A Response to Dave Truesdale's "New Direction"

Last month Dave Truesdale posted an essay titled "A New Direction" in Tangent Online, one of the few publications which regularly reviews genre short fiction. In the essay Dave described why after 17 years of running Tangent he decided to change their editorial focus. The biggest change is Tangent will now only cover "professionally paying markets"—ie, those paying SFWA rates of 5 cents a word—meaning semi-prozines will no longer be reviewed. Tangent will also publish more reviews of classic SF and old pulp magazine stories.

Even though I hate to see semi-pro magazines dropped, I'd understand the change if Dave said that Tangent simply couldn't review everything under the sun and needed to narrow their focus. Or if Dave had instead said Tangent would only be reviewing magazines of "professional quality" (a term Dave does finally mention toward the end of his essay). In my own reviews of short fiction, I rarely write about poorly written stories which are not of professional quality. After all, time is a limited concern in any life, and I'd rather spend my time reviewing professional-grade stories.

But instead of saying any of that, Dave states the reason Tanget is dropping semi-pro magazines is because "The genre is going in directions that don't move me—intellectually, or with a sense of wonder, or both—like it used to. Frankly, it bores me." Dave then takes aim at new writers "with not a new idea or take to be had."

Is Dave basically saying he doesn't want Tangent to review semi-pro magazines because there's not much short fiction worth reviewing at either the professional or semi-pro level? Or is Tangent dropping semi-pros because these magazines publish so many new writers? Unfortunately, I'm not clear on which specific reason he is giving.

So according to Dave, what specifically is wrong with the genre and new writers—and by extension semi-pro magazines?

"I'll boil it down to the fact that I'm weary of a genre infested with politically correct thinking—at all levels. Where editors (for but one example) are bullied (or willingly acquiesce) into making sure there are exactly the same number of female and male authors listed on the covers of their magazines or collections. Where far too much SF/F is about trivial, mundane, quotidian affairs, and where emotional trauma and angst take precedence over any Idea or Story. Where far too much SF/F is about the small and the relatively unimportant (but my, how that author can write!), or the SF/F element is used merely as background or in an obligatory, perfunctory manner—as window dressing if you will. Hardly anyone would argue with the premise that SF is an all-encompassing genre, that it is open to all kinds of stories--from the pure adventure tale to the Important Message tale and everything in between. Some of it looks to the future while some is set in the past. Variety is good as a general proposition. The devil is always in the details, however, and I find, for my own personal taste, that too much of what is being produced these days (and for some years) just doesn't move me in any meaningful fashion."

He adds:

"Taken as a gestalt—the 'smallness' and relative unimportance of many of the stories, the tired, lazy thinking on the part of many of the writers (primarily the new), the politically correct element (editorially, and in individual stories), and the fact that while I still love the good short story but I now desire the time to read more of what excites me (which I find in Classic SF/F and the Pulp Magazines), I decided to eschew reviewing the less than pro-paying markets to free up my reading time."

Again, this is Dave's choice. Tangent Online is his baby and he can raise the kid as he chooses. And he is well within his rights to use his time reviewing the types of stories he prefers.

However, I disagree in no uncertain terms with his sentiments on new writers.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like Dave is dismissing an entire generation of new writers simply because they don't write stories like the ones he used to read, and is implying that these writers are only being published in semi-pro magazines (which he describes as "akin to reading published slush"). None of which is, of course, true. Many of the best new authors write both cutting-edge stories which could have only been written today AND stories which could have been at home in many classic magazines of the last 50 years.  These new writers are also published in more than semi-pro magazines; their stories can be found in professional-paying magazines like Clarkesworld and Fantasy and Asimov's and so on. And while there are bad semi-pro magazines, there are also many great ones.

To me, one of the many important roles genre magazines have—with the first being to publish the best possible stories—is to bring new writers to the attention of a larger audience. To say you won't review certain magazines because they are doing precisely what they should be doing is not a course I would chart.

This is not intended as an attack on Dave Truesdale. And as I said, it is his right to decide which magazines Tangent reviews. And since Tangent is one of the few genre outlets for short fiction criticism, I will continue to read their reviews. I also urge people to read his essay and draw their own conclusions on what he said.

But speaking for myself, I'm very disappointed by this decision—and more disappointed by the reasons given for going in this "new direction."

Comments

[kaolin fire]

Wow. I completely missed the whole "new direction" thing. I was just telling folks to go visit Tangent earlier today to find new magazines.

