As Jacques Barcia correctly asks, so what?
Had this happened two or three years ago it would have been a great idea but now, everyone has a blog, everyone has a social networking presence. I can easily spend three or four hours a day reading the feeds, answering emails, micro-blogging, actually blogging participating in discussions in the comment sections of various blogs and that is without mentioning the actual content that I produce and put up online in different places.
I put it to you that this community (which has been admirably quick in adapting to new technologies) is as connected as it can possibly get and that this connection is (aside from a few existing forums) nicely decentralised and organic.
In fact, I put it to you that this community is getting dangerously close to the saturation point. As more and more bloggers jump the fence and start doing PR, it's getting to the point where it is actually quite time consuming to wade through PR in order to find serious content. Just look at SF Signal's daily link fests; for ages they contained all of the serious content that we as a community produced every day but seemingly the SF Signal boys can't keep up and have cut back their coverage to little more that free books and interviews. If we are not careful, there will come a point where wading through profile-raising fluff will take so long that people will no longer bother to look for the serious content that goes out in blog form.
What we need is not more connection, it is more filtering and more paying venues for the serious content that many of us put out for free.
A white elephant hybrid of time sink and PR sludge-pump that pays hugely exposed writers such as Stross and Scalzi for content in the hope of sucking in our marketing eye-balls strikes me as precisely what online SF does not need, right now.
"A white elephant hybrid of time sink and PR sludge-pump that pays hugely exposed writers such as Stross and Scalzi for content in the hope of sucking in our marketing eye-balls strikes me as precisely what online SF does not need, right now."
Yes, how HORRIBLE that a well-funded and designed science fiction-oriented site
a) Pays science fiction writers a per word rate for their fiction that approaches a living wage, unlike so many science fiction markets out there;
b) Is dedicated to presenting science fiction and its community as vital, engaged and interesting, and is willing to put money where its mouth is;
c) Might, aside from addressing the existing science fiction fan community, have aspirations to draw in readers beyond usual gang of suspects, and thus expand the audience for written science fiction.
Yes, it's a goddamn tragedy, it is.
You appear to be suffering from the common misperception that as far as written science fiction goes, the "community" is all that is, all that ever was, and all that ever shall be, until the end of fandom, amen. If you wish to continue with those blinders, it's your call. However, I suggest you entertain the notion that there is a world outside of the community, filled with people who haven't written science fiction habitually, might not know of all the nooks and crannies of the online skiffyverse, and could use a big, prominent, friendly front door into that world. Perhaps once they get in, they'll look around. Perhaps once they get in, they'll become fans.
Maybe you don't want this, or don't feel it is necessary. But speaking as a "hugely exposed" writer (hah!) who in the real world has a mortgage to pay and a desire to reach all sorts of readers, even the ones who don't already know that they might like science fiction, I think it's critical, necessary, and desirable. Believe you me, we need the outreach, right now.
Basically, this post speaks to me of the sort of arrogance and sense of personal privilege regarding written science fiction and its community that will have it continually condemned as a poorly-paying, poorly-selling literary ghetto (fairly) for the geeks and socially maladapted (unfairly). Naturally, I think written science fiction has rather more potential than that, and I prefer, for personal and professional reasons, not to have the literary genre I write in choke on its own progressively incestuous fumes. I think the Tor.Com site will be a good step in opening up our community a little more and inviting new people in and introducing the hybrid vigor that will help the genre and its community, not kill it. That's why I'm taking part in it.
Posted by: John Scalzi | July 19, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Hi John :-)
A) I'll be impressed when they start buying stuff from lesser known people. I don't think you're at the point in your career when you have problems selling stories. At this point people are competing to get your work. Forgive me if I don't get moist at the thought of you being slightly better paid.
B) The SF community is vital, engaged and interesting. There is no way in which this can be improved upon by more marketing and more social networking. What is needed is better content, not more "invite me to be your friend!" buttons.
C) I fail to see why someone who does not identify as an SF fan would want to join a social networking site aimed at SF fans. I mean, I'm an SF fan and I can think of nothing worse...
