REVIEW - Vector Issue 253 (July/August 2007)

"I only buy it for the articles" was the famous refrain back when Playboy actually had articles.  To say that it equally applies to Vector, the Critical Journal of the British Science Fiction Association might well appear to be an empty truth given how devoid the magazine is of naked women but the truth is that I don't buy Vector for the articles, instead Vector's articles sell me my membership to the British Science Fiction Association and it should really sell you yours too.

 

The magazine kicks off with a thoughtful editorial by Niall Harrrison (who blogs HERE and is Reviews Editor HERE) about the failure of many genre novels to be published in the UK.  In the case of some works such as Peter Watts' Blindsight or Jo Walton's Farthing, the books simply never come thereby robbing the British punter of any chance of stumbling across either work in their local bookshop.  In other cases, such as Charlie Stross' Laundry series, the books do eventually creep their way onto our shelves but it's frequently a while after the buzz has faded.  To most of the people reading these words, I suspect this won't be a problem as people who possess the requisite nous to read online reviews are likely to have enough about them to actually order books they want online rather than simply wander into Waterstones' and look disappointed and lost.  The problem with this practice is not so much that people who want the books can't get them, it's more that it means that a lot of the more interesting SF simply never finds its way to the British public, thereby preserving the image that genre is nothing but populist escapist nonsense with dragons and spaceships.  This is undeniably an important issue and Niall has some interesting things to say about it, he also sets up nicely the issue's main interview (and cover feature).

Graham Sleight's interview of Gollancz's Jo Fletcher is a sprawling beast that takes up 6 pages of densely typed, picture free discussion.  Fletcher reveals herself to be not only opinionated but also quite a good interview in that she's happy to take a simple question and run with the ball.  The interview features fascinating insights into the world of SF publishing touching on issues such as how large SF print runs are now, why book sizes have increased and why a there's a tendency to deny that mainstream writers that produce genre are doing anything of the sort.  To be blunt it's because the advances for mainstream novels are so much bigger than for genre novels that publishers are terrified that the works will only ever sell as well as a popular genre work.  Fletcher also reveals that Gollancz are launching an imprint devoted to Vampire porn.  Which is soul-suckingly depressing.  My only regrets about the interview is that Sleight doesn't follow up on some of Fletcher's more interesting utterances such as her remarks that it's "scary" how big Sf novels are compared to those published in previous decades.  One of my pet theories about this is that the publishers have given up on the proportion of the population that reads regularly.  Instead they seem to be aiming at a book equivalent of the music industry's £50 man.  So rather than trying to sell us 10 books a year at a fiver each, they'd rather sell us three big fat ones at £20 a go.  Then again, perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to this as I really dislike reading long books.  Mild quibbles aside, it's a truly fascinating interview and well worth checking out.

The next article is a critical piece about Anna Kavan's Ice by famed author of The Prestige and The Affirmation Christopher Priest.  The article starts off really nicely and is particularly welcome as it's actually proper criticism, which is a pleasant change in a magazine that, while always an excellent read, tends to go for think pieces plus shortish reviews rather than the long critical pieces suggested by the strapline "The Critical Journal of the British Science Fiction Association".  However, unfortunately my enjoyment of this particular piece was cut short by the fact that the printer seems to have omitted 8 pages from my copy.  Thereby neutering not only Christopher Priest's piece but Martin Lewis' seemingly fascinating interview with Richard Morgan (of Black Man and Market Forces fame) but also cutting out a number of reviews.

The reviews section itself (run by Paul N. Billinger) feels a lot like Interzone's somewhat strangely.  The reviews are in the 500 word range and are of varying but decent quality.  The only downside to them is that they were put together for a magazine due originally to emerge in July so a lot of the books have lost their freshness, particularly when you bear in mind that there are reviews of UK reprints such as Stross' Glasshouse which actually came out summer before last.  However, in a way this has proved helpful to me as it has allowed me to realise why it is that I struggle to get excited about Vector's reviews section. 

When it comes to "reviewing" in the widest sense, there are generally two approaches.  Firstly, there are quick reviews designed to inform you as to whether or not you might be interested in purchasing a book.  These are the kinds of reviews that Interzone, Death Ray and SFX favour and they're also the kind that Vector favours.  Secondly, there are longer more critical pieces aimed not so much at appraising the book for purposes of purchase but rather as part of the long term process of interpretation and evaluation whereby people who have read the book decide whether a) it is a good book and b) what the book is really about.  Death Ray and SFX are good resources because they're good places to go to let you know what's coming out and what's worth checking out.  However, with a publication schedule as slow and (seemingly) unpredictable as Vector's, the reviews are effectively useless for the purposes of working out what it is I want to buy as, by the time Vector arrives, I've seen loads of reviews of the works and have probably reached a decision about them anyway.  Admittedly this problem has been massively amplified by the magazine turning up nearly 4 months late but it does, I think call into question the editorial direction of the magazine's reviews section.  Personally, I would like to see the large reviews section split into immediate reviews and longer more considered critical pieces or, alternately, I'd like to see more reviews of genuinely old stuff that might well have come out before I got into SF.  As I said, this section is not usually as prone to these problems as this issue is but I genuinely think that a re-examination might well be in order.

Vector 253 also includes a nice and fluffy piece by Paul Raven about the first SF Foundation Masterclass.  Clearly Paul enjoyed himself and there's a handy advert for next year's class but I didn't have any interest in this programme when I first heard about it and I've read nothing new to change my mind.  Even if Geoff Ryman and Gary K. Wolfe are giving the class next year *grinds teeth*.

The mag also contains a few pages of Paul N. Billinger's Particles, an always entertaining and sarcastic books received column.  However, the presence of Particles immediately after the reviews section does give the magazine a weird catalogue feel to it with dozens and dozens of really short pieces about loads of different books and further adds to my sense that the reviews section could do with a bit of a sprucing up.

The remaining section is Graham Sleight's The New X column is a well-written piece about incommensurability and the gulf between genre and mainstream criticism.  Clearly great minds think alike as I made the exact same point around the same time HERE about the need for a new aesthetics of ideas.

My quibbles about the reviews section notwithstanding, I continue to think that Vector is a truly excellent magazine that justifies, by itself, the membership price of the BSFA.  It is always thoughtful, always intelligent and it really feels plugged into the online community in a way that other dead tree zines do not.  It really deserves a wider readership than it currently has.

Comments

[Martin]

My interview should be online at the Vector website at some point in November.