Talk:Amazing Stories

Miscellaneous early comments

Steven Spielberg produced a tv series called Amazing Stories [1] in the 1980s. Is this related to that series? If so, it should be mentioned in the article; otherwise, a new article should be made, and both should be disambiguated. -- LGagnon 00:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point - it's done, in stubby form. - DavidWBrooks 13:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A question for fans. The following is part of a paragraph from the article -

".......It was published till 1954, when it was merged with the magazines' newer, more sophisticated-looking companion Fantastic, by which time both had become digest-sized. The latter title would run, under a variety of title variations, till it was merged with Amazing in 1980; ......"

Now, Amazing Stories merged with Fantastic (magazine) in 1954, and the merged? Fantastic (magazine)? merged with Amazing Stories in 1980.

Can anyone explain this??? Dumarest - 15 Feb 2006

• The "it" in "It was published" refers to the magazine pulp Fantastic Adventures. however the "both" in "both had become digest-sized" refers to Fantastic and Amazing. Note that three magazines are being discussed in this rather improvable section. Notinasnaid 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I should have given more of the paragaraph. The 'it' is in fact Amazing Stories, which first merges with another magazine and the merged magazine merges into the Amazing Stories in some sort. I agree it is sort of improvable and complicated. Dumarest 15:41, 15 Feb 2006

Amazing Stories was published continually from 1926 until late in the 20th Century. It was a common business practice for a magazine to have a companion, with the same editorial staff but usually lower circulation. The companion of the pulp Amazing was Fantastic Adventures, which in hard times was merged with Amazing. The companion of the digest Amazing was Fantastic, which likewise merged with Amazing in hard times. Rick Norwood 13:28, 15

Buck Rogers

The "BUCK ROGERS" issues are collectors items (citation needed). On Feb 9, 2007 this issue sold for $227.52 (eBay item 290079342384)

AMAZING STORIES, MAR 1929, "BUCK ROGERS" SEQUEL. VOL 3, NO. 12 - "THE AIRLORDS OF HAN" BY NOWLAN

This issue features another Buck Rogers story with the first publication of "The Airlords of Han", which is the sequel to "Armageddon-2419" by Philip Francis Nowlan.

This issue features the following stories and authors:

 Into the Green Prism (A Serial in Two Parts) Part I  by A. Hyatt Verrill
 The Face of Isis  by Cyril G. Wates
 The Worm  by David H. Keller, M.D.
 The Airlords of Han (Sequel to Armageddon-2419)  by Philip Francis Nowlan 

Cover artwork is by master illustrator Frank R. Paul and depicts a scene from “The Airlords of Han”. (Here, the metal sphere radio-piloted by the Americans flies into the room in which Anthony "Buck" Rogers, Boss of the Wyomings, is held a royal prisoner by the Hans) The interior artwork is by Frank R. Paul as well.

SWTPC6800 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the cover illustrates The Skylark of Space, not The Airlords of Han. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor 1965-1967

Found a small errata. The editor for the years 1965-1967 should be "Joseph Wrocz," not "Joseph Wrzos." Wrocz edited the magazine under the pseudonym of "Joseph Ross." Reference Donald H. Tuck's "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy."--RKihara (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that at some point in the next week or two, if you (or someone else) doesn't get to it first. Mike Christie (talk)

Hmm. Ashley spells it "Wrzos", though I agree "Wrosz" or "Wroscz" would be what you'd expect to see. I don't have many other references with me at the moment, so I'm going to leave this as is till I can check a few others. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My CD copy of the Nicholls also says "Wrzos", as does the ISFDB, so I'm going to leave this and assume it's an erratum in Tuck unless more information comes to light. Mike Christie (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, why the change to Ross?Shsilver (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's how he's listed in the magazine, so I think we should use that form of his name in the list of editors. The text should mention his real name. I'll go through and see if I can make it consistent. Mike Christie (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You found a small erratum. "Erratta" is plural.

Plans for the article

I am away from most of my references until September; I just have the first two volumes of Mike Ashley's history with me, plus (somewhere) a copy of the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia on CD. I'm stuck on publication history at 1970 as a result -- the third volume of Ashley covers it up to 1990, but I don't have that with me. I can do some of that from the Nicholls when I find it.

