1.20.2004

taking time to digest

Because we're po' folks now and can't afford books, I happened to buy the February issue of Asimov's Science Fiction in a desperate attempt to find something to read for an hour or two while rocking the baby to sleep.

I don't normally buy the "little mags" anymore. I find them difficult to read; too floppy to hold, too mucky-looking to enjoy looking at. Whenever I have one, I feel like a little old lady cradling my precious copy of Reader's Digest. So it's a rarity for me to pick up Asimov's or The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction or Analog. I figure I'll get the best of in the Year's Best collections anyway.

But like I say, I was strapped for cash and bored, so there you go.

Still, I wasted $4.25.

This issue of Asimov's is pretty damned mediocre. Aside from a brief mention of the "promising s1ngularity" in James Patrick Kelly's On the Net column (thanks James!), there was nothing to catch my attention.

There are stories from Asimov's stable authors here: Mike Resnick, Matthew Jarpe, Jack Skillingstead, William Sanders, blah blah blah. Not a single standout, though I was expecting R. Garcia y Robertson's "Long Voyage Home" to entertain. No such luck.

Boring, boring, boring. All run-of-the-mill, been-there-read-that generic SFF. Nothing exciting, nothing invigorating, nothing interesting.

So what's the deal? Is this how things always are in Asimov's, or do they occasionally put out some good stuff? Where's the thrill of the magazine? Where's the excitement in publishing it? What's the point in publishing less-than-spectacular stories?

Oi. Must think some more.



discuss this post at our messageboard