My point is not that there's no room for improvement but that I don't see a problem to which there can be a technological solution. And from my experience, fandom is aggressively inclusive and friendly.
By and large I don't do scenes and I'm naturally an outsider who prefers to piss inside the tent whilst standing outside in the rain but within the space of 18 months fandom broke me down and has now got me going to awards, BSFA meetings and stuff like that. All that's required to start that process is basically reacting on your blog to something someone else has written. You can't get any more inclusive than that.
So the idea that we need an SF publishing house to provide us with an acceptable face is mildly offensive and the idea that we need a special SF social networking site when you can do SF-related social networking through facebook is ridiculous.
I'm sorry John, but I can't see any basis for your argument other than wishful thinking and economic self-interest.
You're seriously arguing that a social networking site set up by a publishing house that is largely unheard of outside of SF circles is a better way of sucking in new people than the utterly inclusive blogosphere and facebook.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 19, 2008 at 07:45 PM
"You're seriously arguing that a social networking site set up by a publishing house that is largely unheard of outside of SF circles is a better way of sucking in new people than the utterly inclusive blogosphere and facebook."
The social networking aspect of the Tor.Com site interests me almost not at all, since I think it's a relatively minor value add to the overall site, so, no, I'm not making that argument at all. But even if I were, you're making a tremendously poor argument suggesting that no one would be interested in socially networking at Tor.Com when there are other options available. You seem to be arguing that people feel they need to belong only to one thing, and then that thing is sufficient and they don't have to bother with any other thing. If this were the case, the member sets for Facebook and MySpace (and every other social networking site) would be mutually exclusive. People join social networks severally and promiscuously, based on their interests.
To consider the social networking at Tor.Com to be the primary draw of the site for non-SFer is a bit ridiculous, so you're working from bad premises at the outset. What will be the primary draw for the uninitiated is the content, both the fiction and the blog writing there, plus the reader comments and conversation that go on because of them. People who want to comment will register, and thus possibly get some benefit of the social networking tools there. But even if all they do is read and visit the site, new folks will be exposed to writers and topics and people they've not been exposed to before. Tor.Com offers the community implementation to take advantage of the audience that grows through the content. The fact that you don't seem to be considering the role of the content here to any significant extent is instructive.
As for you being impressed with Tor.Com once it starts laying out money for newer writers, well, that's very indie-music store clerk of you, but in the real world Tor has invested a lot of time and money into the site and would have been foolish to debut the site with writers no one has ever heard of before, and who would not in themselves act as a draw for the site.
I agree that I would like to see Tor.Com publish new writers, but working under the impression that it should debut with them is, well, silly. If one were to open a new musical concert venue, who would you rather have as your first act: a local band that has never played live, or a band who has chart-topping hits and an established fan base? If you were opening a theater, which would you prefer: a play by a first-time playwright with untested actors, or a play from an established, popular writer, featuring actors well-loved by audiences? Now, I imagine you might say in both cases you would like to see all new stuff, but you're not the one paying the bills, and you're not the one who has to keep the place running day in and day out.
If Tor.Com meets with initial success, then yes, it should show off great writing from great writers no one has ever heard of before, and sooner than later. But to snark at it for trying to ensure its debut is a success by leading off with work from well-known writers is arrogant and also indicates either a lack of knowledge or interest in, the practical business side of making a site like this work.
"I'm sorry John, but I can't see any basis for your argument other than wishful thinking and economic self-interest."
Well, Jonathan, as for my "wishful thinking," aside from the last ten years I've spent watching the economic and social dynamics of my own personal site, I've worked professionally as a consultant to online companies and sites on online community building and maintenance since 1998, and spent four and a half years as the front man of America Online's blogging community initiative, which was a job all about looking at what works at building community and what doesn't. Which is to say that this is the sort of thing I've done professionally longer than most people have been blogging. So my wishful thinking here is at the very least informed by a substantial amount of professional perspective about the very sort of thing that Tor.Com is now doing.
