Where are the next 'good' Sci/Fi writers going to learn their art?

[ray gower]

The big names in modern Science Fiction:- Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimoc, Arthur C Clarke etc. all learnt their writing art by producing short stories for Science Fiction magazines like Galaxy or Astounding Science.

Now of course, with the exception of a few amateur Fan-zines, there is no equivalent to those old fiction comics. Instead writers, good and bad, try and go their own way either on places like Ascifi, or make a few shillings by self-publishing.

The question is: Without the help, encouragement, resources, rules for size and content and above all critics provided by those old magazines, can a new generation of Asimovs, with their crisp writing styles and stories really learn and succeed?
Or are we forever going to be deluged by the new style of over long tirades of waffle and cotton wool, which seems to have been imposed by publishers more interested in selling Danielle Steele heart tremblers?

 

[Highlander II]

well, ray gower could start his own science fiction magazine...


beyond that - *shrug*


but, yeah - SF seems to be a hard sell --

I don't keep up with writing trends, so I have no idea what ppl are buying beyond the no-carb diet books and Harry Potter.

 

[Dave]

I was going to suggest a few magazines such as 'Omni', but when I checked I realised that they've all gone, and they had for some considerable time.

There is still 'Analog', 'Asimov's Science Fiction' and 'Playboy', but not the vast array there once was. Some magazines have gone exclusively online, but even some of these web-zines and e-zines seem to have a short lifespan.

On the other hand, it costs nothing now to produce a desktop fanzine or to build your own website, so the ability to get your words in print is possibly easier.

On a list a belong to, someone who has been trying to get published for some time has just got his first sell, though I can't remember the magazine, but it does show that it is still possible.

I don't think that any authors made a living from magazine stories. As you say it was a way of learning their craft, and making their name until they could sell a novel. Novels brought the real money.

Is it really so different now?

 

[ray gower]

I suggest it is somewhat different because of the learning aspect.

For a magazine article the writer must create and explain in terms the reader can relate to a complete universe, characters and imaginative story within a few thousand words. In short the writer has to be compact and succinct. It is noticeable that the 'big' names writings are both of those.
Then before it is published an editor takes a red crayon to it, removing the worst of the fo-pars and ensuring the story is interesting, complete and meets the requirements of the publication (not commenting on the abilities of the editors).
Again, the magazines were flexible in what they included, so writers could experiment with ideas and style, terms missing in current publishers lexicons.

For the net writers there are few of those checks and balances, unless they very deliberately seek them out.

 

[Rik_the_Riff]

I agree with Ray on this one. Last year, when I went on my first sf-writing binge, I went looking for magazines and (as a UK writer) they were all American, and there weren't many. I also hear a lot about how new sci-fi authors can't get books published on account of the conservatism of big publishers and their own relative obscurity.

So, I thought, !@$% it. When I came to this year's big binge (which is still going, I hope), I figured I could find my own medium, somewhere on the internet. There aren't even that many significant open-content webzines (or if there are, I was looking in the wrong place). So I wrote my own website, the idea being to make a name for myself without having to plow my way through mountains of rejections. I don't know if it's going to work long-term - I only launched it a couple of weeks back - but so far, I haven't had a great many hits. It's a rocky road to success.

The real point, though, is that publishing, film and TV are all getting more and more expensive for the companies responsible, which, understandably, are more concerned with profit than art. Thus, they have to go with lowest-common-denominator product - the (often inane) stuff that will appeal to the (often inane) majority. Not meaning to be condescending, but the majority audience these days does seem to be more keen to accept lower-quality product. Certainly it's harder for writers because people read less. Those magazines survived because people actually could read, and couldn't always afford TVs or films. Nowadays, about 10% or Brits are functionally illiterate (this is a *very* approximate figure). I don't know how this compares to the 40s and 50s, but I'm pretty sure it means people are reading less. Thus, there is less of a market, and more competition.

In short, anybody wanting to crack the novel-writing market is going to have to be really good *and* find a way round the I'm-a-first-time-writer problem. It strikes me that it's better to write for TV or film, though film is possibly even harder to crack than novels. TV's easier, providing you don't mind starting at the schlocky end.

I hope that's all right, or at least valid....

Just a thought,

Rik

 

[ray gower]

As far as I can see your points are all clear and valid, Rik.

If the truth be told for Film and TV you are actually slightly better off in the UK. The BBC actively canvasses for new ideas and writers to the point of holding open days and roadshows for them. (There is a link to their writing site in Resources.)

From the experience of my local councillor, if you get them interested they will go all out to help you get going too. Though that could just be because BBC Cymru is desperate.