[Jason Sanford]

I also missed his essay until the other day. And like you, I was going to Tangent to catch up on magazines I might have missed when I saw Dave's announcement.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508552308]

As one of those writers trying to break in, this is sad news. One less outlet for reviews and discussion further limits exposure for both authors and the magazines and dismisses the efforts of those excluded. And just how do semi-prozines and new writers further develop if critical outlets won't dialogue with them? It seems rather myopicto take this stance.

[Matthew S. Dent]

As a new writer of SF, I find that pretty insulting to be honest. Because new writers don't necessarily write what he likes or what he read as a child, we're all rubbish? Not impressed at all with this, and I resolve to write all the more, so that my very existence might piss him off.

[Justin]

I read this last month, and I admit my first reaction was "Tangents is still around? Who knew?" Your assessment is a lot kinder than mine. To me it seemed like a classic example of "aging fan fears growing irrelevancy, blames PC agenda". Agree that it's Truesdale's magazine and he can choose his metric regarding what to review in it. And I don't mind the focus on the pulps (although I think there's an article waiting to be written on whether or not the pulps still matter).

[Leo]

I am a new writer hoping to break in. That being said, I mostly agree with Dave Truesdale. While, I do find excellent stories in various fiction magazines, most of the stories are bland. I purchase F/SF/H magazines and can only muster enough focus to skim through most stories. It appears that many short story writers are focusing too much on style and not enough on the story. Or, they focus too much on the moral of the story.

That being said, there are fantastic stories coming from semi-pro and amateur markets like The Dunesteef Audio Fiction Podcast or the Absent Willow Review.

In the end, we should generally expect a higher quality from professional markets than non professional. However, the real problem seems to be more about the state of the short story market as a whole, where prose and enforced morality seem more important than the story. This places the writer on a pedestal above the reader. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

[Nick Mamatas]

Ah, Trusdale, don't ever change!

Oh wait, he's still trapped in 1955.

[Aaron M. Wilson]

Thanks!

[Robert Laughlin]

If Mr. Truesdale finds magazine sf unacceptably bland and PC, I suggest that reading only the pros is worsening his problem. The semipros are often willing to take edgier material. I once wrote a story about the future of prostitution that was rejected by all the pros with comments like "brilliant, but icky". It was accepted in four hours by semipro Reflection's Edge. (Said zine is recently defunct, alas.)

[jeff vandermeer]

A US general during the Korean War, after a lost battle, famously said something like "Retreat? Hell, no! We're just advancing in a different direction."

I don't know why I just thought of that... :)

JeffV

[Aaron Hughes]

He simultaneously criticizes new writers as boring and lacking in new ideas AND for not writing enough like classic SF from the pulp era. Can't quite wrap my mind around that.

[Paul]

Jason: Instead of complaining, why don't you start a review site dedicated to all the stuff you think is important? If you do, please let me know, so I can tell you that it sucks.

[Jason Sanford]

Paul: I didn't say that Tangent sucks, and I repeatedly said it was Dave's right to run Tangent as he wishes. I even said I'd keep reading Tangent for their reviews of short fiction. I merely disagreed--politely and respectfully--with the reasons Dave stated for making this change. This type of discussion is the very essence of all literary criticism, which is what Dave was presenting in his essay.

And by a coincidence, while I don't have a review site I do write a number of reviews in different places. So the next time I write a review feel free to say it sucks.

[Paul]

Jason: Thanks for the lecture on the essence of literary criticism. Again, please let me know when your review site is up and running.

[Saladin Ahmed]

"Today's stuff isn't original or daring! Where is all the original, daring stuff?" is quite possibly the least original and daring critical lament ever uttered. "Oh noes, Political Correctness has overtaken Quality Writing" is a close second, though.

Let us all now lament the passing of the Golden Age, when writers never repeated themselves or wrote dime-a-dozen stories...

[Michael]

You could read Truesdale's essay? I had to bump my otherwise satisfactory browser up to 200% before it was legible.

I think it's a shame that he's chosen to drop the semi-pro markets from his area of reviewing. The only thing separating the semi-pros from the pros in terms of quality, originality, flexibility, fascination, and forward thinking is often the pay, that rarefied, mythical 5 cents a word which only a very few markets can afford to offer. There's a lot of damned good stuff being published in the semi-pro field, and those of us who work in it are a little poorer for losing such a venue.

