Wednesday 25 April 2001
2001 Locus Poll & Survey -- Selected Results
Name 5 Writers | Comments
(Here, omitting only a few remarks about individual votes, are all comments submitted with this year's online ballots. We included your name if you included it with your comments. --ed.)
It has been the year of Fantasy. Any one of the fantasy books I named the top 5 of the year [by Kay, Martin, Gentle, Pratchett, Powers] could have been the book of the year in most years. While SF has not been in top form (at least in the novel and novella lengths), although The Telling is a brilliant exception, fantasy has been outstanding. And with books such as Gentle's Ash and the Haydon series, we are also seeing the emergence of top flight feminist fantasy.
2000 was not a good year for science fiction although fantasy remains relatively strong. I spent more time rereading older SF works then searching for new works. In fact all my SF purchases were based on Locus reviews this year instead of browsing the book shelves.
The number of good books is increasing (a little) and the bad ones too much. For the reader itís not so bad, because one canít read them all, not even the best. I keep trying!
Very lackluster year. Glad to see Meisha Merlin doing the reprints and American additions of various works. (P.C. Hodgell and Storm Constantine, are at the top of that list.)
This may very well have been the worst year in memory for SF; I considered not voting for any best novel because I read nothing that was an unqualified success. Several works by major authors I could not finish. On the other hand it was a very good year for fantasy; all of the top 5 and probably 5 others were better than anything I read in SF. At the same time I do not feel that any of the fantasy novels of 2000 will be considered "classic" works in years to come. As for this online form, I like it very much. I think it is easier to use than the paper ballot.
I feel this was not a really a good year for Science Fiction this year, and not much better for Fantasy. I have also been disappointed in the cover art of some of the magazines, and on whole the cover work for novels has been good, but I am not fond of the minimalist treatment some of them received. Also, one series reprint in particular was done a disservice by the new covers it received. That series is Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series.
Despite all your negativity, a great year in SF!
An excellent year for Novels (Wolfe, Crowley and Powers on top form) and collections, but dire for non-themed anthologies. Non-bestselling authors (i.e. midlist) are becoming harder to find in bookshops. TV science fiction needs an influx of fresh ideas and greater risks taken, than the formulaic pap we generally get.
There is entirely too much emphasis on fantasy; the primary evidence being the reviews in your magazine and the folding of the profitable SF Age in favor of its sister publication. I miss novels in the 100-200 page range. While I understand the appeal of returning to familiar characters, the industry seems to overly rely on series fiction.
Great year for Fantasy. It's a shame there's only room on the form for 5 books. I like the convenience of the online submission form. I hope there's no bugs!
Sick of movie tie-ins topping the bestseller list. Thought Terry Brooks destroyed The Phantom Menace. Would prefer more support for original sci fi, and high quality fantasy. Less Terry Goodkind, more Elizabeth Haydon. Haven't really agreed with many of your fantasy reviews, either, nor has anyone else I talk to.
[Hmm, would you care to recommend fantasy reviewers you find more informative or useful?]
I forsee that genre crossover fiction, such as sf-romance, fantasy-romance, fantasy-mystery, etc is the future of publishing -- take it as you will. :-) And thanks for making Locus a fine publication, folks. :-)
Good year for the Brits! This form is a nice idea. The format of your international address label is slightly different from the example above.
Too much media tie-in crap. The Sturgeon anthology is great. Also, Haffner Press' Jack Williamson collection is wonderful.
While literary SF is still creative and entertaining, SF movies and television are terrible. Star Trek and X-Files's quality has fallen until they are no longer watchable. There is no new series to take their place.
The best books continue to be published on the edges of genre or in the mainstream, with few startling exceptions. Everyone is older but no wiser. I fear younger readers have no appreciation for subtlety, in the face of so many movie tie-ins, etc. But then, they said similar things, technologically-appropriate, in the 18th century in England. Of course, they were right -- it just didn't happen until now. And thank you, Locus, for kicking vanity presses out of your listings.
I think the Internet will be the salvation of short SF/F in the coming years.
