Your background is that of a book editor. How did you get involved with The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction?
Technically, I guess the answer to that is that I worked on the last two "Best of" anthologies from F&SF -- the
40th Anniversary volume, and then the 45th. But I think you're basically asking how I came to be the editor of the
magazine, and the answer is simply that when Kris resigned, Ed Ferman spoke with a few editors about taking over,
and ultimately I was the one who wound up with the job.
You're still at St. Martin's. Why take on the extra responsibility?
Oh, you know, I was spending too much time loafing around every day, looking for something to do. But seriously,
there were two main reasons. One is that I'd never edited a magazine professionally and I was interested in giving
it a try. And two is that the chance to edit F&SF was just too good to pass up.
How has editing a magazine differed from editing books?
A lot of ways. It's a faster schedule, for one thing.
Editing a magazine is like running wind-sprints, while editing books is more like middle-distance running (and in
a few cases, it's like a marathon). It's also a bigger playing field -- in book publishing, I may only work
with twelve or fourteen writers a year, while with the magazine, I may be publishing that many people in an issue.
So how long did it take before you produced your first "Van Gelder" signature issue?
I don't know that I have. The October/November 1997 issue is the first one that feels to me like it has more
of my influence than Kris', but I'm not sure that I'd call it a signature issue. I suspect that when the first
issue comes out in which I was responsible for all of the contents, no one but me will notice. And even then,
I wonder if I will notice.
What do you get out of editing? What are the rewards?
Well, let's see. First, it's a job with a steady paycheck, and it beats working for a living. But really,
there's nothing I like more than taking a story or novel and seeing it all the way through to print. A good
story will connect with a reader, and editing is mostly about facilitating the connection between the writer
and the reader. When I take something that connects with me, shape it, and then publish it so it connects with readers...
well, I love the buzz that comes from knowing I've gotten through to someone that way.
Explain that facilitation.
Well, it's the entire publishing process. In some cases, it's simply a matter of putting a story into
print. In other cases (especially with books), it's everything that goes into editing and marketing the
book -- designing the package, writing the copy, and of course, editing the text. It's hard to explain unless
you've ever seen a novel go from manuscript to bound book, but you know it's happened when someone writes a
great review or comes up to you at a convention and says, "You know, I loved this or that."
What do you consider your biggest or most significant contribution to the field?
Egad, I'm not sure I want to touch that one. I can think of lots of facetious answers, but I think that if I've
made any significant contributions to the field, that's up to other people to assess.
Do you see any major trends within science fiction publishing in general?
These are odd times. There are so many different trends in the field now -- all with their own
histories -- that it's hard to see how they're all weaving together.
Space adventure seems to be making a comeback, as is "hard" SF, but I'm seeing a lot of SF that grows out of
other SF and not out of life. By this I mean that a lot of books and stories seem to be written in response
to other works of science fiction, and I'm not seeing much SF that has the feel of someone trying to make
sense out of life itself.
In terms of publishing, I think the SF field is SNAFU -- situation normal, all fucked up. I just wrote
an editorial for the December issue responding to all the people claiming that SF is dead. I think they're
wrong. I think SF is alive and well, but the publishing industry exists in a state of permanent flux and it's
hard to tell which way the water is swirling and eddying right now.
It seems that every five or ten years there are so-called experts popping up to claim this death. Why is
that? What causes such doomsaying?
Partly human nature, partly the nature of the business. The human nature part is that there are simply some
people who are always predicting doom. The nature of the business is such that it swings back and forth a
lot, and when it's swinging back, people tend to lose faith that it'll swing forward again. One paperback
editor told me recently that she thinks right now that no book with good reviews will sell well in
paperback, and conversely, no book that sells well in paperback gets good reviews. Four years ago, she
thought things were different. Four years ago, the field was in more flux than it is now. Next time it's in
flux (in four years, perhaps?), she'll find things more interesting again.
Well, what do you see going on in fantasy?
I have a tough time generalizing about fantasy -- I just can't keep up with all of it, and to be honest, I
don't connect with a lot of it.
What about slipstream? It appears there are more non-traditional, hard-to-classify fantasy writers today than
ever before. How does this group fit in?
There aren't that many more non-traditional fantasy writers at work now than there have ever been, but they're a
bit easier to spot nowadays. More people are looking out for it, I think.
Before the wave of "magic realism" came crashing in during the 80s, many -- I daresay most -- novels by "mainstream"
writers that had fantastical elements went ignored within our field. "Magic realism" (I use that term in quotes,
because I still don't know that I'd dare define it) suddenly made it chic for writers to throw elements of magic
into their novels and broadened the literary horizon. The results were a lot of pretentious drek, and a lot
of very good books.
I'm not sure yet where it all fits in, because so many of the old definitions have changed. It used to be that a
writer worked in the High Literary mountains of "mainstream" or they worked in the Low Genre fields of "fantasy"
and largely avoided each other. For much of the past ten years, it seemed like those camps intermingled
more -- Marge Piercy appropriated elements of Neuromancer for her novel He, She and It, for
instance. But I see less intermingling now than I did a few years ago, and I consider that a shame. I
like to see things get mixed up. It's more interesting that way.
Is there any difference between books and magazines in those trends? Do they parallel, diverge, follow
three steps behind or what?
I think we have to acknowledge that books are setting most trends nowadays, simply because there's so
much more money tied up in them. I'd bet that the Star Trek and Star Wars books alone
generate more money than do all the digest magazines combined.
And it's a truth of the industry (or any industry) that it'll always follow the money.