(Case in point: Tangent recently reviewed Clockwork Phoenix 3, edited by Mike Allen, released by Norilana Books earlier this year. The pay rates are semi-pro, but the recognition for stories and authors featured in the CP series has been just as good as any you'll find in the pros. Award nominees and award winners a'plenty in volumes 1 and 2, and who knows what next year will bring for this installment?

Under the old system, CP3 got a very nice review from one of Tangent's people, who said some flattering things about my story in particular. Under the new system... that's one less review.)

This is a somewhat disappointing direction. But at least Truesdale has made his preferences and biases public and accessible. There's no wondering where he stands.

[Bryan Schmidt]

Michael, I reviewed CW3 myself. And print presses are not going to be as effected as electronic presses. We just have way too many web sites to manage.

Bryan

[Bryan Schmidt]

I have been asked to respond on Dave's behalf. I am Assistant Editor of Ezines at Tangent. The decision was made 90% because we are overwhelmed with the sheer volumes and have not enough reviewers to keep up with it. We have standards for our reviews and have had some people not work out, so the reality is that we've had even less reviewers than before as a result. Something had to give.
For 17 years, Tangent was the only place online where many of the non-pro zines even got attention from reviewers. But over time, as the mass numbers of 'zines has grown, demand for stories has led to acceptance by some 'zines of lesser quality stories, and this has been a frustration for reviewers with limited time, who, instead of keeping up with the best in the genres, instead must spend time reading lesser quality stuff. Dave, in particular, who loves science fiction and fantasy, has experienced this frustration. It's a feeling of missing out on the excitement and joy of good science fiction and fantasy writing because you just don't have time to read it. I'm sure many readers of this blog can relate.
It's a difficult and time consuming process to start categorizing zines based on a survey of issues to determine whose quality is consistently good enough and whose isn't. So we had to make a judgment call. And the easiest way to do it was along pro/semi-pro lines. We have made exceptions for several zines who have proven to have consistent quality, but many will be off our lists.
Most of us know that the majority of science fiction and fantasy writers come from a certain segment of the population. Most are upper class, liberal and white. As a result, the worldviews of stories can fall into the same narrow spectrum sometimes. It has been happening all too often as writers strive to write stories to please their fellow writers more than to challenge readers and push the boundaries. That is to the detriment of the zines and stories and has resulted in less boundary pushing, mold challenging stories. Dave, and myself as well as many of our reviewers and other fans, lament this fact. The issue is stories being about something. We love women characters. We want to see more believable women characters. Race, religion, creed -- not issues. The sex of the writer is not an issue. One of Dave's favorite writers (and mine) is Leigh Brackett. What we lament is the tired retread of the same white male Western narrator drawing similar conclusions and reacting similarly to the same old tropes. What happened to stories which reach out of the box or have fresh ideas? We'd just like to see more of that.

[Bryan Schmidt]

On a personal note, I am a writer myself, and I am glad to see Leo, a fellow new writer, who also shares this perspective. It's not an indictment of writers. It's a challenge to reach further and farther and not just settle because there are no new ideas anymore (as I often heard it said.)

[Bryan Schmidt]

Let me make one clarification, with apologies. I meant to say it like this:

What we lament are repetitive things like, as an example, the tired retread of the same white male Western narrator drawing similar conclusions and reacting similarly to the same old tropes.

Just one example.

[Dave Truesdale]

While I appreciate Bryan's trying to clarify what I meant in my editorial (and he did clarify a few things), his words are his and not necessarily mine.

Therefore, a few clarifications of my own. I did not say that all semi-pro or lesser paying magazines weren't any good. What I was trying to say was that the vast majority of the lesser paying markets--markets I have followed for nearly the past 20 years, do not nearly match the quality of the professional magazines. I was careful to say that there were exceptions, and that these exceptions would continue to be reviewed. I have no intention of listing those we will continue to review or those we will not. It's simply not in good taste.

I think perhaps there are many here who lack a proper perspective on the overall quality of many (not all) of the lesser paying markets I have personally read over the past 17 years--and which Tangent has reviewed. There have been nearly a hundred, most having vanished very quickly. Without this perspective it is impossible to say that what one has read over the past few years is enough of a perspective in order to criticize my opinion of the vast number I have seen and read over the years.