Trade paperbacks are a disturbing trend, and they need to die in horribly nasty and violent ways. They cost very slightly more than mass market paperbacks to make, yet their cover price is twice that of mass market. At that price, no one will ever take a chance on a new author or -- most importantly, as this is the format that they are mostly published in these days -- single author collections; the consumer will only buy what they know. Every time I see a trade paperback reprint from a major publisher, I immediately know that that publisher has never had anyone in their employ who could solve a simple max/min equation. :-) Other than my utter hatred for that format and its constant proliferation, I thought this was a good year. :-) I am immensely saddened by both SF Age and Amazing stopping, as I was subscribed to both, and I am outraged at the reasoning behind each's ending. In both cases a very sour taste was left in my mouth after dealing with the way the companies handled the end -- Sovereign Media never switched my subscription over to Realms of Fantasy (causing my remaining PAID issues of SF Age to vanish into the aetherverse as they then claimed I had never had any issues left in my subscription, which was patent b.s.), and Wizards of the Coast instead decided to subscribe me to their brand new magazine which took the place of Amazing... Star Wars Gamer -- talk about adding insult to injury! I'll never ever subscribe to any magazine either of these two companies puts out again. Okay, rant over. :-) [Andrew J. Breitenbach]
Am I that far out of touch? 8 of my 15 picks for shorter works didn't even make your recommended list including my top novella and novellette pick.
Somebody please bring back Amazing Stories, Weird Tales and Omni!!!
I keep hearing about the death of SF, but I still can't quite keep up with my 'to-read' shelf. I'm finding a lot of good, intelligent SF among all the schlock. Thank you, Locus, for existing!
I'm 50. I grew up reading Issac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke. Around 1978 I discovered Joe Haldeman, as well as Larry Niven, and I can't get enough of him, alone or with Jerry Pournelle and others. In the past few years I've latched on to Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, David Brin and Orson Scott Card, and more recently Jack McDevitt. One of the more interesting things in the past several years is the increase in the number of GOOD women writers. I enjoy Sheri S. Tepper (but I can only take short doses before I succumb to male-bashing; but much of what she says ring true). About 5 years ago I started reading Lois McMaster Bujold and the adventures of Miles Vorkosigan. As her writing has matured, so has Miles. None of that has to do with last year. The one really good thing that stands out in my mind about last year was Susan R. Matthews' Colony Fleet. She captured me; I was there on the Nounships. I really enjoyed that book and will read more of her.
It does seem odd for the online Locus opinion survey to ask if I read Locus Online! [Actually, 26 of the 192 online ballots indicated 'no' to this question] All kidding aside: I think it's been a terrific year for SF and fantasy. The growth of online communities has made it easier than ever for fans to communicate with each other and share their experiences. Part of the reason I've had to leave so many fields blank on this form is my growing reliance on my fellow fans rather than the Locus suggested reading lists and reviews to make my SF reading choices. I found I spent more time this year reading older works that I'd missed the first time around than I did reading more recently published SF. Still, there is some terrific new stuff out there. I'm looking forward to catching up on it over the next year.
I notice that SF/F literary criticism is getting more and more divorced from what I like, and what I read. Since I am pretty comfortable with my erudition, this means that Heinlein was right about critics *grin*.
I wish you guys would review Keith Hartman's book The Gumshoe, The Witch and the Virtual Corpse. I nominated it as best first novel because it was absolutely excellent, but I have seen no coverage for this title. What a shame! Keep up the good work.
1) The endless sequels by the best-selling fantasy authors are becoming so formulaic and unimaginative that I find myself not finishing any of them any more. Stop copying yourself and write something new and original for a change! 2) When are the publishers going to enter the 21st century and make books that aren't 20th century? Can we not have lots of maps, illustrations, background, etc., in a major SF or F novel? It's unbelievable to me that the next Neal Stephenson or Lois McMaster Bujold novel isn't filled with all sorts of stuff and then shrink-wrapped at $40-$60 (the price of a computer/video game). And I don't mean throwing crap onto a "bonus" CD.
It's easy to get the impression, if you walk into a bookstore and look at the SF/fantasy section, that the genre is going downhill. There certainly are a lot of mediocre and lowest-common-denominator books being published. But there is also a lot of really good stuff being published as well, and I find it harder and harder to keep up. I'm sure there are several books (& short stories) I would have voted for this year, but I just haven't gotten around to them yet (e.g., Wolfe's In Green's Jungle, or Banks's Look to Windward). I tend to bounce around between current stuff and older items that inexplicably got lost in the pile. I'm currently reading A Deepness in the Sky (Vinge), to give you some idea of how ridiculously far behind I am on some of these. My point being, the field isn't in decline, it has just gotten bigger, and some of us have gotten pickier with age/experience. One phenomenon I particularly applaud (over the last 2-3 years) is the increased influx into the US of really good books from England and Australia. Wouldn't it be nice if more books were published simultaneously around the world? Alas, that probably won't be happening for a few more years yet, if ever. One suggestion about the drop down boxes in the form: Since some of the books don't appear in the US (or vice versa) in the same year they were originally recommended in Locus, perhaps the lists could be expanded to pull in books from prior years that appeared for the first time in new countries. Kind of a pain to correlate I know, and I'd only suggest it for the novels/collections. (There's some risk of people accidentally voting for a book that was published two years ago in their country, but it isn't that big a deal, and country labels could be used to clarify things.) Once again, a fine job with Locus Online; after years of reading it (online), I finally broke down and got a subscription to paper version, but I still visit the online version several times a week.
