Asimov's or F&SF?

[weirdside]

In your opinion, which magazine consistently has the stronger, more creative stories?

[J-Sun]

Analog.



Asimov's often includes fantasy stories but F&SF does so by design, so I've never gotten into F&SF - what I've read I didn't like. Then again, I haven't paid much attention to Asimov's since the Dozois era, either. But both are still highly regarded, AFAIK - both still show up in the awards lists with the lion's share of the stories.

BTW, if you ever go to the Asimov's website, do you know if Willie Garcia is still the webmaster? The forums there went through a period of uncontrolled verbal violence and trolling which was replaced with ham-handed and biased censorship and banning so I left the boards, boycotting Asimov's and Analog at the same time. I wouldn't mind picking up new issues of Analog, at least, and going to the boards, but not while that dude's still there.

[J-Sun]

Serendipity: the Locus awards were just announced a couple of hours ago and F&SF won for best mag and Sheila Edwards didn't win for best editor (that going to Ellen Datlow), so it looks like the consensus opinion of those voters would be Ferman's F&SF.

[clovis-man]

I'm always a little leery about getting into a "best of" choice. But, on balance, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction has an enviable record of continuing to produce high quality material on a regular basis for many, many years. So, it's hard for me to speak ill of them.

How's that for a lukewarm endorsement?

[dask]

Probably F&SF. No real reason 'cept my gut tells me so. (Plus I've read a lot more F&SF stories than Asimov's mag stories.)

[j. d. worthington]

Well, F&SF has had quite a bit of staying power, considering that they are in their 60th year now:

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, I've not read either for too many years to be able to give any opinion on how they compare currently....

[Urien]

I've been getting F&SF for three or four years now. I love it, with its old style and book reviews. They do get some great writers and fabulous stories. I recommend it for any fan of the speculative fiction genres. Mostly short stories but some novellas and novelettes. Usually well known writers. You never quite know what you're going to get but it's very good value, a treat when it comes, and leads to me reading stories I might not normally try.

That's a bit of an advert but I've always found something to enjoy in it. Meanwhile Azimov's I don't know well, though I associate it more with science fiction.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Well, F&SF has had quite a bit of staying power, considering that they are in their 60th year now

Well, Analog has been around 79 years; F&SF, 60; Asimov's 32. At this point, all the "big three" (least little three) have had staying power. No magazine I can think of since then has lasted more than 5 years or so, unless you count the fifteen year old, now bi-monthly, now small-press Realms of Fantasy[1]. Which, incidentally, shouldn't be left out of consideration if one's interested in fantasy short fiction or indifferent to the division between the two, since Shawna McCarthy was the editor who revolutionized Asimov's in her short stint in the mid-80s and is probably just as interesting with RoF.

[1] Omni lasted 17 years, but was more a pop-pseudo-sci mag than fiction.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

Well, Analog has been around 79 years; F&SF, 60; Asimov's 32. At this point, all the "big three" (least little three) have had staying power. No magazine I can think of since then has lasted more than 5 years or so, unless you count the fifteen year old, now bi-monthly, now small-press Realms of Fantasy[1]. Which, incidentally, shouldn't be left out of consideration if one's interested in fantasy short fiction or indifferent to the division between the two, since Shawna McCarthy was the editor who revolutionized Asimov's in her short stint in the mid-80s and is probably just as interesting with RoF.

[1] Omni lasted 17 years, but was more a pop-pseudo-sci mag than fiction.

Yep. Just noting their longevity as an indicator of whether or not they've maintained quality (at least in the eyes of the readers). Asimov's hasn't been around as long, and Analog has been all over the map with sf since its inception as Astounding, but both have also published a good deal of top-notch work as well....

[TheMoirae]

Well, both recently rejected short stories I submitted, so can I vote for neither? Actually, I prefer Asimov's.

[John Thiel]

What, J. Sun, it's their plan to have fantasy material in F&SF?

Garcia was replaced by an argumentative lady and hasn't had anything to say since the forums closed. The Dell sites now don't have any moderators...they say if they did, they might re-open.

F&SF has stronger stories, Asimov's more creative ones. By pairing these qualities for an estimate, Kaiser Weirdside, you may have given many the notion that you already have the answer...the magazine most deserving of a double approbation.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by John Thiel

What, J. Sun, it's their plan to have fantasy material in F&SF?

Yeah! Those sneaks.

Originally Posted by John Thiel

Garcia was replaced by an argumentative lady and hasn't had anything to say since the forums closed. The Dell sites now don't have any moderators...they say if they did, they might re-open.

Wow. Garcia got replaced by someone as bad? I wouldn't have thought it possible. And how could they not have any moderators? Weren't various volunteers like Marian still available?

But let me get this real straight - Garcia is no longer employed by Asimov's/Analog? Because I'm going to shout and run right out and buy me some magazines.

[Patrick Mahon]

My problem, as someone who still likes hard copies of my magazines, is that I can get F&SF (most of the time, anyway) at Forbidden Planet in London, but they don't stock Asimov's. I've got a single copy of Asimov's that I picked up somewhere second hand, and that's the only actual issue I've ever seen, though I've read several of their anthologies.

So I can't compare the two, unfortunately. I do like F&SF, but as I read more SF than fantasy, I feel I "ought" to like Asimov's more, if only I could get hold of it!

How do they compare in terms of winning awards? (Yes, I know - yet another unfair way of comparing apples with oranges...)

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by Patrick Mahon

...as someone who still likes hard copies of my magazines...

Right there with you.

Originally Posted by Patrick Mahon

How do they compare in terms of winning awards? (Yes, I know - yet another unfair way of comparing apples with oranges...)

Asimov's is the champ (as is Dozois) but award tallies are biased against older magazines - had there been a zillion awards in the 40s-60s things like Astounding/Analog and Galaxy would rank much higher - as would F&SF. Still, in the last decade or three of even footing, Asimov's would definitely be the prestige zine. Though, actually, while F&SF might not have had as many awards available to it throughout its career, it's definitely had more opportunities, overall, than Asimov's so, in that sense, awards tallies are biased against newer magazines and Asimov's being on top is even more impressive.

[Alex, The G and T]

In counterpoint to Patrick's comment; I've subscribed to ANALOG since the mid-eighties, and Asimov's since the mid-nineties. I've found S&SF an unusual find, and haven't read enough to comment.

Generally speaking, ANALOG stories hinge on a technical puzzle. Asimov's stories are more character driven, and genre-ambiguous.

Dozois is a god, in my mind, or maybe his editorial tastes just happen to match my reader's preferences. Which makes both of us gods... or neither... but I digress.

A student of this topic might be advised to read Dozois' Year's Best Science Fiction series of anthologies, drawn from all of the magazines, to get an overview of the general editorial slant of each magazine. The danger in reading the cream of the crop, though, as it always has been: the month-to-month average fare far out number those exceptional stories destined to become classics.

Sheila Williams has been editing Asimov's, in Gardner's wake, for... what? about two years now? It's holding up pretty well.

My big beef with the girlie-girl at the helm has been some preponderance of spunky, adolescent/post adolescent grrrlz as First Person protagonists. Which is all broad-minded, culturally-inclusive, politically-correct and .... cute.

Except, as father of two girls, a few too many of those kind of stories give me a kinda dirty feeling inside, like I was snooping in my daughters' secret diaries. The sanctity of which, I would never consider violating.