But I also think that Gardner Dozois is right whenever he says the magazines are the hotbeds for new
trends. The magazines are the places where people bring out the new stuff, give it its first run, test the
roads. And I hope to see that continue.
What's your perception of the genre overall -- where are things headed, will magazines survive, will
Star Trek and Star Wars swallow everything up?
Things are headed into the future. Yes, the magazines will survive. No,
Star Trek and Star Wars won't swallow everything up.
A little slower now, I can't tell where things are headed.
I'm happy to see that electronic publishing doesn't appear to be supplanting print publishing. I still like
print. I do think the magazines will survive, but they're like everything else in this field -- they have to
keep changing in order to do so.
I've been watching Star Trek and Star Wars grow for a while now, and I'm
convinced that they are no more likely to swallow up everything than were the Tom Swift books forty years ago.
Let's broaden our horizons a bit. Do these general trends translate internationally, in general?
I don't know -- I try to keep up with international publishing, but it's hard to track a lot of it. I watch
the British scene most closely and it's hard to generalize. British publishing in general has had an awful
time of things in the 90s, so naturally SF has suffered there, too. On the other hand, the Brits have longer
and better histories in certain areas, especially horror, and I'm continually surprised to find American writers
whose novels are only coming out in the U.K. I think it's like a lot of these things -- you can predict
almost anyting, depending on which pieces of evidence you choose to look at.
Do you receive many international submissions at St.
Martin's? How about F&SF?
I get a healthy number of submissions from around the globe -- Australia, England and a smattering of other places.
Canada tends to get overlooked a lot, but the SF scene there is very strong.
From your unique vantage point, what's your assessment of the genre in Australia?
From what I can see, it's actually very healthy. There are a lot of interesting writers at work
there -- Aphelion, for example, is publishing a lot of interesting books. The editors of Eidolon
will laugh, but a few years ago when I was editing The New York Review of SF I tried to
get a subscription and someone -- I think it was Jonathan -- asked me, "Why would you want to bother reading a
little Aussie magazine?" But the answer of course is that I'm curious to see how the scene is developing there,
and it certainly looks interesting.
This isn't the best of times, financially, for magazines in the U.S. Australia has got a much smaller
population, yet seems to be supporting a great diversity of genre publications.
Yeah, I suspect that some of the difference comes from distribution. Magazines in the U.S. get creamed
when it comes to the process of actually selling them in stores -- either they can't get the magazines
into the stores, or they get overdistributed and returns nail them. I suspect that the smaller
publishing scene in Australia is better for a small, committed publisher.
It's probably easier to target the market.
Greg Egan has given the continent a high profile recently in hard SF, obviously, but what else is happening there?
Oh, a lot. The work I see from Australia tends to view the genres along more classically-defined lines
than the stuff I see in the U.S., but that could simply be because I don't see enough of what's published in Australia.
Really? How so?
Well, in the sense that the novels I see tend to be "SF" or "Dark Fantasy" or "Heroic Fantasy." It's almost
like the Australian novels I see flaunt their literary heritage so proudly they want to be sure no one misses
it... but as I say, it could just be that U.S. publishing looks like a muddle to me 'cause I'm in the middle of it.
You already touched on U.S. writers seeing publication in Britain, but Howard Waldrop and Steve Utley are a
couple of American writers with collections recently published in Australia, instead of North America. What
does that say to you?
It says (1) that the Australian small press is hustling now, and (2) the U.S. small press isn't. And in
fairness -- so no one accuses me of hiding some agenda -- I should mention here that at St. Martin's I acquired
the U.S. rights to Howard Waldrop's Going Home Again.
I just started to say that I haven't seen many new small presses springing up, but I stopped and realized
that Tachyon and Tigereyes presses are springing up. To answer your question ultimately, I think the
Utley and Waldrop collections coming out from Down Under show that there's a wealth of riches right now in
the short-fiction field.
So then, what kind of international niche do you see for Australian publishing?
I'm not sure. England has had such a bad decade that I think I see the Australian market expanding to fill some
of the niches vacated by the U.K. publishers.
The troubles plaguing the small press and magazines in the U.S. and Britain haven't had that visible an impact in Australia.
For its population, there's an abundance of magazines. What's your take on this?
Again, it's hard for me to form much of an opinion without seeing more of the scene, but the best sign, of course,
is that it's so active. The small-press scene in the U.S. hasn't been terribly dynamic lately -- at least not this
past year -- so it's good to see trouble of the right sort brewing in Australia.
Australia has a strong tradition of SF criticism,producing such works as The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction,
among others. How has this impacted the genre?
In a very refreshing manner. Just yesterday I heard a writer talking about how much she liked seeing a review
she got from Australia, because all of the very familiar American landscape features she used in the book were
perceived differently by the Australian reviewer. The distance in viewing often brings clarity in
perception. There was a very interesting review of Connie Willis' "All My Darling Daughters" from Down Under
about five years ago and I didn't agree with it, but it was extremely interesting because it took a clear-eyed
look at the story. We need a lot more of that.
(A shorter version of this interview first appeared in the magazine Eidolon.)
Copyright © 2000 by Jayme Lynn Blaschke
Jayme Lynn Blaschke graduated from Texas A&M University with a degree in
journalism. He writes science fiction and fantasy short fiction and has several
in-progress novels lying around in various stages of decay. His non-fiction
articles and interviews have seen publication in the U.S., Britain and Australia.
His website can be found at http://www.exoticdeer.org/jayme.html