The combining, closing and general movement of publishing houses made the year particularly hard to follow. Books in series were postponed, dates changed or just plain dropped. And I find younger SF/Fantasy readers seem to prefer media generated material (Star Trek, Star Wars, RPG motivated novels) to original stories.
Filling this out made me realize how little of this year's science fiction I'd read -- zero of the books in the 'Best SF' list.
Please disregard the first online survey form I sent (the one that is basically blank). Though I really am computer literate, I accidentally hit the enter key. [Internet Explorer does this; Netscape ignores 'enter' keys hit while filling out forms.] This is doubly embarrassing because I had intended to open these remarks by telling you that this is the first time I have ever returned the Locus Survey in all these years of "intending" to because responding online is so much easier. I spoke too soon. Other general observations: while I read a great deal of SF and fantasy, I find that I am usually about a year behind the curve, since, due to the high cost of hardcovers, I usually wait for paperback releases (also expensive) or remainders. Consequently, I voted for the best current books that I had actually read, even though I know that there are many titles on the list that I will enjoy once I see them. I just queried SFWA regarding the Circulating Book Plan, which should help me stay more up-to-date this coming year, but still doesn't address the high cost of books, which seems to me to have increased disproportionately in recent times. Twenty years ago, when I made a lot less money, I was able to buy more books than I do now. Something's wrong here. On the other hand, we have a bountiful literary field. When I first started buying books and magazines in the early 60s, I read just about everything that was published every month (and much of that was reprints of earlier work). Now I struggle to keep up with just the award nominated and recommended fiction, much less new writers (it bothers me that I didn't read any of the first novels on the list this year), personal favorites, lesser stuff that appeals to me and the occasional media tie-in for guilty pleasure. A welcome trend that I see this year is publishers devoted to keeping past writers in print. NESFA Press, Haffner, Vintage, Overlook, etc. should all be commended. Perhaps you could add a new category to the survey next year for Best Revived Work. This year, I would have voted for Cities in Flight; The Big Time; The Yellow Sign; and the Edmond Hamilton and Jack Williamson volumes, in that order. Finally, an astonishing -- and astonishingly unappreciated -- trend, I think, is the quiet emergence of literary SF as source material in the media, especially television. The SciFi Channel's great Dune miniseries, with John Harrison set to adapt the next two books, (which I find even more exciting), their deal with Alliance Atlantis for a Riverworld series, their Phil Farmer-ish Secret Adventures of Jules Verne, Ron Moore doing The Dragonriders of Pern on The WB, The Mists of Avalon on TNT, Phil Tippett shooting Ringworld for the movies, Peter Jackson's LOTR, A.I. from Brian Aldiss, and on and on. It's an encouraging trend of SF over sci-fi (even though they'll still call it that -- we'll know better) that should enrich the literature and the media both. I hope that we're not taking this exposure and interest for granted, since I remember when we waited years for a single major film like Planet of the Apes or 2001, and we kept our fingers crossed that Star Trek would stay on the air from one week to the next. Thanks for letting me pontificate, and thanks for the monthly dose of news, community and encouragement as a writer that I get from Locus. Best Wishes, Jake West
Many of the books listed are still in my to be read pile, so although I'd like to vote on them I can't right now. Similarly, with the short fiction, I'll probably read a lot of these sooner or later in best of year anthologies or collections, but never in time to vote on the previous year's work.
Didn't read a lot of SF from 2000, had to keep up with my reading from 1998 and 1999. I generally read a lot of older SF (because I try to read every work of an author I like). So, I'm sorry if my voting is a bit scattershot. I also don't read a lot of horror and fantasy novels, although, since I started reading Locus, I'm going back to these genres.
