From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 17:42:10 -0500 (EST), kludge@panix.com (Scott   
   Dorsey) wrote:   
      
   >So, given the worries about F&SF, I picked up the latest copy at my local   
   >Barnes and Noble, along with the latest Asimov's.  Both seem to be   
   >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 two.   
   >   
   >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.   
   >   
   >The contents?  I will give the new editors credit for trying to be inclusive.   
   >Almost all the fiction authors were bipoc folks, and there was a very   
   >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 not   
   >have been fixed up very quickly by John Campbell, but there was no   
   >John Campbell with his red pencil there to do it.   
   >   
   >So... I wish them luck, and I might consider subscribing just to see what   
   >happens, but this is a magazine that feels like it has some problems.   
   >Not insurmountable ones, but time is running out.   
      
   Although I gave up on magazines after the Davis Disaster [1], I am   
   sorry to hear of their current condition. This is, of course, a sign   
   of financial stress: either they just aren't bringing in enough money,   
   or the money they do bring in is being absorbed by overhead, or both.   
      
   They deserve better.   
      
   [1] In the mid-to-late 80's they really pushed their subs on current   
   subscribers. They also chose to increase the number of issues and   
   double issues, cutting down subscription length to compensate. The   
   problem was that I couldn't keep up: I was reading /no/ fiction other   
   than their magazines. So I stopped the subs (using a local newspaper's   
   customer helper to "remind" them that I was entitled to a pro-rata   
   refund on each sub). It took a good five years to get through the   
   stack of accumulated novels.   
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)