The BFS Journal -- Xmas 2011 issue

[Peter Coleborn]

Yep, mine arrived yesterday too - looks lovely. Josh, there's an interesting interview near the back - some wannabe who thinks she can interview people! 

Very good interview

[David A. Riley]

I am very impressed with the latest BFS Journal. It's kept up the standards of previous ones, though noticeably slimmer without the reviews.

I would have suggested putting a questionnaire in about whether readers would like reviews only to be posted online, because it would be interesting - and useful - to know whether our members like this decision. How many actually log into our website, for instance? Most? A few? All? Does anyone know? It is all very well assuming that this will be a change that most members will go along with, but I think we should make sure we don't lose people because of it. In the past, before I started editing Prism myself, the reviews were always the items I looked at first. Now I go online and do this, but just because I do - and probably a majority of those of you reading this do so as well - doesn't mean that this applies to the bulk of the BFS's members. I suppose only time and maintaining current membership numbers will tell. With the end of printed reviews, it does look now as if the Journal is only Dark Horizons and that Prism, for all intents and purposes, has ceased to exist as a publication, which means that members look like they are getting less for their subscription than before in terms of printed items.

[Peter Coleborn]

We have over 400 members but it seems that only a small percentage contribute to the BFS forum.

[LouM]

Glad to hear you're enjoying the Journal, David. It's nice to know that someone who's been so actively involved in it in the past approves!

Technically, neither Prism nor Dark Horizons exist any longer. Peter and I took the joint decision to merge them, with the editor titles becoming fiction & non-fiction to create a single, unified publication; a decision which Guy Adams is fully on board with, thankfully!

There's a few problems with including the reviews in print. Firstly, with so many bloggers reviewing, and posting sometimes two or three reviews daily, we simply can't compete. The lead times are, as you know, so long that it's hard to keep reviews in date, which leads to fewer people reading them and all the work of our reviewers being overlooked - which I think is very unfair! Moving them online gives our reviewers the huge advantage of being able to connect more directly with publishers (if they want to) and to build their own reviewing platform online which they can connect to their own site, their Facebook or Twitter feeds. They're also not rushing to meet print deadlines. For us, it means we can bring publishers, authors and readers to the site, which is great for the Society's profile and gives the reviews editor a much stronger footing with publishers. Jan has done so well in establishing great connections, I think we need to build on them as much as we can. I strongly feel that the book reviews team should be a big part of our outward face, representing us to the wider world, if you like.

Caroline, too, is doing such an amazing job with the news on the site that we simply can't compete (nor should we try to) in terms of including news in print. By the time members get it in the Journal, it's all out of date anyway. Instead, I wanted to devote the space to articles which were just for the members; pieces about writing or reading or the people we're interested in (like the fab Pete Crowther interview, or Jo Fletcher's discussion of publishing) - things which were just "ours" as opposed to the reviews, which could be for everyone both in & outside the Society. I hope we can grow the non-fiction to give a space where members of the Society & its friends can talk about the things they feel passionate about

On the subject of the lower page count: first of all, when I came on board I was given a strict ceiling on word count by David H, because it was felt that if the combined Journal kept growing, the costs were going to get out of hand. That's a separate conversation which involves a lot more people, of course. We also had the minor issue of the editors being a touch... "distracted" this autumn But you'll be pleased to know that the Spring issue is going to be absolutely *stuffed*. You may want to warn your postman...

[joshua rainbird]

Yep, mine arrived yesterday too - looks lovely. Josh, there's an interesting interview near the back - some wannabe who thinks she can interview people! 

not merely satisfied with pipedreaming the upstart goes ahead and does it ...

glad you've returned to your former habits, long may it continue   

[David A. Riley]

Thanks for that detailed reply, Lou. And I fully understand the need to keep reviews as topical and up to date as possible. My only concerns were whether enough of our members use our website to make up for none of them appearing in print. The trouble is I do get the impression that most members never say anything, whether good or bad, and vote with their renewals instead. But that's not something easily remedied.

I would definitely like to see more non-fiction in the Journal. With all due respect to those who contribute stories, they're are not what I look at first and do tend to get neglected by me as a reader. Articles, on the other hand, are always of interest, in particular this time the Whitehead piece. More material like this would definitely be welcome.  Without reviews taking up space in the Journal, perhaps even longer, more in depth articles of this sort could be published. It would be nice, too, to see pieces on fantasy artists, with all that space available for examples of their work.  