As for my "economic self-interest," get real, please. The reason I don't write short fiction is that I take a pay cut every time I do; even Tor.Com's rate is a fraction of what I could make (and do make) writing in other venues or consulting for corporations. My economic self-interest hardly enters into this at all. On the other hand, if my story helps draw people into Tor.Com, and helps to give it an initial boost, then I'm bolstering a market that pays more than the general pittance writers get writing short fiction in this genre. I don't mind that you don't get moist over what I make, but perhaps you might engage in a little long-term thinking about the benefit to other writers by having this market around for a while.
Finally, as for the idea "that we need an SF publishing house to provide us with an acceptable face is mildly offensive," all this indicates is that you're entirely missing the point. Fandom doesn't need Tor to do anything; it's a self-contained thing, which existed before Tor did, and will exist regardless of what Tor does. However, the genre of written science fiction certainly does need to have a major publisher do a bit of outreach to the unconvinced. Science fiction owns a single-digit and stagnant percentage point of total sales in the book world; we'd do well to do some recruiting to the cause.
Posted by: John Scalzi | July 19, 2008 at 09:31 PM
I'm not saying that people feel the need to only belong to one thing. I'm saying that the stuff offered by the social networking aspects of Tor's sites already exist across a number of services and as such, Tor's site is redundant. This counts against it and is reason enough for me to think that it's a waste of time and money.
Sure Tor is publishing new content but so are a dozen other sites out there. If you want to "discover" the writings of John Scalzi you don't need tor.com to help you. I also don't think that short fiction is much of a gateway to SF. I think most people nowadays first encounter SF in novel form and the plummeting sales of short fiction magazines supports this. I'm an SF critic and I barely ever read short fiction and I never read it online, as a result I doubt very much that someone who doesn't take much of an interest in SF is going to seek out a specialised website and start reading short fiction.
Actually, I think I probably would open with some short fiction from some of the people who are less known. The short fiction scene is active and very supportive. Publishing some of the lesser known up and coming SF authors would probably do a good job of sucking in the people who write and think about short fiction. It would also make it clear that tor.com isn't just about sucking in marketing eyeballs.
My problem with the site, as described, is that while it's great as a paying venue for people like you. It does pretty much nothing for the rest of the community. It's not paying for criticism, it's not paying for cool short stories by the next generation of John Scalzi's, it's just another piece of self-promoting PR bullshit. It offers nothing other than the odd short story. Whoop-de-doo.
In terms of concert venues, it depends upon what the point of the venue is. If the point is to make as much money as quickly as possible then sure, get in Nelly and the Pussycat Dolls but if the point is to create a venue that will foster a vibrant scene, then Nelly and the Pussycat Dolls are most definitely not the way to go. My problem with tor.com from the get-go has been that it's all about Tor and not all about the community, so I would suggest that the community does not need this new website.
If your economic interest matters hardly at all then why did you mention how great it was that they were paying a decent per word rate?
It sounds a lot to me like you're shifting your ground.
Clearly you think this site is a good idea but you're either not sure why or you're trying to make it not seem like greed over another venue willing to pay top dollar for your stuff. So apparently you think that I'm completely out of order for criticising a social networking site that only pays for established writers except that you're not interested in social networking and you think that they should pay for less established writers. You also think it's really great that there's a new site willing to pay top dollar for your work but you don't really care about the site being willing to pay top dollar for your work.
At the moment, you're coming across as slightly nuts; writing huge long posts defending a site whose main characteristics you are either not interested in or which you hope will change with time.
I get the impression that while you're not actually crazy about the site, you REALLY don't think that people should be slagging it off. Which is a position I can empathise with, after all, you're published by Tor and so probably know the people who have been involved in setting up the site. Maybe you even consider them friends and I'm here ragging on what your friends have worked quite hard on. I feel your pain John... I just don't think your position is a rational one.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I have seen the Tor free e-book program discussed in communities beyond the usual SFF ghetto, e.g. romance or general book sites, so that part of Tor.com is definitely doing its job in drawing new readers. And if a romance reader comes for Patti O'Shea, to name one paranormal romance writer who had a book in the free e-book program, and finds that she also enjoys Tobias Buckell and John Scalzi (or if a hardcore SF reader suddenly finds he or she likes Patti O'Shea) and starts seeking out more fiction in that vein, then that's a good thing.
