kept Ann VanderMeer as editor. I certainly have no plans to submit there until the dust has cleared and I see their new editorial direction. Other publications which have changed format or lost regular schedules or lessened in quality have completely dropped off my submission radar. The big three, as mentioned above, are my current focus.

I think it has to do with the vision. F&SF, Analog and Asimov's continue to produce quality magazines in line with a tradition. They continue to attract the best writers, the best stories and best artists. All while continuing to move with the times.

And I suspect the re-launched Amazing Stories has the same ethos. I wish it all the best.

Think Small.

I've recently been amazed at some of the stories I've read in Analog, Asimov's, and Fantasy & Science Fiction. Not at the quality - quite the opposite. I was amazed they made it into the pages of the big three.

Sure, there's been some great stories too. But recently it seems as though the quality in those magazines has become increasingly inconsistent. At first I figured it was just a matter of taste, that the stories I thought were average were simply stories I didn't like. But when I analysed those stories, I discovered they contained a number of aspects that only a beginning writer should be guilty of. Lazy writing, infodumps, irrelevant scenes, corny dialog, and ridiculous coincidences pulled out of the hat at the last minute. And considering these mags receive hundreds of submissions every month and can pick and choose to their heart's content, it either says something about their selection process, or the scarcity of good writing out there.

What I am starting to realise is that some of the best stories around are, instead, to be found on  the pages of anthologies from small presses. Coeur de Lion, Twelfth Planet, FableCroft, Ticonderoga, to name a few Australian ones. Unfortunately, these publications don't get the exposure or respect they deserve.

Locus magazine continues to review every story in every issue of the big three (plus a swag of other pro mags) while ignoring so many smaller ones. While I understand they obviously receive far too many books to read and review, I would suggest that it's the 'other' magazines and anthologies that actually need the support of Locus. The big three are going to sell those issues anyway - particularly since the reviews usually come out well after the mags are off the news-stands.

Keith Stevenson, of Coeur De Lion, for example, recently lamented the difficulty he has in getting his books reviewed. And, of course, if books aren't reviewed and seen, they don't sell, and then they don't get placed on recommended reading lists or awards shortlists - no matter how good they are. Stevenson's Anywhere But Earth has received fantastic ratings and reviews on Goodreads, but has barely raised a blip elsewhere. And this is despite his previous anthology, X6, being placed on the Locus recommended reading list and winning a number of awards.

I was a little surprised recently when a local reviewer told me they had trouble accessing release information on local small press anthologies. I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult. 'Like' their Facebook page, regularly visit their web page, subscribe to a newsletter - whatever.

Support your small publishers, and tell others.