TOC: Asimov’s January 2011

One Comment

1. Derek C. F. Pegritz says:

   November 22, 2010 at 11:02 pm

   I have officially given up on Asimov’s. I used to read both Asimov’s and Analog religiously during the ’80s and most of the ’90s, but had grown sick of Analog‘s steadily-declining quality by about 1994: everything single issue was basically Yet Another Michael F. Flynn Issue. Now, Asimov’s has become the Kristine Kathryn Rush/Robert Reed Publishing Spectacular.

   Now, I love Robert Reed’s work. But he’s just too prolific to keep up with. And buying a magazine just to read one single author’s work just isn’t worth it anymore. Rusch’s work is universally horrid, and since nearly every single issue of that magazine features one of her crappy stories as the cover tale…well, I can no longer justify buying the damn thing.

   The sad thing is…Asimov’s has always been a closed little world structured around particular writers, some of whom (Ian McDonald, Neal Asher, Paolo Bacigallupi) I love, some of whom (Connie Willis, Connie Willis, and Connie Willis) I despise–but despite publishing hundreds of stories by their editorial staff’s ever-so-slowly-changing roster of personal favourites, they still used to publish occasional gems by newer writers and old masters I’d thought long dead (Jack Williamson, this means you). Since about 2007, though, the quality of material presented in Asimov’s has been steadily declining, and every issue seems to offer up the same handful of authors…over and over and over. In fact, in the last year, I haven’t enjoyed a single story I’ve read in Asimov‘s.

   So I give up. The age of the print science-fiction magazine is officially dead as far as I’m concerned.

   I still treasure my back-issue library, and periodically go back to my first issue (September 1985) and reread all my favourite stories. But when I want new fiction these days, I’m not spending a dime: I’m loading up http://www.clarkesworld.com and its ilk.

   Reply