I have filled out very few items in the survey, but due to C.N. Brown's plea felt compelled to do so. It has become increasingly difficult to keep up. With many British versions of the novels not seen immediately in the US and buying more paperbacks with the increasing cost of hardcovers, I am usually a year behind. Short stories are even harder to keep up with, however being able to read on a PDA, has given me hope for reading more short stories in the next year. Hooray for Fictionwise and Peanutpress publishing Asimov's electronically. In addition to the current year's poll, how about a follow up poll to the previous year? I could more completely fill out last year's poll than the pitiful amount I did for this year. I'll bet you would get a larger response for the previous year's poll. Although Science Fiction makes up the majority of my reading, the best stuff I have read in the last year was the three George R.R. Martin Fantasy books, which were outstanding for any year. Also, just a plug for one of the best overall writers ever, Frederik Pohl, for whom I am eternally grateful. Kind Regards, Jeff Elsasser.
I have trouble keeping up with short fiction...
We need to start finding ways to preserve and present science fiction and fantasy works from writers who are no longer living or no longer capable of making a living in today's publishing world. If we are to find a way to continue being a community, we must find ways to continue to create that community among our youth. Unfortunately, very little of today's commercial fiction presents itself as anything other than a well-made tale. For the last year, I've been alternating contemporary novels and novels I had not read from more than 40 years ago -- and the stuff written before I was born, almost without exception, makes me think more than the contemporary work. We've exchanged vision and originality for comfortable, acceptable stories that go down one after another like so many potato chips.
Clearly I need to read more. If only I had more time....
I just wish that I had been able to devote more time this year to keeping up with written SF. Reading mainly paperbacks starts me off a year behind to field, but not even getting around to reading those paperbacks (I still can't believe that A Civil Campaign has been sitting within arm's reach of me on yonder shelf for lo these many months without being read) makes the situation really dire. Dammit. Of course, that's more a comment about the year in Me than it is about the year in SF, isn't it? How about this: We are currently living in the Golden Age of televised SF. Who would have thought, even six years ago, that the second-best-written show on all of television would be a series version of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer (or, for that matter, that the *best-written* show would be set in a parallel universe where presidential elections are held in years divisible by two but not by four)? Who would have guessed that there would be a Star Trek series running on network television, but that it wouldn't even be one of the *ten* best SF genre shows on TV? The midlist may have shrunk to an only theoretically observable size, and theatrical SF may still be dominated by Big Dumb Spectacles (not unlike theatrical non-SF), but televised SF has never been better, across the board.
This is a better online form than last year's.
I wish you would alter the ďwhat fantasy do you readĒ question to include "contemporary" -- I don't include de Lint or Morrow or Crowley in any of those categories and they are mostly the only fantasy I read. For me, the Martin series is the exception that proves the rule. Also, salary in Canadian dollars. Great magazine, keep up the good work.
The sub-categories for the question "Do you like: SF | Fantasy | Horror/Dark Fantasy" are ridiculously exclusive. They remind me of those polls that dictate the answer. It's like being a vegetarian confronted with a menu that offers "beef, pork, or veal". The fantasy section especially is poorly defined. Many of the novels you list in your recommended fantasy novels list doesn't fall into the categories "high/heroic | humourous | romantic".
[Or more like a vegetarian offered choices of corn/potatoes/carrots? Anyway, point taken. The reason they're there is that there are some readers who prefer only such subgenres -- and for consistency with past surveys; if that's not you, then just leave the sub-categories unchecked. But perhaps we can re-think them to be more inclusive. ]
When I saw the printed form in the magazine, I thought you'd forgotten or dropped the esoteric question of the year as I didn't see it anywhere. I found it -- on the online form. I don't know if putting this online will increase the numbers voting, but it will help save someone's eyesight not having to read my crabbed little scrawl! You also answered a question that has troubled great minds for millennia -- what the address label coding is for. Apparently, if you have a lifetime sub, as I do, no expiration date is shown. Do me a favor: should anyone at Locus become clairvoyant, please don't fill in the appropriate expiration date on my sub. That's one date I'd like to remain unaware of, thank you very much. Not much to say about the year, except that there wasn't much I read that really impressed me. Maybe I'm getted harder to please. *sigh* I didn't really have that much trouble making choices -- there wasn't that much that stood out. I listed Strange Attraction as an anthology rather than an Art Book because it seemed to be more Anthology and I could only list it once.
Thanks for putting the survey online!
I read my husband's copy of Locus -- he's sending in the printed form, and I thought I could leave my responses on-line. (His will have the subscriber number on it.) I love the drop-down options!
I think it is great that you make this form open to non-subscribers -- it tempts me more towards subscribing! :-)
Please add back in Dr. Who for the media shows in the related subjects for interests. I follow British SF because there are a number of good authors that do not get heavy American press or reprints.