As for the actual site, we'll have to see what it's like. If it doesn't live up to the hype, then it will eventually fade away anyway.
Posted by: CB | July 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM
CB - everyone and his dog is offering free books nowadays. What tor.com are doing is hardly revolutionary. Baen have been doing it for YEARS.
Personally I've never downloaded anything from them as they've never had anything up that interested me... but then that's me.
Any hardcore SF reader who suddenly discovers they like paranormal romance should immediately see a psychiatrist :-)
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Well, the site has actually launched now, and while I'm not convinced it's really necessary, I do think it's got some good content already, and a fine set of bloggers lined up to provide more. It might not be the focal point fanzine it would like to be, but it has more than just Tor self-promotional gumph on there, and the social networking stuff is very light.
And the free books are pretty good - Spin and Farthing are probably the pick of the bunch.
Posted by: Liz | July 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM
It's more of a group blog really and as such, I suspect you're right that it will become A destination among others.
The bloggers are big names admittedly.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM
"My problem with tor.com from the get-go has been that it's all about Tor and not all about the community, so I would suggest that the community does not need this new website."
And this opinion was based on what, exactly? Likewise, are you under the impression that the site's been designed by a crack team of ignorants? As it happens, a number of the people writing and contributing there, including the people in charge of the site, have been members of "the community" for decades, Jonathan. They've run conventions, written fanzines, played filk and been nominated for fan Hugos. They've designed a space that's in fact pretty damn inviting to the community while at the same time being open and accessible to outsiders. And in the beta-testing of the site, they opened it to other fans and members of the community, both old and new, and listened to their feedback.
So let me ask you this, Jonathan: when a bunch of old-time fans, some of whom also happen to be pros, build a site and then have other fans and members of the community beta-test it, why should I believe that their site will be hostile to "the community" on your say-so? What is your evidence, other than an evident horror that Tor.Com might also try to be commercially accessible as well?
Jonathan, it's fairly clear that with dismissive language like "marketing eyeballs," you're hostile to the idea of Tor.Com being an accessible, friendly, and, yes, commercial site. But I suspect that what you'd want out of Tor.Com and what the people running Tor.Com want out of the site are two entirely separate things. If you're hostile to the idea of Tor.Com, don't visit it. On the other hand, don't be surprised if you're seen as anything but reflexively hostile to things you think are bad based on your own personal biases.
"If your economic interest matters hardly at all then why did you mention how great it was that they were paying a decent per word rate?"
Because, quite obviously, Tor paying a very good rate for science fiction relative to other markets is independent of what I personally can and do make writing in other fields. This isn't a matter of "shifting my ground," it's you not being able to parse the difference between the two.
"you're coming across as slightly nuts; writing huge long posts defending a site whose main characteristics you are either not interested in or which you hope will change with time."
Well, no. I'm saying to you that what you think are the "main characteristics" of the site are in fact a relatively minor part of the site; the fact you think a relatively minor part of the site is is a "main characteristic" of the site is leading you to make all sorts of wrong conclusions about the site. Since I had an active part the site and know some of thinking involved in it, I'm qualified to say that what you think is a "main characteristic" isn't -- it's a good and valuable part, which is why it's there, but not a primary thrust.
The reason I'm making long posts about it is that you are incorrect enough that it's worth taking the time to address it, so that anyone who wanders by understands the extent to which you are operating from bad premises, and thus why your pre-emptive slagging of the site was, basically, unfair and apparently not based on any actual knowledge of the site.
As for "coming across as slightly nuts," yes, well, I understand why it's valuable for you to try to paint someone who actually knows what they're talking about regarding Tor.Com, and the phenomenon of online community building, and also a bit about the business of making money online, as "nuts" when they address your speculations and general nonsensery on the subject. No one likes being told in a comprehensive fashion why they're mostly wrong about something. If it makes you feel better to label me as "nuts," you go right ahead and do that.
"I get the impression that while you're not actually crazy about the site, you REALLY don't think that people should be slagging it off."
You're wrong yet again, Jonathan, but this is par for the course here. I like the site quite a bit, and I don't mind if people visit the site, root around in it, look at the content and features, and decide it's not for them. That's fair enough. I do get a bit annoyed at people who apparently decide they know what's good for "the community" making bad arguments based on apparently nothing much.
