Industry News Home

Wizard’s Tower Press has an­nounced the new Wiz Duo novella series, edited by Roz Clarke and Joanne Hall, to launch in early 2025. Each volume “will contain two novella-length stories from different writers.” The first two books include stories by David Gullen and Ben Wright, and Juliet Kemp and E.M. Faulds. Their novellas were first acquired by the now-defunct Grimbold Books. Publisher Cheryl Morgan said:

While I love reading novellas, ...Read More

Author Stephen King is shutting down the three independent radio stations he owns in Bangor ME: WZON, WZLO, and WKIT. They are expected to go offline on De­cember 31, 2024. King said, “While radio across the country has been overtaken by giant corporate broadcasting groups, I’ve loved being a local, in­dependent owner all these years,” but the stations have never been profitable, with King covering the revenue shortfalls personally. Now, ...Read More

George Zebrowski (28 December 1945–20 December 2024) was a prolific writer and anthologist. He edited three Nebula anthologies and headed SFWA’s committee that oversaw the selection of editors for Nebula Awards anthologies from 1983-95. His collection of Bulletins and Forums now makes up the majority of SFWA’s archives at Northern Illinois University. He was editor of the SFWA Bulletin during 1970 to 1975, and then, jointly with his long-time partner Pamela Sargent from 1983 to 1991. Together they won the Service to SFWA Award in 2000.

Born in Austria, Zebrowski moved to the US at age five. He attended one of the first Clarion Writers’ Workshops in 1968 at age 22, and, notably, rose quickly to publication, in collaboration with Jack Dann in 1970 with “Traps” and “Dark, Dark, the Dead Star” and his own “The Water Sculptor of Station 233.” Two years later, his first novel, Omega Point, was published with Ace Books. He went on to write more than a hundred published short stories and essays, along with twenty-one novels, including Star Trek tie-in works. He also edited more than a dozen anthologies, including five volumes of Synergy: New Science Fiction. Zebrowski won the John W. Campbell Memorial Award in 1999 with his book Brutal Orbits, and he served on the Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award jury from 2005-2013. Three of his short stories, “Heathen God,” “The Eichmann Variations,” and “Wound the Wind,” were Nebula Award nominees. 

Paul Levinson, former SFWA President, says, “George Zebrowski was a science fiction writer’s science fiction writer. What I mean by that is he was as passionate and committed to loving science fiction—thinking about it, writing about it, and of course, writing it—as he was when he first encountered it. When George called me, or when we met at a convention, I truly felt like I was 12 years old again, consumed by and beaming with that sense of wonder.  I guess it never leaves most teenage fans of the genre, but it more than didn’t leave George—he constantly contributed to it with his electric and eclectic imagination. It was truly a privilege to know him, and wherever he is now, he’s also permanently somewhere in my brain, and no doubt the minds of many lucky others.”

Writer and editor James Morrow recalls, “Before I knew George Zebrowski, I knew about him. The connection remains vivid in my memory. Sometime in the early 1980’s, I was hanging out with a filmmaker friend in his Boston apartment, where we were eventually joined by an accomplished book critic (his name escapes me) who specialized in science fiction. I had recently published my first novel, a dystopian satire called The Wine of Violence, that owed its existence primarily to Swift and Voltaire. At the time I was largely ignorant of contemporary SF, and I felt ambivalent about continuing to write in that genre. The critic told me that, if I wanted to appreciate the stylistic, intellectual, and sociopolitical feats of which SF was capable, I should read two recent novels without delay: In the Ocean of Night by Gregory Benford and Macrolife by George Zebrowski. I had heard of neither book (and neither writer), but I followed the critic’s advice. And so it was that, by dazzling me with the intensity of their imaginations and the range of their philosophic and scientific passions, Benford and Zebrowski inadvertently convinced me to remain in the SF field. Eventually I got to know George in person, and he quickly proved an admirable colleague, tirelessly working behind the scenes in SFWA politics and SF publishing (often to my personal benefit). Thank you, dear George. Ave atque vale. I owe you more than I can say.”

