There's been a lot of talk over the past few months about the ill health of science fiction. This week, SF Signal posted a discussion about the death of sci-fi films. There's also been talk about how science fiction is obsolete or how serious science fiction is dead, and it boggles my mind.

As tends to be the case, John over at SF Signal sparked me to write another post. Although, it's not so much the article he wrote so much as the comments that were made in response to it - and the topic he presented.

Edit: I forgot to add a spoiler warning to this. There isn't much of one, but it is kind of there. So for anyone truly interested in seeing the movie - don't read the third paragraph.

I referenced this article the other day, and I'll do so again because I think it really chapped my hide. Also, it leads into my response to Mr. Modesitt's current post. As always, he's very well spoken and argues his point well.

I posted this over on my Blogger account on May 30th, and I thought I should archive it here, because it relates to the post I made the other day. Here, though, is the complete article.

SF Signal posted this article just the other day:

I posted my response there, but I thought I'd offer up my opinion here, too, for those of you who regularly read.

I think John over at SF Signal likes to incite riots when he posts certain things. At least, I wanted to start a riot when I read this article. Well, I did want to start a riot; then, I just wanted to write the editor of the article and complain; then, I got lazy and just decided to write a post about it. He'll get his due.

The bit in the article that bothered me the most were lines like this:

There is little excuse for the lack of certain options on this site in the past week. For that, I sincerely apologize.

Currently, we are working on the issue regarding both online and print subscriptions being purchased through the website. That will be resolved as soon as possible.

John over at SF Signal inspired me a bit to write this post. Why do I read Science Fiction? I'll write about that because I'll be honest: I am usually disappointed with the Science Fiction that gets put to film.

I would like to announce the Table of Contents for the premier issue of Staffs & Starships magazine. Aren't you excited? :D

At War by Karl El-Koura
The Ken of Man by Barbara E. Tarbox
Trompe L'Oeil by Katherine Shaw
Darkened by Joanne Anderton
The Oracle Unlocked by Lindsey Duncan
The Carrier by James Michael Steimle
The Fourth Knight's Quest by Steve Goble
127 Fears by S. C. Bryce
Last Contact by Peter Andrews
Problem in Logic by Barton Paul Levenson

Jordan Lapp over at Without Even Trying has been doing (and will continue) a series of posts on New Markets for Genre writers. It’s a good idea, and I’ve been diligently reading it every time he posts a new one.

I have a bit of a gripe, though, and not with him but with the concept that underlies his posts. This is it: why is it that someone should have to resort to finding markets that accept new authors?