PBS on science fiction pulps vs. the web
"The problems with the pulps -- the big three -- has very little to do with the advent of the web, though they could have done a much better job of positioning themselves when the web was younger," he said. "I think the major thrust of their problem has been that all the pulps have seemed to be content to work with what they have in terms of subscribers and readers, as opposed to being very active about acquiring new readers."Pulp Magazines Struggle to Survive in Wired World (Thanks, Simon!)It's this constant state of defense, he said, that made them more vulnerable once the web had matured and publications across the board began to face increased competition online. Like Williams, Scalzi attributed much of the decline in speculative fiction magazines to changes in newsstand distribution, but noted that other publications had still managed to thrive despite these changes. The sci-fi mags, he argued, did not adequately adapt to the new landscape. He compared it to America Online in the '90s when it quickly began losing its market dominance.
"And then people started migrating to the web, and AOL started doing a bunch of me-too initiatives," he explained. "It was member retention. They were like, 'Look we're doing this too, so you don't have to leave us.' Eventually people went 'Yeah, there's other stuff out here, and it's cheaper or it's free or it's more interesting,' and they leave anyway. What eventually happens with those retention efforts is that perhaps they delay the inevitable for a little while, but eventually the inevitable is inevitable. It eventually comes."
the latest
latest episodes
How could they write an article like this and not mention Escape Pod?
There's pretty much been "only three in existence" since the Seventies...and I bought Asimov's issue 1 on the newstands...
With that dangling modifier "there are only three left", I thought it meant that there are only three readers who still exist. =/
I myself have never been a big fan/subscriber to the SF pulps. Closest I've come to that is buying an old "Best Of {year}" book or two at the used book shop. I have, however, become hooked on the already mentioned Escape Pod, as well as the spinoff PseudoPod, and to a lesser extent PodCastle, and have actively sought out authors based upon readings on those podcasts.
Cyberscythe, you're not the only one. It was only when I continued reading that I realized what was intended.
The only pulps that I have are a handful of F&SF issues that comprise four of the five issues that originally ran Stephen King's "Gunslinger" stories. It wasn't so much that I didn't like the format as I'd grown up thinking that the place to go for short SF was the local library, which usually stocked the yearly anthologies.
I have to wonder if part of the issue isn't the problem of distribution. To my knowledge, in the entire city of Toronto the only place I know I can get new copies of Analog, Asimov's, and F&SF is Bakka-Phoenix - that's where I buy mine in lieu of subscribing. This isn't the old days anymore when they were sold on newsstands - I can't even remember the last time I saw a newsstand outside of a subway station.
The fans are obviously still there, but even if they can get information on the pulps and buy subscriptions online, who's going to commit to a twelve-issue run of something they're unfamiliar with?
Guess I have some research and some writing to do. Then again, I wouldn't expect to make very much money writing for the genre.
Thanks for mentioning Escape Pod, Roger. Love their theme music, but I haven't listened to much of their podcasts yet. There are some others out there I am evaluating.
Folks interested in nerdy research about SF pulp literature should consider taking a peek at The Genre Evolution Project. In undergrad I was a researcher on this team, and the failing state of the pulps is something we discussed quite a lot.
Mainly we tied it back to a point highlighted in the main post - the magazines appear either content with their readership base or uncertain how to adapt to a younger generation with more entertainment options. Young people started plugging into video games and movies to get their SF entertainment fix. Authors of SF content seem to follow a similar pattern; the writers are out there of course, but how many of them are flocking to pulps as a way to make money and build a career?
It's one manifestation of a larger pattern. Speaking as one young person, I have no newspaper or magazine subscriptions that aren't gifted to me by aunts and uncles. (Excluding Make.)
My golden age of SF was when I was home sick with the mumps, just before Christmas, 1967. I sent my dad to the newsstand and had him look for a number of magazine titles I knew from anthologies. I was 15, and I found Galaxy and Analog that way. I ended up collecting magazines back into the late 1940's, just because I've always been a book hound, and loved looking at how the magazines trended, back into time. I still have the Astoundings that go back that far, but now I have a 12 year daughter, and I can't get her to pick up a novel, even if it's something that she loved as a movie (Harry Potter comes to mind). She can't comprehend how many books I had already read when I was her age, but then I didn't watch as many hours of cable / TV as she has already in her life.
I picked up a couple of the magazines that are left, in the past couple of year, and I've looked at the stories, and read some of them as well, and I just don't feel any connection to what has come out in the past. Are there fewer stories being submitted? Is Stanley Schmidt still editing Analog because else cares to take it away from him? I didn't think he was that good at it 20 years ago. How sad.