Writer Jack Dann says, in summary of a lifelong friendship, “George was one of the most ethical and moral people I’ve ever known. He simply could not embrace cynicism. He persisted in doing good deeds for people he did not even know because it was the right thing to do. For example: after discovering that a publisher was not paying proper royalties, he spent months negotiating until the writers involved received ‘windfall’ royalties amounting to thousands of dollars. George Zebrowski the writer…? His intellectual contemporaries were Arthur C. Clarke and Stanislaw Lem—Clarke was a longtime friend and correspondent. Like Clarke and Lem, George was interested in rigorously extrapolating ideas into plausible, possible future realities. He turned cold equations into futures that we could imagine living in. Quintessential thought experiments. If you would like to experience his excoriating insights and genius, take a look at what I consider his magnum opus: Macrolife: a Mobile Utopia. To sum up. George: brilliant, cranky, generous, loveable, and passionate about everything that interested him. A fiercely devoted friend. An argument ready to happen. Someone who did not—could not—suffer fools gladly. Well, perhaps he did because he suffered through our friendship for almost sixty years! Vale, my brother…”

George Zebrowski lived 78 years.

The post In Memoriam: George Zebrowski appeared first on SFWA.

Asimov‘s magazine has opened up the ballot for its 39th annual Readers’ Award. On the ballot, available here, readers can select their favorite Asimov’s short stories, novellas, novelettes, poems, and covers from 2024. The poll closes on February 1, 2025.

Founded in 1977 by Isaac Asimov and Joel Davis, Asimov’s publishes science fiction, poetry, editorials, and non-fiction. For more on the magazine’s history, see here.

While you are here, please ...Read More

Analog Science Fiction and Fact has opened up its annual poll for the Analytical Laboratory of reader favorites. On the ballot, available here, readers select their favorite Analog short stories, novellas, covers, articles, and more. The poll closes on February 1, 2025.

Analog, begun in 1930 as Astounding Stories, publishes science fiction and articles on science and technology. For more information about the magazine, see here.

While you are here, ...Read More

by the SFWA Publications Crew

In recent years, The SFWA Blog has undergone many changes and refinements to serve its community better. Where we once had a single editor, we’re now a team that reviews pitches collectively and looks for ways to bring more voices into the conversation. This past year was an especially exciting time for us because we were able to launch more open calls and elevate the excellent work of committees such as History, Indie, and Game Writing: volunteer-run initiatives here at SFWA that advocate for writers in different fields of the SFF industry.

The SFWA Blog is a free-to-read service—no membership necessary!—and our mission in 2025 is to continue growing conversations of value to professional and professionalizing writers in SFF.

Going forward, we’re partnering with more SFWA advocacy groups to bring their expertise to The Blog, and we’re developing conversations we began this year through our open calls. On our Highlights page, you can currently explore articles in our “Writing from History,” “Writing by Other Means,” and “Perspectives in Translation” conversations, along with limited series like “Playtesting Game Narratives” and long-term committee offerings from History, Indie, Romance, and Safety. We’ll be growing our list to include special topics, like articles about action-writing and worldbuilding, and seeking more roundtable and interview opportunities.

More details are available on our Submission Guidelines page for these open calls:

• Lessons Learned
• Perspectives in Translation
• Volunteer Networks: The Heart of SFF
• Writing by Other Means
• Writing from History

What Do We Want at The SFWA Blog?

Despite the range of highlights you can read to get a sense of the publication and the thorough guidelines available to would-be Blog writers, many still struggle at the pitch stage.

If you’re considering submitting an article pitch to The Blog, we’d love to read it! Here are some tips to help you create a successful pitch:

