![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sign of the time(s)
Jul. 2nd, 2008 04:13 pmSeen recently on a business in Dorchester, a sign which contained both of the following phrases:
"Since 1894"
"Visit us on the web at..."
"Since 1894"
"Visit us on the web at..."
Jul. 2nd, 2008
Sign of the time(s)
Jul. 2nd, 2008 04:13 pmSeen recently on a business in Dorchester, a sign which contained both of the following phrases:
"Since 1894"
"Visit us on the web at..."
"Since 1894"
"Visit us on the web at..."
Introductions, A Rant
Jul. 2nd, 2008 10:26 pmI'm in the middle of the latest Hartwell&Cramer Years Best SF (13). It's not as depressing so far as 12 was, so maybe we're trending back up. Or maybe it's a statistical blip.
But that's not what I'm here to talk about this time. This time, I'm ranting not about the stories, but about the introductions to them. Every story is preceded by an editorial intro, almost always of the same form: a long paragraph of bio- and bibliographic information about the author, then a short paragraph describing the story. Sadly, the story description almost always contains serious spoilers for the story to follow. I have had to get into the habit of assiduously ignoring that page on the first read-through, only going back to it after I've finished reading. This is an annoying disruption to my reading flow.
I know there are people who *like* this kind of spoilage. Are they actually a majority? Why not make *them* flip forward to get their spoilers? They are already well used to doing so for novels.
I doubt that the authors like having this done to their stories. At best, it seriously colors the reader's experience. At worst, the summary is sometimes flat-out *wrong*.
It seems to me that these summaries often say far more about the editor than they do about the story in question. For example, I just read a story by Ken MacLeod, "Who's Afraid of Wolf 359?" (spoilers follow)( Read more... )
But that's not what I'm here to talk about this time. This time, I'm ranting not about the stories, but about the introductions to them. Every story is preceded by an editorial intro, almost always of the same form: a long paragraph of bio- and bibliographic information about the author, then a short paragraph describing the story. Sadly, the story description almost always contains serious spoilers for the story to follow. I have had to get into the habit of assiduously ignoring that page on the first read-through, only going back to it after I've finished reading. This is an annoying disruption to my reading flow.
I know there are people who *like* this kind of spoilage. Are they actually a majority? Why not make *them* flip forward to get their spoilers? They are already well used to doing so for novels.
I doubt that the authors like having this done to their stories. At best, it seriously colors the reader's experience. At worst, the summary is sometimes flat-out *wrong*.
It seems to me that these summaries often say far more about the editor than they do about the story in question. For example, I just read a story by Ken MacLeod, "Who's Afraid of Wolf 359?" (spoilers follow)( Read more... )
Introductions, A Rant
Jul. 2nd, 2008 10:26 pmI'm in the middle of the latest Hartwell&Cramer Years Best SF (13). It's not as depressing so far as 12 was, so maybe we're trending back up. Or maybe it's a statistical blip.
But that's not what I'm here to talk about this time. This time, I'm ranting not about the stories, but about the introductions to them. Every story is preceded by an editorial intro, almost always of the same form: a long paragraph of bio- and bibliographic information about the author, then a short paragraph describing the story. Sadly, the story description almost always contains serious spoilers for the story to follow. I have had to get into the habit of assiduously ignoring that page on the first read-through, only going back to it after I've finished reading. This is an annoying disruption to my reading flow.
I know there are people who *like* this kind of spoilage. Are they actually a majority? Why not make *them* flip forward to get their spoilers? They are already well used to doing so for novels.
I doubt that the authors like having this done to their stories. At best, it seriously colors the reader's experience. At worst, the summary is sometimes flat-out *wrong*.
It seems to me that these summaries often say far more about the editor than they do about the story in question. For example, I just read a story by Ken MacLeod, "Who's Afraid of Wolf 359?" (spoilers follow)( Read more... )
But that's not what I'm here to talk about this time. This time, I'm ranting not about the stories, but about the introductions to them. Every story is preceded by an editorial intro, almost always of the same form: a long paragraph of bio- and bibliographic information about the author, then a short paragraph describing the story. Sadly, the story description almost always contains serious spoilers for the story to follow. I have had to get into the habit of assiduously ignoring that page on the first read-through, only going back to it after I've finished reading. This is an annoying disruption to my reading flow.
I know there are people who *like* this kind of spoilage. Are they actually a majority? Why not make *them* flip forward to get their spoilers? They are already well used to doing so for novels.
I doubt that the authors like having this done to their stories. At best, it seriously colors the reader's experience. At worst, the summary is sometimes flat-out *wrong*.
It seems to me that these summaries often say far more about the editor than they do about the story in question. For example, I just read a story by Ken MacLeod, "Who's Afraid of Wolf 359?" (spoilers follow)( Read more... )