Posted by: John Scalzi | July 21, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Also, apparently you need to go in and close an open italic in comment 123129470; it's making the rest italicy.
Posted by: John Scalzi | July 21, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Fixed, thanks John.
I didn't know that you were signed up as a blogger over there. This does put some of your hostility into a more sane context. It's not just a story sale, it's regular income. Always valuable to freelancers.
You're not nuts because of what you're saying. You're nuts because of the level of hostility you're writing at, which seems utterly out of proportion with anything that I have actually said. Though to be fair, this isn't the first time you've flown off the handle at me.
I agree with you that the social networking element is less than was suggested in some of the hype and in truth tor.com is occupying similar ground to Futurismic (though with less awesome writers obviously ;-) rather than Facebook or adultfriendfinder or whatever.
But I think my criticisms of that aspect of the site still hold; it's unnecessary and about 2 or 3 years too late.
As for the rest of the content, I had a look and it seems okay but the short fiction is desperately and even laughably timid. Short stories by established authors in the settings of their on-going series? *yawn* Hopefully that will open up in time to let in more up-and-coming writers but at the moment it just bores me.
In fact, now that it has gone up, my main complaint is that tor.com is uninspiring. The staffing, in particular is quite lazy as the powers that be have gone for name recognition alone.
We'll see how it pans out but tor.com seems to be a place of limited opportunity and cowardly commercialism.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 21, 2008 at 02:12 PM
"This does put some of your hostility into a more sane context. It's not just a story sale, it's regular income."
Jonathan, my irritation at your ignorance and arrogance has very little to do with the fact I'm getting paid to blog by Tor, and indeed you have very little understanding of my motivations for blogging there. What Tor will pay me for blogging there is a small fraction of what I got paid blogging professionally for AOL, and I stopped blogging for AOL because it no longer made economic sense for me to do so. I blog for Tor.Com because I like the site, and its aims and the people involved. What you're trying to do here with the attempt to deflect the discussion into what my motivations are is detract from the fact I've just pointed out that your assumed role as speaker for "the community" is fairly bogus.
"You're not nuts because of what you're saying. You're nuts because of the level of hostility you're writing at, which seems utterly out of proportion with anything that I have actually said. Though to be fair, this isn't the first time you've flown off the handle at me."
Well, Jonathan, that's because it's not the first time you've been appallingly ignorant about something regarding me, isn't it? I have this funny thing about people who don't actually seem to know much about what they're talking about pretending that they do, and when it involves me, I feel it's fair to point out that they don't know what they're talking about, at length and in depth. "To be fair," as you say, your original post was as hostile as it was ignorant, so a hostile response is about what it rates; likewise, the passive-aggressive attempts to right yourself in the discussion after the less-than-logical pillars of your argument have been shot out from under you, or to deflect the discussion from that fact, are no less hostile, although I'm sure you'll have some sort of lovely rationalization for that as well.
If you don't want me to come across as hostile, basically, stop saying ignorant things, or at the very least, stop saying them when they involve me. Since you fancy yourself some sort of speaker for the community and what it needs and desires, I feel you're fair game for correction. You seem intelligent enough; not being ignorant shouldn't be difficult.
"In fact, now that it has gone up, my main complaint is that tor.com is uninspiring. The staffing, in particular is quite lazy as the powers that be have gone for name recognition alone."
Yes, to go back to my original post, how horrible that a site designed to bring in lots of people might actually choose contributors who could bring in lots of people. It's just about the worst thing ever.
Otherwise, this sounds mostly like "after having been body-checked for making pronouncements about Tor.Com in complete ignorance because I didn't actually visit the site before snarking, I now feel obliged to maintain my level of snarkiness by slagging it once I've visited."
I'm done with you now, Jonathan.
Posted by: John Scalzi | July 21, 2008 at 02:48 PM
I've never claimed to speak for the community. Half the time I struggle to consider myself a part of anything more than a teeny-tiny part of it. So that's a straw man.