Keep up the good work!

[ColinFBarnes]

Just a quick question with regards to the Journal - I joined on the 14th (but still waiting for confirmation) is that too late to receive the journal?

[LouM]

How it usually works, Colin, is that when we send the Journal to print (which I think was the end of Nov) we order copies for existing members plus extra for contributors and additional ones for anyone joining that quarter. New members will usually get a copy of the Journal with their welcome letter.

Obviously, with a whole new committee and all the stuff that's been going on in the background, we're still finding our feet - but hopefully you should get something as soon as we're sorted! Please do bear with us

[Grafire]

Mine arrived today    It looks terrific!

[ColinFBarnes]

How it usually works, Colin, is that when we send the Journal to print (which I think was the end of Nov) we order copies for existing members plus extra for contributors and additional ones for anyone joining that quarter. New members will usually get a copy of the Journal with their welcome letter.

Obviously, with a whole new committee and all the stuff that's been going on in the background, we're still finding our feet - but hopefully you should get something as soon as we're sorted! Please do bear with us

Cool beans, it's not a huge issue though. Just thought I'd ask Thanks for responding

[Peter Coleborn]

Just a quick question with regards to the Journal - I joined on the 14th (but still waiting for confirmation) is that too late to receive the journal?

I assume you mean the 14th December -- if so I'm awaiting details of your membership from Marion before I can post the Journal to you. Sadly, this will be after Xmas since there is little chance of my getting to the PO before the 25th.

[ColinFBarnes]

Just a quick question with regards to the Journal - I joined on the 14th (but still waiting for confirmation) is that too late to receive the journal?

I assume you mean the 14th December -- if so I'm awaiting details of your membership from Marion before I can post the Journal to you. Sadly, this will be after Xmas since there is little chance of my getting to the PO before the 25th.

There's really no rush Peter. To be honest, when I signed up for the membership I wasn't even really thinking about the journal. All in good time. By the sounds of things with you being so busy you could do with some time to relax over xmas.

[Peter Coleborn]

On the subject of the lower page count: first of all, when I came on board I was given a strict ceiling on word count by David H, because it was felt that if the combined Journal kept growing, the costs were going to get out of hand. That's a separate conversation which involves a lot more people, of course. We also had the minor issue of the editors being a touch... "distracted" this autumn But you'll be pleased to know that the Spring issue is going to be absolutely *stuffed*. You may want to warn your postman...

We were aiming for 208 pages but in the end we came in at 192. If we had had more time I'm sure we could've fitting in more material, but time was pressing. (In case you don't know, pages have to be in multiples of 16.)

[Peter Coleborn]

I would definitely like to see more non-fiction in the Journal. With all due respect to those who contribute stories, they're are not what I look at first and do tend to get neglected by me as a reader. Articles, on the other hand, are always of interest, in particular this time the Whitehead piece. More material like this would definitely be welcome.  Without reviews taking up space in the Journal, perhaps even longer, more in depth articles of this sort could be published. It would be nice, too, to see pieces on fantasy artists, with all that space available for examples of their work.  
Keep up the good work!

I like to see a good balance between fiction and non-fiction, David, and I think the Journal is moving in that direction. Good idea about articles on artists. And maybe someone could revive the Roots of the Writer/Artist/Editor series...

[LouM]

On the subject of the lower page count: first of all, when I came on board I was given a strict ceiling on word count by David H, because it was felt that if the combined Journal kept growing, the costs were going to get out of hand. That's a separate conversation which involves a lot more people, of course. We also had the minor issue of the editors being a touch... "distracted" this autumn But you'll be pleased to know that the Spring issue is going to be absolutely *stuffed*. You may want to warn your postman...

We were aiming for 208 pages but in the end we came in at 192. If we had had more time I'm sure we could've fitting in more material, but time was pressing. (In case you don't know, pages have to be in multiples of 16.)

I know, Peter - if things had gone a little more smoothly, there were some other bits I'd have liked to get in there but just didn't have the time to arrange at the start because of the committee issues. Never mind, though. I think we've got some cracking stuff in there and hopefully it's an issue you can feel proud to have as your last one