I mentioned the PC element as but _one_ of several other reasons I tire of a lot of current SF. Here's but _one_ example: it is fashionable these days to believe in Man-Made Global Warming (not the same thing as simple global warming, which is also up for debate). Yet, in story after story after story over the past few years there are constant references to MMGW. Sometimes the global warming thing is the backdrop for a story, sometimes it is the focus, sometimes it is tossed-off dialogue that refers to some element of MMGW. If you read widely enough, you see that in far too many post-catastrophe stories these days that some form of global warming scenario is the default setting. It's the received wisdom of many a newer writer, the politically correct "take" on the issue, and whether you agree with global warming (man-made) or not, it quickly becomes flat out _boring_ simply as literature. Show me the stories in professional or semi-pro or lesser paying magazines in the past three years that dares to espouse that global warming _could be_ based on false data, is erroneous, or where a post-catastrophe story doesn't have some element of global warming involved. It's lazy thinking on the part of the writer to just plug in the same old, same old--and not even provide a new take.

Here's another example of PC in the SF world (not involved with the fiction directly). Recently, a huge hardcover anthology of original stories appeared, edited by two names well-known to SF fans. Both editors are nice guys. The anthology had 20 stories, only 5 of which were by women. Yet, on the cover there are only 8 names mentioned: 4 women, 4 men. Exactly equal. And this antho appears hardly a year following a major brouhaha where another hapless editor--through no fault of his own--had too many males in his own antho, and either one or no female names on his cover. He got all kinds of sh*t for this "inequality" and was accused of blatant sexism.

Editors are skittish because of a vocal minority who see sexism, racism, and all sorts of other "isms" in everything, when they aren't warranted. And I'm tired of it.

But what irks me the most is when, in certain blogs (I'm thinking of another blog right now, not this one) where an author--whom I've never met and had no dealings with--used me as a poster boy for someone brought up in the 50s when sexism and racism were much more prevalent than they are now, and who _assumed_ my attitudes were racist and sexist, and therefore because I liked reading classic SF it was because I liked the sexist, racist days of SF! As if all SF from the 30s-60s was all sexist and racist and nothing more. That it had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

This automatically equating anyone who likes classic SF as being a racist or sexist because _some_ of SF from that time was, is ludicrous. And false. Yet it gets spread around as truth by those with an agenda, and woe be to those who don't agree with their narrow agenda 100%, in every ideological detail.

So I'm tired of that, too.

Not all less than pro-market fiction is bad--but the lower down the food chain you go, it certainly is. Read it for almost 20 years as I have and then feel free to challenge my opinion. :)

There is a _ton_ of PC element in SF today. I've just mentioned one element of many in the fiction, and given two examples not dealing directly with the fiction. I am far from the only voice who thinks so.

But, the primary reason I decided to eschew reviewing almost all of the lesser paying markets was because I wanted to free up my time in order to read more of what I like, and have missed out on, for the past 17 years. That accounts for 95% of the decision. All of the other reasons--the remaining 5%--were just added incentive.

As I said in the editorial, I asked the review staff about this. With but one dissenting vote, and two who were neutral, the entire rest of the staff applauded the move, and agreed about the quality of the fiction. And these are the people who read it regularly, and widely--and some have been doing so for decades and have as wide a perspective as I do.

To go back for a moment to a previous subject: I love women writers and women characters. I don't care one iota who writes the fiction as long as it interests me, challenges me, both intellectually and emotionally. I really couldn't care less.

One thing I hate about current SF and the field in general is that (_some_ of) the writers and editors are being intimidated into making sure everything is "equal," when in life things are hardly ever equal. I'm tired of PC witch hunts when someone says something with which a few folks don't agree. I'm tired of the same old scenarios and political views in the fiction, views that have been written about for 40 years or more and might have been fresh back in the day but are intellectually vacant now.

Check it out: every time you read a post-apocalypse or some sort of post-catastrophe story in the next year, see how many times it has something to do with global warming in any form, and to whatever degree. You'll find it everywhere. And this is just one example of how writers--just from a literary standpoint--are lazy today. They aren't challenging any of the accepted wisdom, and if they do they'll be toasted for it. Sad, but true.

If there's anything else that needs clearing up, I'm here, but don't expect any lists of dozens or hundreds of examples. If you know what to look for you'll find them easily enough yourself. :)

Cheers,
Dave
PS: I don't mean to sound overly harsh here, but I tend to type quickly and to the point, which makes it seem as if I'm in a more somber mood than I really am.