Similarly, I never commented upon what your motivations might be for writing for tor.com. I commented upon why you might feel so much hostility towards someone expressing scepticism about it. Not the same, this so that's a straw man too.
Last time you had a go at me, it was on the basis of some supposed hostility I had towards YA fiction, whereas in fact I felt nothing of the sort.
You say that I'm ignorant, quite possibly. I claim no expertise about the nature of the industry, merely preference for the direction the SF blogosphere is heading in and what I'd like to see in a properly supported website. You would think that these are things that reasonable people can agree to differ over, but apparently no. I'm ignorant.
Seriously John, you need to chill out. There's a real whiff of the tabloid journalist about you... it's all heat and no light.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 21, 2008 at 03:05 PM
John, might I suggest some anger management classes? And maybe a class for your propensity to being a pompous ass?
Posted by: BillM | July 21, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Hello. I'm a front page blogger at tor.com and I cannot possibly be described as somebody who was signed up as a big name, or for name recognition value, or really for any of the reasons you seem to think tor.com exists. I'm glad to know that choosing me was 'lazy' and 'cowardly', and that my writing there is just some sort of shallow marketing device. You might also be interested to know that Tor have repeatedly stressed that I should blog about absolutely anything I like.
As for their launch stories being two from bankable writers, well, that seems like a Good Plan to me. Are you seriously suggesting they should have launched with authors we'd never heard of? Next up; Wesley Allsbrook. I understand he graduated last year. I've never heard of him before but googling I rather think I've not been paying attention.
And as for your assertion that tor.com is not paying for criticism, do you have a shred of evidence to support that? You don't know what, as a commercial venture, they are and are not paying for; you don't know what they're trying to do (though the editor has made public statements about the purpose of the site which you seem to be ignoring).
Posted by: Alison Scott | July 21, 2008 at 07:02 PM
"A) I'll be impressed when they start buying stuff from lesser known people. I don't think you're at the point in your career when you have problems selling stories. At this point people are competing to get your work. Forgive me if I don't get moist at the thought of you being slightly better paid."
Everyone that's heard of Wesley Allsbrook, raise you hands!
Posted by: Irene | July 21, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Hi Alison :-)
Thanks for dropping by.
a) I've heard of you, b) you edit Plokta, c) Plokta's been either Hugo nominated or has won a Hugo (I forget) and so I'd be happy describing you as a name.
I can understand tor.com's decision to go with big authors but while it makes economic sense, I'd hardly consider it an exciting choice or one that benefits the community that much. They're not even stand alone short stories. I understand the economics, but I don't see why this should make me interested in or supportive of the site.
As for the lack of criticism. There's no sign of it at the moment and while I haven't patrolled the entire site, I've yet to see it mentioned other than implicitly in the idea that people can blog about what they want.
Fair point about Wesley Allsbrook, but then I don't really follow comics so I don't know.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 22, 2008 at 12:16 AM
I'm now just waiting for Bruce Baugh to show up and I'll be close to having a complete set. Tor.com bloggers... collect them all!
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Here is a post about Tor's free e-book downloads complete with a link to Tor.com from Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, a major romance novel review site. So the free e-books are certainly doing their job in drawing people from outside the SFF community to the site. And yes, I am aware that Baen has been doing something similar for a couple of years now, but for some reason Baen's free library is not particularly well known outside the genre community.
As for Tor.com itself, at the moment the coverage seems a little comic heavy to me, but that's probably because Comicon is next weekend. On the other hand, they haven't yet managed to annoy me like the other big SF site launch of the year, Io9, managed to do after only a few days.
"Any hardcore SF reader who suddenly discovers they like paranormal romance should immediately see a psychiatrist :-)"
Personally, I think readers writing off an entire subgenre on the basis of one bad book are more in need of a psychiatrist than those willing to expand their horizons.
Posted by: CB | July 22, 2008 at 12:58 AM
"What we need is not more connection, it is more filtering and more paying venues for the serious content that many of us put out for free."
No trying to troll but you can go fuck yourself on that one.
It has always been and always will be survival of the fittest.
Much greatness has died in obscurity and lost forever. It happens.
So others are building on what you have done and maybe even making it pay. Sorry that happens.