1. We love work that addresses writers at all stages of their careers, but we most often receive pitches that address an audience of complete novices. We would love to see more pitches that go past a basic introduction to a topic and more work that addresses the needs of a mid-career writer/creator in SFF.
2. We love work that explores lesser-known experiences. Although every topic can do with a refresher piece occasionally, we have a range of creators in SFF who rarely get a platform to discuss what makes their niche special. Let’s change that together.
3. We prioritize work that doesn’t simply promote a single author, organization, or professional service. (And that includes self-promotion: the best self-promotion, for us, is an author who demonstrates their talent for writing through their mastery of other article topics.) We’re more interested in exploring a concept holistically, so give us collective histories or technical discussions that include a wider range of product options.
4. We love work that uplifts rather than tearing down. Sometimes, well-meaning writers will pitch us articles that focus on how [X] text got [Y] representation wrong. These don’t tend to make it past the pitch phase. The author’s heart is in the right place, but stronger pitches will center work that gets [Y] representation right. This is also important because writers from [Y] demographic sometimes simply don’t know about the wonderful work already being done by other members of their demographic.
5. Relatedly, we love it when writers don’t feel that they have to carry a whole demographic on their own. Everyone has a distinct and wonderful voice. No group is a hivemind, so please pitch us work based on your experience in [Y] demographic rather than feeling pressured to represent The One True Experience for the whole.
6. Although we avoid blatant self-promotion, we welcome your singular, first-person experiences—so please feel free to use personal anecdotes to frame the professional core of your piece. Conversely, though, you do not have to include any personal details if you don’t want to. It’s only in pitches discussing technical topics (e.g., scientific subfields, medical know-how, or martial arts) that relevant experience in either the pitch or author’s bio will help us evaluate the submission.
7. Lastly, we love work that challenges our expectations. This doesn’t mean being controversial for the sake of controversy, but we sometimes see pitches that advocate for methodologies we disagree with—and then we ask ourselves if there’s a body of writers who might benefit from the perspective all the same. No two writers are alike, and having a team of editors allows us to signal-boost a range of perspectives. So don’t ever feel like you have to submit something based on the professional preferences of our editors! Write with a demonstrated level of authority about your point of view instead.

The Nitty Gritty of Your Submission

The SFWA Blog editorial team meets monthly to consider your submissions. While we discourage flooding our inbox with too many pitches, if you’ve sent one and haven’t heard back yet, feel free to send another along in the same window if inspiration strikes again.

In your pitch, give us a clear sense of what the article will cover so we can better evaluate your proposal. If you want to approach a subject from many different angles, please let us know. If you want to bring multiple authors/works into discussion, please list them in the pitch. If you think of structuring your article as an argument, give us a sense of the steps that get you to your conclusion.

If you get a rejection from us, please know that there are many possible reasons for a declined pitch, and you’ll find the most common listed in that email. Read them carefully, consider which ones might explain your situation, and then please feel free to submit anew.

This was a terrific year for getting more open calls and committee series off the ground, but we’re just getting started at The SFWA Blog. There’s always so much more to say and do for this weekly conversation among professional and professionalizing writers in SFF.

We hope you’ll engage with us next year by reading The SFWA Blog, commenting on or sharing articles, and submitting your own pitches. We on the editorial team very much look forward to the work that lies ahead. Join us!

The post What Should I Pitch to The SFWA Blog? appeared first on SFWA.

Kazuo Ishiguro is the first name on the 2025 King Charles III New Year’s Honours list. The list gives Ishiguro the Companion of Honour distinction, which BBC.com notes as rare, as it is “a select group which is limited to 65 people at any one time.” Jacqueline Wilson DBE is next on the High Awards list, given the Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire. The complete list ...Read More

The 2024 Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund (TAFF), which “will send a European fan to the 2025 Worldcon in Seattle,” has selected its nominees and will begin voting on January 1, 2025.

The candidates for this year are Zi Graves, Mikołaj Kowalewski, and Jan Vaněk jr. Voting is open to any individual with their donation of £3 or $4 to TAFF. The ballot is available here.

TAFF “was created in 1953 for ...Read More

The 28th ICon was held October 20-22, 20-24 in Tel Aviv, Israel, and included almost 350 panels, lectures, workshops, games, and roleplaying. Some 11,000 tickets were sold to the different events. In each of the three days, at a certain point, entrance to the venue had to be restricted to those who had tickets, because the 1,800 people limit on premises, set for health and safety reasons, was reached.

The ...Read More

by Ira Nayman

Early in my short-story writing career, I received a delightful email from an anthology editor who had accepted one of my works. “The hard part is over,” she wrote. “Your story has been accepted. Compared to this, editing will be easy.”

What did this editor mean? If a magazine gets 200 submissions per issue and can only accept 10 stories (to make the math easy), they are very likely to receive more than enough stories that are structurally sound, allowing them to accept only stories that do not require basic story or character reworking. Creating a story that will beat 1-in-20 odds of acceptance takes a lot of work; compared to that, rewriting as part of the editorial process is easy.