I like the on-line form. I recommend Locus consider a 'where are they now' article or two on authors that have not been in print a while (eg, Michael McCollum, Donald Moffitt, Daniel da Cruz, etc.).
Would have been convenient to have a listing of the deceased 20th Centers. Had to keep running back to my bookshelves after the first two.
Good idea, an online survey.
Excellent form. I hope this fine practice will continue next year.
Excellent online form. Please keep up your good online services. This is much better than last year.
It would be nice if the form's pulldown selections could be updated with eligible items from other sources, e.g. the Bram Stoker Preliminary Ballot and Nebula Ballot, as they're announced.
The form? I would have preferred more choices than the Locus recommended works. A link to a complete list of books received would have been more useful and certainly be more inclusive. The year? Wonderful, although saddened by the loss of so many friends.
[ We did have a more extensive list of 2000 books available online -- here -- though in that detail it has been too time-consuming to maintain, and it's not being maintained for 2001. However for the 2002 poll we'll set up such a list of titles (albeit without all the reference links) for use with voting in the poll. ]
Much easier & more reliable than posting from the UK!
Nice to do this online. (What can't you do online anymore? Well, maybe one or two things.) Under the "Do you like:" heading, you misspelled "humorous" and left out the Other category. I always like to write "science fantasy" in the Other category. The year in SF? It wasn't the best. It wasn't the worst. There's always good stuff if you look. I don't read much as I used to and Locus always helps me decide what's the best stuff to try. Keep up the good work.
Good year in SF; the space for Other SF read, which is on the paper ballot, is missing on this form; the drop-down lists for recommendations were much appreciated.
You have a typo in Which of the following related subjects... (science, non-ficiton)
You mispelled Kinuko Craft's name! For shame.
[ Oops! Considering that Locus Online is maintained by one person, after work if not too tired, with no one else proof-reading before being posted to the web... we think we do reasonably well. But anyone who spots an error or omission is urged to let us know immediately, and it will be fixed! No error too small. ]
Welcome non-subscribers, they might be future subscribers.
[ Non-subscribers were welcome, as they've been with the paper ballots over the years. About 1/3 -- 65 of 192 online ballots -- came from non-subscribers. ]
I like the voting online.
I'm very glad to see you've got an online ballot. I was afraid I would miss the voting deadline. P.S. Will someone please tell Chris Carter that X-Files is over and we all need to move on? Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine Weaver
I like the online form; it gave me more time to read before answering.
Actually yes: the previous question is quite crooked. It should ask what are the 5 writers you'd like (not think) will still be read...
[ Oh, that was quite intentional, as explained on the previous page... ]
My criteria for the 5 deceased 20th century writer question is twofold. First, are we still reading these people past their death? If not, I don't think they'll have a sudden revival in 50 years. Thus, I've eliminated a lot of authors I hope will be read. Second, does the author's style or content outlast dating or competition from later writers. You'll note I didn't include Heinlein. I'm not sure he'll last another 50 years. I could have included Asimov. I think his robot stories will endure despite technology dating them. Including Wells is sort of cheating. Most of his best and most famous stuff is from the 19th century, but, since he wrote into the 20th, I included him. Let me also state I appreciate all the unpaid labor that goes into the website and the Locus indexes. Locus Online is a site I visit frequently and, in my infrequent purchases from Amazon, try to support with commissions.
You ask about number of paperbacks bought monthly bought not annually. (Asked both for hardcover and trade.)
[ It's been that way for years, thinking that numbers of hardcovers and trade paperbacks might be too small for some readers to average out monthly, while (mass market) paperbacks were purchased so often that problem wouldn't arise. Maybe with so many new books never appearing in mass market paperback, that's changed..? ]
Locus, print and on-line, does a tremendous job. Though, I have noticed that the on-line version use to update the new books weekly and now it seems more irregular. I used to love every Monday checking out the new books to see which ones to buy! I would like to see this updated more regularly. Would like to see Interzone in the bookstores. Also, would like to read more "news coverage" in SF in addition to new books etc. In other words, perhaps a feature article on Ellison's battle against the AOL and his author's rights battle. Or feature news articles on other subjects and perhaps one less interview per print issue. After all, you are known as the "Newspaper" of the SF Field. Also, I'd like to see some stirring commentary about hot issues. Another topic: I'm not as interested as what's happening with SF in other countries, aside from perhaps Britain and Australia, where there is some great SF. But the issues devoted to SF in some of the former eastern European countries and elsewhere, I believe, could be shortened in coverage. This is not meant to be jingoistic or xenophobic, but just a lack of interest. Otherwise, you all produce the BEST print SF magazine around. Interzone is a definite second.