[Followthelede]

I have to say I find the arbitrary pro-pay/semi-pay distinction peculiar as a rationale. The first two poems I saw published after college were in a poetry magazine that paid in contributor's copies - appearing in the issues with me were poets such as Derek Walcott, Ai, Maxine Kumin, Carolyn Forche and Rita Dove (among many others), all within the pantheon of American poets. Paid in contributor copies, remember? There is a long and lovely tradition of American writers supporting quality publications (literary or genre, makes no diff.) without regard for what those particular markets pay.

The PC part of the argument is, unfortunately, a tiresome one. From political pundits to religious ones, this is favored trope of the day. Personally, I believe most of the "prefer non-PC because it's so much more genuine" arguments are really just an excuse for indulging behavior our mothers would have deemed inappropriate for the dinner table.

[T.N. Tobias]

I happen to know there are other outlets coming to fill the gap in reviewing semi-pro material.

It's unfortunate that Tangent had to elaborate on their stance. "There's too much fiction to be reviewed, we had to draw the line somewhere," would have been much better received than "We're tired of your politics. Writers today are lazy, unmotivated robots."

[Mae Empson]

Looking at the issue of global warming above, I'm wondering if this conversation is also about the type of genre fiction that some readers/writers prefer. My own writing tends to horror and fantasy, but the kind of science fiction that I like is more about the characters/plot than it is about the science.

So, I could imagine a very large (perhaps even infinite) number of stories worth writing that take global warming as an easy to explain premise for a disaster story in order to tell a story about specific characters facing unique challenges, in which the depth and interest of the story came from the characters and their choices (and not from the uniqueness of the science).

Does this mean that writers shouldn't strive to vary the premise and background of their stories and bring something fresh in this area also? No, of course not. I'm just pointing out that it is certainly possible that many of the stories in question (and I've never written a disaster story, so I can say this without personal bias) may not have been about the science.

By contrast, some (but not all) pulp era science fiction stories have very interesting science and very flat characters. Writing a story primarily "about the science" has real pitfalls. There's a wonderful example of this at http://www.shrovetuesdayobserved.com/flight.html which makes the point far better than I could.

I sincerely hope that some writers take up the challenge of increasing the diversity in premise for disaster stories. I do very much like stories that reflect real science, history, myth, and other interesting fact--or marvelous speculative riffs on these sources--and gracefully interweave these ideas into a well-written story.

Regarding the broader topic of reading pro vs. semipro, I believe that semipro markets play a critical role in supporting newer, less confident, niche, and/or experimental writers. I hope that they continue to be supported and read. In saying that, I do not wish to obligate any single editor/reviewer to read these markets, but simply hope that some will.

[Bryan Schmidt]

Other examples of PC stuff: requiring all stories to have women protagonists or all stories be written by women so a magazine cannot be accused of not having such stories. What about all stories having a plot? All stories being an original take?

As for the "arbitrary" line thing, it's not so arbitrary but it is practical. Unless you take months and hours to go through every zine and do a survey of quality to determine which ones consistently meet certain standards, how else can you draw a line? And who has time to do that?

[Andrew]

What magazines require "all stories to have women protagonists or all stories be written by women"? I have never heard of any to do that.

[Nick Mamatas]

Without this perspective it is impossible to say that what one has read over the past few years is enough of a perspective in order to criticize my opinion of the vast number I have seen and read over the years.

Hahaha, how ridiculous. Of course we can criticize your opinion, mainly because you've written enough articles that let us know that you don't think very clearly.

[MadameHardy]

"Yet, in story after story after story over the past few years there are constant references to MMGW. " Yes, and I just hate it when stories refer to continental drift.

Fucking magnets! How do they work?

[Clint Harris]

If people don't agree with how Truesdale does it, and I'm not saying they should, why don't they make their own magazine which reviews stories not from the pro-mags?

[Sean Wallace]

So people who disagree with the way TO runs their business aren't in a situation to criticize? Sorry, by nature of being a business means that there are customers, and customers can and will be always in a position to say something (whether wrong or right). Passive-aggressive suggestions don't resolve the issue, usually, and are more of a distraction than anything else.

[Bart Leib]

Clint Harris,

I'm working on it.

[Nick Mamatas]

If Truesdale doesn't like it when publishers put female names on the covers of their books after hearing from a fraction of the very large female audience for books, why doesn't Truesdale publish his own books instead of sniping from the sidelines with the nth iteration of his fanzine?

Man, I can play this all day.