Years later, having worked as an editor, it occurred to me that the email contained a certain… defensiveness. I now find it easy to believe that, having dealt with writers who fought every editorial decision, the editor was trying to preempt protracted battles over relatively minor details.

The Writer’s Perspective

Many writers resist the editorial process for a variety of reasons. It takes a lot of time, thought and, ultimately, work to craft effective prose fiction; it can be galling to allow a stranger to come along and tell you that it has to be changed. In addition, it can be hard to accept that what you have put so much of yourself into is not perfect exactly as you wrote it. These issues can be overcome with experience. All you need is one great editor to help you see the flaws in a story and guide you through the process of correcting them to see the value in the process.

I suspect that part of the reason many writers resist the input of editors is because they find rewriting a chore. However, as Ernest Hemingway said, “The only kind of writing is rewriting.” When I come to rewrite, I usually approach it as another opportunity to exercise my creativity, to have fun with the process, and surprise myself with solutions to creative problems. In this way, I don’t get verklempt at the prospect of rewriting.

Many writers feel/fear that their relationship with editors has to be adversarial. It cannot be stressed enough that the editor is not your enemy. Quite the opposite. Editors and writers want the same thing: to publish the best version of a story as they can, albeit for slightly different reasons. The author wants to maintain their reputation, while the editor wants to maintain the reputation of the publication in which the story appears. If you ever have the misfortune to have a story published in a magazine or anthology that is not edited, the deficiencies you will subsequently find in it will be a lesson on why you really need an editor.

The Editor’s Contribution

Generally, editors will ask for two types of changes: those based on style or facts, and those based on creative interpretation. Most publications have an in-house style that they expect all stories to conform to (for instance, I think italics are overused in modern publishing, so the style of my publications is to give italics a break and use bold type for emphasis; be forewarned that I am also on a one-person crusade to bring back the interrobang). These are not debatable questions, so there is no point arguing with an editor about them.

In a similar vein, there is no point arguing if an editor suggests a writer change a factual error. For science fiction, for example, it’s important to get your science right. For all genres, dates of important historical events, the names of real people, actual geography (unless you have a reason for not using the actual facts), an editor is absolutely right to suggest that you do. No matter how obscure the fact, there will always be a reader who knows it and is taken out of the story if a writer gets it wrong.

Changes based on creative interpretation are more complicated. They may be something as simple as word choice: Does one word better convey the author’s intended meaning than another? Clarity is an important consideration: Does a sentence or paragraph convey the information it needs to in a way that will be clear to most readers? Issues of clarity may involve apparent continuity problems (if an object that is introduced as blue is referred to as red later in the story), including characters acting in ways that contradict what has already been established about them. Another issue may involve the order of scenes: Would a scene late in the story have more impact if it appeared earlier in the story?

This sort of editorial input is vital to creating the world of the story in the mind of the reader; it is often the most hotly contested by writers.

Working Together

My practice as an editor is to couch interpretive input as either a suggestion (“You might want to try…”) or a question (“This is unclear. Might it be better as…?”). If the writer makes a reasonable argument for why the change isn’t necessary, I’m usually willing to accept it (although it is also true that 90% or more of the changes I ask for are accepted by authors). I try to keep in mind that, in matters of artistic interpretation, there aren’t always clear-cut right or wrong answers. While my input makes sense to me given my understanding of how stories work, it is always possible that the writer is in a better position to judge what works for their specific story.

Until they have built the trust that comes with working together, it helps writers and editors to approach their relationship with a little humility. Authors need to respect the experience and knowledge the editor has; editors need to respect the fact that the inspiration and drive to write the story makes the author its de facto expert. This kind of mutual respect is the basis of successful creative relationships.

Ira Nayman writes humorous speculative fiction. He is the author of eight published novels and thirty-five published short stories. He was the editor of Amazing Stories magazine for three years. The Dance, his first anthology as editor, was published in 2024.

The post The Professional Editor/Writer Relationship appeared first on SFWA.