[ Locus Magazine does feel strongly that international coverage is important, even though we realize that many readers aren't particularly interested. In practice, such coverage tends to have lower priority when fitting together a particular issue, so it's not as if such pieces are edging out material you'd rather read. As for coverage of new books on the website, again, though not to make excuses, the website is a one-person operation, and time is limited; those updates don't appear on Mondays anymore because Sundays, when Monday updates are done, are already busy with up to four weekly updates -- Bestsellers, Author Events, This Week, and if there's sufficient material, Field Inspections -- and doing any more would mean staying home all day slaving over the computer! So new books updates tend to be during the week, instead, again depending on material. We'll be the first to admit that the website still has a long way to go to be an 'ideal' web version of Locus... ]
Keep up the good work. When I'm off temporary assignment I will start up my subscription again.
I am not a subscriber but it is donated to the library I work in. Interesting reading.
I sure wish you guys would review *all* the SF short story venues. I know it's a large task, but now you're barely reviewing any of them -- and that's where the field gets its new blood.
[ So much to read, so little time, etc. ... Care to recommend any reviewers you'd want to see provide such coverage? ]
Thanks, Locus, for the fine job that you do covering the field. I don't know what I'd do without you.
Keep up the good work. I live in Croatia and have a column in only Croatian SF magazine, Futura. I myself have published few SF stories. The only big problem I have is the lack of free time for reading, so I can't read everything I want. Therefore I am not subscribed to Interzone, but I read it occasionally.
I find your reviews of female SF writers and Fantasists to be unduly negative and biased. If your reviewers can't get past a male preference, why don't you hire someone more objective?
[ Good -- i.e. reliable, able and willing to turn in columns monthly -- reviewers are much harder to find than you might suspect. Care to recommend any you know of? ]
The online form worked fine. You've got a good magazine. I count on the book reviews, and I enjoy the news and forthcoming-books lists very much.
Think the online form is a good idea for all concerned...easy for surveyee to fill out and easy for the surveyor to tabulate. I am not an author. I am not in publishing. Yet the high point of my month is the arrival the current Locus. I don't think readers can fully fathom all the work that goes into each Locus. But know this, Charlie and staff. The consistent quality of Locus is a tribute to your efforts and your love of the various genres. Thank you! J. Burke.
No comments, beyond thanks as always for the exceptional service you guys provide. I'll have to get around to subscribing to the mag as well.
I edit a journal called the Historical Novels Review -- we review 200+ historical novels from the US and UK in each issue, for a total of 800 or so per year. This includes historical fantasy... Our website is http://www.historicalnovelsociety.com. I've been reading Locus for the past 15+ years - my father was a charter subscriber. Keep up the good work!
Thank goodness for Locus!
You might want to consider breaking out work vs. non-work online connection time. Also, active connection, i.e., searching/reading, etc. as opposed to passive, i.e., just being connected. Example: I'm constantly connected at work and hop on and off as the job dictates, but 8 hrs/day connection can be anywhere between 10 minutes to 3 hours of active web usage. Good job, by the way, on both versions of the mag. I'm a first time respondent despite reading you for years. Inertia, you know... While I find that my interest in SF/Fantasy has declined somewhat over the years I still keep a hand in, so to speak, and a trusted source of info about the field is a lifeline. Your reviewers are all top notch and are a primary source for a busy person to check with. It's also very nice to have somehow gained a sense of community with people I'm never likely to meet. (The constant search for staff is like a long-running cliffhanger!) Anyway, my sincere thanks for many years of enjoyment and I look forward to many more.
Love the field; love your magazine.
Locus is a fine magazine online and off. I love this magazine even on a weak month. Some of SF just doesn't make it for me anymore. Maybe I've read too much already.
Locus Rules! Half.com is a good place to buy used SF. I wish I had the nerve to start my own SF bookstore, but I am neither brave nor foolish enough. Thanks for having this survey online!
Just some praise for your wonderful work. I loved your magazine from the moment I picked it up 3 years ago, but I never voted before because it was to much of a hassle to send a card from Germany. Iím sorry. :-) Your magazine is fantastic and keeps me informed in my SF-Diaspora.
[ Thanks for everyone's kind remarks. --ed. ]
|© 2001 by Locus Publications. All rights reserved.|