Shelflings

[jared]

Together!

[Peter Coleborn]

New poll up top... For a long time, there were separate sections in the BFS newsletter Prism for reviews of mainstream books and indie books, but in later years they were all put together in one big book section.

I suggested this for Prism a long time ago

[David A. Riley]

New poll up top... For a long time, there were separate sections in the BFS newsletter Prism for reviews of mainstream books and indie books, but in later years they were all put together in one big book section.

I suggested this for Prism a long time ago

The reviews were always kept separate, if only because they had different review editors. I don't understand.

[David Brzeski]

I noticed one thing while proofing my reviews. Most reviewers don't seem to follow the rule in the guidelines about including a link to the publisher, or where they can buy the book.
Personally, I think it's a good idea to do that & in the case of this collection, it leaves some books with a tiny advantage in that the interested reader has to do a search to find them.

[stewartguitar]

New poll up top... For a long time, there were separate sections in the BFS newsletter Prism for reviews of mainstream books and indie books, but in later years they were all put together in one big book section.

Which would you prefer in Shelflings?

It depends what the reviews are for.  If it's to help readers choose books then separation is more useful, but then I suspect casual readers will just skip the indie section.  Maybe the function of the society is to support authors, in which case mixing the reviews up will give the indie books a bit more exposure.

[Des Lewis]

Maybe the function of the society is to support authors,

Having been a BFS member off and on since the late 1970s, I personally see that to be the case. And also to support artists, the reviewers themselves, hobbyists (as I see myself), readers etc.
Des

[David Brzeski]

It depends what the reviews are for.  If it's to help readers choose books then separation is more useful.

Why? Unless you're actively trying to suggest a class distinction between real books & the indie books ghetto, then I don't see any purpose in separating them.

[Stephen Theaker]

The reviews were always kept separate, if only because they had different review editors. I don't understand.

I can't find my copy of issue 4 of the BFS Journal, but there was I think just one book reviews section in issues 1, 2 and 3.

[Stephen Theaker]

Maybe the function of the society is to support authors, in which case mixing the reviews up will give the indie books a bit more exposure.

Constitutionally, the BFS's function isn't really to support authors in that particular sense - more to give them chances to socialise and to promote excellence in their work. The reviews should definitely play a big part in that - by identifying what's excellent and what's not-so-excellent - but that probably wouldn't affect how we arrange the reviews - nice to have a mix of good and bad as you go through!

[Des Lewis]

Constitutionally, the BFS's function isn't really to support authors in that particular sense - more to give them chances to socialise and to promote excellence in their work. The reviews should definitely play a big part in that - by identifying what's excellent and what's not-so-excellent -

Socialising mixed with the formal public reviewing of each other's work so as to identify (or otherwise) excellence, that's a potential minefield, I suggest, as a possible debating point, on which I've not yet made my own mind.

[Stephen Theaker]

I forgot to say, I've now made a draft copy of Shelflings #1 available to the review teams via their editors, and the comments have started to come in. I don't want to miss anyone, so if a review of yours appeared on the BFS site in January, February or March, but you've since stopped reviewing for the BFS and so won't have seen my email, email or PM me and I'll send you the download link. Thanks!

[Des Lewis]

Socialising mixed with the formal public reviewing of each other's work so as to identify (or otherwise) excellence, that's a potential minefield, I suggest, as a possible debating point, on which I've not yet made my own mind.

Topic transposed here: http://www.britishfantasysociety.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3310.msg24918#msg24918 not to clutter up the Shelflings topic.

[David A. Riley]

The reviews were always kept separate, if only because they had different review editors. I don't understand.

I can't find my copy of issue 4 of the BFS Journal, but there was I think just one book reviews section in issues 1, 2 and 3.

Do you know, having sent in everything I had put together for Prism and not being a great fan of the Journal I don't think I ever looked at the Prism section after it had been regurgitated and published. On the other hand, each section was sent in individually by me under its own individual editors, just as I had previously set them out in Prism when it was a separate publication. Someone must have altered it after I emailed them in. Shrugs.

[Stephen Theaker]

Do you know, having sent in everything I had put together for Prism and not being a great fan of the Journal I don't think I ever looked at the Prism section after it had been regurgitated and published. On the other hand, each section was sent in individually by me under its own individual editors, just as I had previously set them out in Prism when it was a separate publication. Someone must have altered it after I emailed them in. Shrugs.

By gum! Does make me think that although it's good to consult members, the two people I really need to ask are Craig and Phil.

[Stephen Theaker]

Issue one of Shelflings is now finished and handed over to the BFS for distribution however they think best! Here's some information about it:

SHELFLINGS #1, compiled and typeset by Stephen Theaker, is a new BFS ezine featuring reviews that were commissioned and edited by Craig Lockley, Phil Lunt and Jay Eales for the British Fantasy Society website, with some reviews that were commissioned by Peter Coleborn and Jan Edwards.

Reviewers in this issue include Adam J. Shardlow, Catherine Mann, Craig Knight, David Brzeski, Debbie Bennett, Elloise Hopkins, Jim Mcleod, John Howard, Karen Stevens, Mario Guslandi, Maryann Boo, Matthew Johns, Mike Chinn, Pauline Morgan, Phil Lunt, Janey Barnet, R.A. Bardy, Rebekah Lunt, Rhian Bowley, Selina Lock, Steve Dean and Stewart Horn.

Authors reviewed include: Adam Christopher, Andrez Bergen, Anthony Nanson, Ben Counter, C.J. Henderson and Bruce Gehweiler, Cas Peace, Christine Sutton, Chuck Wendig, Cinda Williams Chima, Dan Abnett, Drew Karpyshyn, Frazer Lee, Gav Thorpe, Gavin Smith, George Mann, Greg Egan, James Mortimore, James Swallow, Jasper Kent, Jeani Rector, Jet McDonald, Joan Frances Turner, John Ajvide Lindqvist, John and Carol E. Barrowman, John Booth, Jonathan Pinnock, Karel Čapek, Katherine Roberts, Kim Newman, Kristen Painter, Laura Hart, Mark Campbell, Matt Bone, Michael J. Sullivan, Nalini Singh, Nick Harkaway, Patrick Whittaker, Paul Collins, Philip Emery, Robert Rankin, Sandy Mitchell, Sarah Cawkwell, Sue Dent, Tanith Lee, Terry Brooks, Theresa Dillon and Marc Ciccarone, Tony Passarelli, William Horwood, William Meikle, and Patrick Melton, Marcus Dunstan and Stephen Romano.