The Board of Directors of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA) has released a statement on the freedom of expression for writers residing in conflict areas and poor living conditions:

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in education, SFWA is restricted from political campaign intervention in particular forms. At the same time, our mission is to inform, support, promote, defend, and advocate for writers of science fiction, fantasy, and related ...Read More

Barry N. Malzberg (24 July 1939–19 December 2024), also writing as Mel Johnson, K.M. O’Donnell, Nathan Herbert, Mike Barry, Claudine Dumas, Lee W. Mason, and Gerrold Watkins, was a prolific and varied writer, anthologist, columnist, critic, satirist, and editor. Malzberg served as SFWA’s Eastern Regional Director from 1980 to 1984.

After originally working toward careers in screenwriting and as a literary agent, Malzberg began writing and publishing short fiction in the mid-1960s. His early publications, such as “The Sense of the Fire,” were in men’s magazines such as Escapade, where he was also an editor. Over the next three decades, he wrote many well-known and award-nominated short stories, later gathered into volumes of collected works, as well as dozens of novels across science-fiction, mystery, thriller, and erotica. His works were often notably pessimistic in tone, including his John W. Campbell Memorial Award winning book Beyond Apollo (1972), the third in a series of negative commentaries on the Apollo astronauts and program, and he was known for melding a bleak perspective on humanity with traps of existence as psychological elements through stories of science-fiction, erotica, and the two combined.

A prolific essayist, Malzberg’s collected non-fiction won the Locus Award twice and covered a broad range of current and historical topics. Malzberg was a notable contributor to the SFWA Bulletin: first, as the magazine’s editor in the late 1960s, until asked to resign after an essay negative to the NASA space program. Then, together with writer Mike Resnik, Malzberg contributed to The Resnick & Malzberg Dialogues, a regular advice column that ran in over fifty issues, ending famously with a discussion on women in editing, which sparked conversation that changed the course of the SFWA organization and influenced the broader genre community.

Author and editor Scott Edelman notes, “My first thoughts go not to his millions of written words—which I have loved and do not intend these memories to diminish—but to the moment when we first met, and I had the opportunity to face to face tell him how sorry I was for how I’d once wronged him. He waved it off and said something like—the world would be a terrible place if we were all judged by the worst thing we ever did. ‘Let it go,’ he said. And we went on to have a true friendship. I will always treasure his graciousness in that moment.”

Author Robert J. Sawyer says, “Barry N. Malzberg was a true mensch. He believed fervently in the power of science fiction and fought for it to transcend being a commercial category of mere escapism. The field has lost not only one of its greatest authors but also one of its fiercest champions. Barry’s published writings were often caustic, but whenever I needed a friend, he was always there with kindness and unflagging support.”

Author Nancy Kress remembers, “Barry Malzberg, my friend for over thirty years, was a mass of contradictions. A self-proclaimed pessimist (he thought of it as realism), he was a funny and entertaining raconteur. Holding a low opinion of humanity in the aggregate, he was kind, loyal, and generous to individuals. Believing he had fallen short of his own literary hopes for his writing, he nonetheless was justly proud of his best work and enormously pleased when his impressive oeuvre was brought back into print. I relished his company, and I will miss him.”

Barry N. Malzberg lived 85 years.

The post In Memoriam: Barry N. Malzberg appeared first on SFWA.

Author George Zebrowski, 78, died December 20, 2024.

Jerzy Tadeus Zebrowski (AKA George Thaddeus Zebrowski) was born December 28, 1945 in Villach, Austria. He moved to the US in 1951, and attended an early Clarion Writers’ Workshop in 1968.

Zebrowski’s first publications were collaborations with Jack Dann in 1970 (“Traps” and “Dark, Dark, the Dead Star”), and his first solo story was “The Water Sculptor of Station 233” (1970). He ...Read More

Can*Con 2024 was held November 1-3 in person at the Sheraton Hotel in Ottawa, Canada. Guests of honour were Jennifer Brozek, Sarah Gailey, Diana M. Pho, Waubgeshig Rice, and Arley Sorg. A separate virtual Can*Con was held on April 20 with roughly one hundred attendees.

