Since this will (probably/maybe) disappear in about 15 hours...my own comment on a Literary Controversy Involving Depressed Canines: I read all three "major" SF Magazines (well, they used to be major). So I've read some of the short fiction involved, and stories by one of the Leading Depressed Canines. One nominated author writes prose so...
John (bird whisperer)
and
Melly #FForever
liked this
I'm not sure what the word is, but I rarely abandon stories once begun, and have made an exception in his case. "Turgid hard SF" might be one way to put it. I still subscribe to that particular magazine because I haven't stopped yet; when $ comes to shove, it will be the first to go, because it's the last in terms of writing quality.
- walt crawford
Thus, the fact that *all* the nominated works from one of the "big" three are from that magazine, with none from the two that seem to care more about writing quality, I find telling. But I'm not paying my $40, and I don't base my reading on award counts (and I'm a straight very-white male), so I suppose it's not my fight.
- walt crawford
One fallout, however: when I encounter works by Leading Depressed Canine in the future, I'll almost certainly judge them more harshly, just as I can't look at OSC's books without being aware of his attitudes. Too bad, in a way.
- walt crawford
Which is *the* SF magazine for you, Walt? I just started taking Asimov's on my tablet- yet to read a story, lots of other stuff to read, but felt would give it a go on the shorts front.
- Pete's Got To Go
I very much like both Asimov's (which I've subscribed to ever since it started, but didn't keep for Big Value of Yellowing Pulp) and F&SF. I suspect the best writing is in Asimov's (and Hugo/Nebula histories suggest that), while F&SF has the broadest range.
- walt crawford
Ta :)
- Pete's Got To Go