[Wendy S. Delmater]

Tangent has the right to not publish semi-pro magazine reviews. I say that as a publisher of a semi-pro magazine that has been continuously published for seven years, had stories on the Locus Recommended Reading List, gets an average of eight or more honorable mentions every year, and in the latest YBSF was listed right after Strange Horizons and Clarkesworld as one of the best places for original fiction on the web.

What it means is that those who want to read about stories by new writers--and about a quarter of our stories are first-time publications--must get their reviews elsewhere. But Lois Tilton and Rich Horton (and sometimes even Gardner Dozois) are handling that function at Locus, thank you very much. Tangent has not reviewed us since 2007. In the meantime we've published Mary Anne Mohanraj, Lavie Tidhar (twice), Bud Sparhawk (twice), Richard A. Lovett, Aliette de Bodard, Marie Brennan, Ruth Nestvold (three times), Ken Scholes, Alan Smale, and Michael Swanwick. And a host of new writers who are anything but formula writers: mine is about as far from a liberal white male perspective as you're likely to get. I checked and we had one story that might or might not be a post-global warming story.

But it's okay. I know Dave's not speaking about Abyss & Apex since Tangent has not covered us for three years.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Athena Andreadis]

Précis of the Tangent statements and their relatives:
http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tantrum.jpg

Time travel to the Leaden Age, whoo-hoo! To rephrase the Tangent policy -- which was unclear until it got clarified in this thread: We welcome stories written with the mindset (and knowledge base) of post-WWII US suburbunites, when men were men and women were medicated.

Anyone who insists that there is no anthropogenic climate change should not be taken seriously (and yes, Virginia, we know non-anthropogenic climate change can be equally earthshaking, pun intended). They belong with flat-earthers, evolution denialists and young earth creationists.

SF Goes McDonald's: Less Taste, More Gristle
http://www.starshipreckless.com/blog/?p=1169

(This discusses the lack of scientific fundamentals in much of SF; a companion piece about the scienciness of hard SF is on its way)

Storytelling, Empathy and the Whiny Solipsist's Disingenuous Angst
http://www.starshipreckless.com/blog/?p=1654

[Paul]

Friendly suggestion for Dave Truesdale:

If you don't already own the anthology Spicy Slipstream Stories (2008), you should add it to your holiday wish list. It's co-edited by a guy named Nick Mamatas and features spicy stories that defy genre and alluring tales that will astound readers. It blends the adventure and bosoms of the old pulps with the stylistic innovations of that non-genre genre, slipstream. Oh, and the cover art has a large-breasted blonde in a torn dress, packing a ray gun.

[Jonathan]

It was more fun to write/read SF when we could credibly pretend advanced civilizations lived on Mars or Venus. So, too, with Man Made Global warming, which is not actually a PC fiction.

That doesn't mean we can't write and enjoy stories about the Martian League anymore, but if it's hard plausible SF we're craving... I honestly don't know how you square that circle.

Tangent has been, and will continue to be, a very valuable site of short fiction reviews and critique. Hopefully, for many many years into the future

[Dave Truesdale]

Wendy commented: "I know Dave's not speaking about Abyss & Apex since Tangent has not covered us for three years."

Wendy,

Tangent was on hiatus from Sept. of 2007 through June of 2009. We've been up and running and reviewing for close to a year and a half now, yet I have not seen an issue of Apex in my mailbox in that time.

Can't review'em if we don't see'em. :)

Best,
Dave
PS: I hasten to add that if you publish a semi-prozine and wish to be considered for review at Tangent Online, simply query me. I have said that I will make exceptions to the new policy, but that a query first is requested.

[Dave Truesdale]

I now see that Apex (during Tangent's hiatus) went from a quarterly print magazine to a monthly online publication. It seems the hiatus has left both ends of the reviewing process a little behind the times. :)

Tangent Online will now (once again) begin reviewing Apex, beginning with its current issue.

[Jason Sizemore]

Dave:

Wendy Delmater is the editor of ABYSS & APEX, a fine online spec fic zine.

Catherynne M. Valente is the editor of APEX MAGAZINE, a fine online spec fic zine (I was once the editor of Apex Magazine, and from 2005-2008 the zine was a printed digest called APEX SCIENCE FICTION AND HORROR DIGEST).

Ahem, just to clarify.

[Dave Truesdale]

Tangent Online just posted (earlier this evening) a review of Apex Magazine's November issue (#18).