There were 400 in-person registered attendees. Programming featured 115 panelists and 107 items on writing, literature, and more, such as ‘‘Post-Colonial Perspectives on the Post-Apocalypse’’ ...Read More

While many stories are born of conflict, sorrow, and tragedy, the act of storytelling requires some measure of peace. Writers must have homes, they must have food, and they must have the freedom to express themselves without fear.

In too many places around the world, writers do not know this peace.

We have members who live in, bear citizenship of, and travel to countries whose governments increasingly scrutinize personal speech and professional membership. Further, we have members and friends who are living and dying in conflicted areas and war zones. Their stories are powerful, they are many, and we must hear them.

As writers, our values shine forth in our writing; speculative fiction has a unique ability to undermine prejudices and upturn assumptions. We also have the power to challenge fascism and imagine better futures. Our voices reverberate around the world and throughout time, and we must use them.

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in education, SFWA is restricted from political campaign intervention in particular forms. At the same time, our mission is to inform, support, promote, defend, and advocate for writers of science fiction, fantasy, and related genres.

We must not look away as our colleagues and readers—present and future—are killed, injured, or driven from their homes.

With that in mind, SFWA will continue to actively support speculative fiction writers under threat and in crisis.

Direct actions SFWA will take from this point forward include:

• SFWA will continue to provide Emergency Medical Fund and Legal Fund support to all qualifying authors, including those impacted authors in conflict zones.
• SFWA will provide free Virtual Nebula access for any author impacted by war or conflict.
• SFWA will waive membership fees for authors living in or displaced from areas impacted by war or conflict.

In addition, SFWA Givers Fund grants are available to:

• revitalize recovering science fiction and fantasy communities,
• fund writing scholarships targeted at affected authors,
• help to rebuild lost and destroyed SFF and related genre collections in affected libraries or educational institutions, and
• assist in the creation of safe writing spaces.

We are also here to support our community by pointing writers toward resources and opportunities they need. It is our mission to support writers, and we will not lose sight of those impacted by crises. If you or another writer need support, please contact crisis@sfwa.org.

Signed,

The SFWA Board of Directors

The post Statement from the SFWA Board: Writers in Crisis appeared first on SFWA.

Writer T. Jackson King, 76, died December 3, 2024 in Santa Fe NM.

Thomas Jackson King, Jr. was born May 24, 1948 in Houston TX. He was a journalist, activist, and archaeologist.

Debut novel Retread Shop appeared in 1988. His Vigilante series began with Star Vigilante (2012) and continued with Nebula Vigilante (2013), Galactic Vigilante (2013), and Anarchate Vigilante (2014). The Aliens series includes Earth vs. Aliens (2014), Humans vs. ...Read More

The Libertarian Futurist Society (LFS) has announced the finalists for the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award for Best Classic Fiction.

• Orion Shall Rise, Poul Anderson (Timescape)
• “As Easy as A.B.C.”, Rudyard Kipling (London Magazine 1912)
• “The Trees”, Rush (Hemispheres)
• Singularity Sky, Charles Stoss (Ace)

Six other works were also considered: “Death and the Senator”, a 1961 short story by Arthur C. Clarke; That Hideous Strength, a 1945 ...Read More

Author, editor, and critic Barry N. Malzberg, 85, died December 19, 2024 in Saddle River NJ.

Barry Nathaniel Malzberg was born July 24, 1939 in New York. He attended Syracuse University, graduating in 1960, and returned later to study writing in graduate school. He left the program to work as an agent for the Scott Meredith Literary Agency as well as a freelance writer. He married Joyce Zelnick in 1964; ...Read More

Rachel Winterbottom has joined Penguin Random House UK imprint Transworld as sci-fi and fantasy publishing director. Winterbottom is scheduled to start working in the newly created role in March 2025, reporting temporarily to managing director Kimberly Young. Winterbottom has worked as an editor for Gollancz as well as HarperVoyager UK. Young said,

Rachel brings with her a magical combination of a deep passion for the SFF genre and a genuine ...Read More

The New York Public Library (NYPL), the Brooklyn Public Library, the Queens Public Library, and others have released their annual lists of most-borrowed books. The 2024 announcement features a list of books tabulating check outs for the combined boroughs.

On the “Citywide” list, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin (Knopf) was the most checked out book for the combined boroughs of New York for 2024. Third place was ...Read More