New magazine

[coalescent]

scalpel_mag, for all your sf reviewing and criticism needs.
First issue includes:

• A guest editorial by Pat Cadigan


• A column by Adam Roberts


• An interview with Charles Stross


• Reviews of Ink by Hal Duncan, The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate by Ted Chiang, and Gradisil by Adam Roberts.

If you want to contribute, guidelines are here.

Comments

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Why isn't donation seeking sustainable?

In the narrow sense, because it relies on the whim of a relatively small population - certainly smaller than your readership - and isn't as directly tied to your performance as a magazine (I suggest) as actually taking money every time someone wants your content.

In the broader sense, because Rose's question was about business models, and I don't think of taking donations as being part of regular business practice. Regular charity practice, sure - heaven knows, I work for a charity. I have no problem with sf entities running on their fannish energies and without a "professional" structure of payment/cash flow to sustain them; but in a sense, what I'm trying to bottom out here is whether Rose's aspiration of payment from a venue like Scalpel is a reasonable aspiration for anyone in the field.

[deadcities-icon.livejournal.com]

but in a sense, what I'm trying to bottom out here is whether Rose's aspiration of payment from a venue like Scalpel is a reasonable aspiration for anyone in the field.

If that was true, there wouldn't be any need for Scalpel, because there would be dozens of good paying venues for us all to begin with.

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Well, it may be that there is a business model that can be made to work, but which no-one's yet stumbled on.

[deadcities-icon.livejournal.com]

I hope so.

And if so, whenever it's discovered, I'm stealing it straight away.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Bearing in mind that it may not necessarily be replicatable. I have a feeling that SH's donation model only really works because there aren't a dozen other sf 'zines doing the same thing.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

Well I think there's loads of them out there, but I think SH had a huge advantage in that they started before many of them and also had (have?) some large donors. Always easier to win the pie when you can get a big chunk from relatively few people. (Well unless they decide to pull the plug.)

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

All he has to do is make SF reviewing more like porn.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I ain't reviewing naked.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

Well I assume they would have people who do the reviews and people who are the eye candy and never the twain would meet.

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Of course, it's not the case that no sf reviewers have ever done nude modelling...

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

Do you want to confess your dirty secret now? Or do you want to wait until wiscon?

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

It's not my dirty secret...

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

You know Dan doesn't actually count, right?

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

It's not Dan either. Unless you know something I don't.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

If you are going to tell me it's Clute, can we just pretend it's Dan?

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Or, y'know, not.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

Just trying to get him a moneymaking model!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

[f/x: groan]

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I read this as "a monkeymaking model."

Please get me a monkeymaking model immediately.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Dear Tuddles,

Regret to inform you, I am no longer willing to take part in any future Third Row Discussions.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

Well SH has been online since what? 2000? 2001? That seem pretty sustainable to me. I've been talking a lot about online models with my friend Jer and the problem is people expect free content online - it's a huge barrier to overcome and I think you are more likely to be sustainable imposing on the good will of folk than trying to charge them per issue.