You may be unable to find your way around the 'net, but some of us a) know what we are doing and b) don't like our news/information/content filtered by those who think they know better than us.
The short version - Shit happens. Get over it.
Posted by: tqft | July 22, 2008 at 09:30 AM
I can understand tor.com's decision to go with big authors but while it makes economic sense, I'd hardly consider it an exciting choice or one that benefits the community that much. They're not even stand alone short stories. I understand the economics, but I don't see why this should make me interested in or supportive of the site.
Ah, there's the beauty of it - tor.com (or indeed any other SF venture, whether grassroots or top-down) doesn't need any one person's approval, support or interest to succeed or not. If you're not interested, fine.
But if, in a few months, there's a vibrant and active community around tor.com, I really wouldn't be surprised. They've got a varied and active pool of bloggers, there's a pipeline of short fiction, free and downloadable (and in a variety of formats, which I love - short stories on my mobile for reading on the train to work, yes please), and the way that it eschews both a traditional forum structure or a traditional blog structure in favour of a mixed creation under the banner of 'community' makes it easy to find, follow and contribute to conversations.
And once there is that vibrant and active community, then voila - an ad-supported, community-based paying market for short fiction will have been created. And that can't be a bad thing for a market sorely lacking in paying markets or an inter-connected readership, outside of the con scene and the venerable halls of Usenet.
And again, I emphasise, its doing something. I'll take a strong community in one place with new fiction, well-written blogs and direct contact with established and up-n-coming authors any day over sparse comment trails spread across hundreds of independent blogs. Especially because the two are not mutually exclusive - I can do both.
Posted by: Dave | July 22, 2008 at 12:18 PM
On criticism: of the front-page bloggers, Jo Walton is obviously writing primarily about written SF. Her most recent post is quite perceptive about the effect that the concept of the Singularity has had on SF. I suspect some of the Tor employees will be writing criticism as well. (I do sometimes write about books but I am not by any manner of means a hard-edged critic; I am always agog at the depth of understanding that some of my friends have about books I read and thought I knew).
On comics: I suspect that the release of Dark Knight and the Watchmen trailer has also had quite a lot to do with it. My obsessive comics fan days are far behind me but I still blogged about Watchmen.
Posted by: Alison Scott | July 22, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Hi Alison :-)
Jo did indeed write about a trope, but that's more of an informal critical essay than criticism or review but yes, you're right. It is a step in the right direction.
One of the nice things about being at the center of a shit storm over this is that I've read quite a few reactions to Tor.com and there does seem to be a genuine appetite for using the site's profile to show case lesser known writers. I really hope that that is reflected in the short fiction purchases the site makes. There also seems to be a desire to see the site really engage with the rest of the Sf blogopshere, which is something that IO9 for example, hardly ever does.
I think that it's early days yet and we'll have to see what it's like in 6 months once the site falls into a rhtyhm.
All of my criticisms and doubts have revolved around the idea that tor.com should be fully integrated into the online SF community and if it can reflect that in its content then I'll be happy so admit that my fears were misplaced.
Posted by: Jonathan M | July 22, 2008 at 01:33 PM
As an everyday fan of SF I don't know much about the business as a whole. But it seems rather silly to criticize the tor website. If it's really as bad and as redundant as you say, it will go away for lack of interest. For me, the more information I get about books I like to read, the better. I don't really care where it comes from. As far as the social networking side of things, flickr is about all I can handle, but if Tor gives people another place to interact, I see nothing wrong with that.
Just because something has been done before, or that there is overlap somewhere in the blogosphere doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. I think it may be time to get over yourself and let it be. It seems like this is 'much ado about nothing'.
Posted by: Paul Sparks | July 22, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Tor author here, so I may be biased.
If the basic criticism here is simply that Tor is 2-3 years too late with this to be a big splash, SO WHAT?! We're at the dawn of the web, and I expect science fiction will be around for a long time to come. A decade from now, will anyone be upset that Tor's web presence came a little later than Baen's? We always need good things, and if it's a good thing, it will persist. Better late than never.
Posted by: Mike Brotherton | July 22, 2008 at 11:32 PM