I plan to add a contents/reception section, and talk about the fiction and non-fiction contents in rather more detail, listing things like award nominations, and the discovery of new authors. I also think a separate section is necessary to assess the impact of Amazing as the first genre magazine. I'll assemble circulation figures from the 1960s onwards (I should have most of them) and make a graph of that. I will also put a "Bibliographic details" chart together to cover things like volume numbering, exact dates on which editorship changed, and when it was monthly and when bimonthly and so on. Some of all this will have to wait till September. Also, I don't have a complete run of Amazing so I can't cover everything related to cover styles, title styles and so on. I'll see what I can do and in the fall I'll post a list of what I think is left. Mike Christie (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to see someone expanding this article. I follow the other half of Hugo Gernsback's work, electronics magazines. I have done Popular Electronics, Radio News, Experimenter Publishing bankruptcy, Hands-On Electronics and a start on Radio-Electronics. I have done a lot of research on Gernsback and Ziff-Davis publishing history. When you science fiction fans write about Hugo Gernsback, his electronics magazines are virtually ignored. :-)

The Amazing Stories article is about science fiction so it is natural to emphasis his science fiction contributions. I have a few of his early magazine and there is only a occasional science fiction story. After Modern Electrics and Electrical Experimenter, Gernsback started a magazine devoted to radio and electronics, Radio News, in 1919. This was very successful and he later started Amazing in 1926.

Here are some pages from the August 1916 Electrical Experimenter:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Electrical_Experimenter

I have a web site that covers old electronics magazines and I have just put up two issues or Radio-Electronics that cover Hugo Gernsback's early work. There are scans of the pages and complete PDF files that have searchable text.

Radio-Electronics, April 1958

Fiftieth anniversary of Hugo Gernsback's magazines.

Coherer to Spacistor by T. R. Kennedy Jr.

http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/RadioElectronics/Apr1958/RE_Apr1958.htm

Radio-Electronics, November 1967

Hugo Gernsback's Obituary

http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/RadioElectronics/Nov1967/RE_Nov1967.htm

SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these! You're right that my references are mostly sf-oriented. After we're through with this article, I'll see if I can use them to expand the Gernsback article if you like, though as you say I won't be able to help much with the hobbyist magazines. Mike Christie (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine shows up in the 1950s section. A few years after William Ziff Sr. died, his son, William Ziff Jr., bought out B.G. Davis. In 1957 Davis acquired Mercury Publications, Inc which published Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. You can find the reference in Radio_News#Ziff-Davis_Publishing.

"Advertising: 2 Big Agencies Study a Merger". New York Times. New York Times. August 14, 1957. p. 34. "The acquisition of Mercury Publications, Inc., and the Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine has been disclosed by Bernard G. Davis. He had resigned last month as president of the Ziff-Davis Publishing Company. Control of the Corporation was purchased from Joseph W. Furman."

SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Mike Ashley's book, Time Machines; Hugo Gernsback's Experimenter Publishing was forced into bankruptcy by the printer and paper supplier. The March 12 1929 New York Times has a listing for new bankruptcies. "Experimenter Publishing Co., Inc., 230 Fifth Avenue. - Liabilities approximately $500,000, assets not stated. Principal creditors listed are Art Color Printing Co., Dunellen, N.J., $152,908; Bulkley Dunton Co., $154,406 ..."

A search on the web finds the history of Art Color Printing Co [2] and Bulkley Dunton is still selling paper. [3] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Verrill's competition story

Per Mike Ashley's History, Verrill's story in the 1926 competition was called "The Voice From the Inner World". There's no such story listed in the ISFDB list, so I assume this was one of the ones that was not printed. It would be good to check the original issues of AMZ if anyone has access to them. Mike Christie (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch the above; it appeared in July 1927. Not sure how I missed it. Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

July 1926 section

What do other editors think of the July 1926 section? I like it, myself, and would be glad to see such a section in another encyclopedia. However, I am not sure how to justify it here. What would be the argument against giving a detailed description of an issue from each decade? Why do the 1920s deserve this section, if other decades don't? If no secondary source does this, can we justify it?

I am hesitant to cut it, but I think it might be possible to merge some of the details into other sections. For example, the first part of the "Contents and reception" section could accommodate some of the details in a more detailed description of the magazine's early presentation. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should probably be merged to "notable issues" if that makes sense, or kept as exemples for a "typical issues" wherever in the article you get to describe how the issues were typically organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs)

Christopher Priest

I can hardly find indications at Christopher Priest (novelist) (or in his entry at ISFD) that he ever published in this magazine. Looking quickly over several issues of the magazine itself does not even reveal an homonym (which ISFDB would probably have anyway). I suspect there is an error or some pseudonym at play. Circeus (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening and see if I can resolve this. Ashley often conflates Amazing with Fantastic in his discussions, so that may be what's going on here. Mike Christie (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even then, he appears to have published only one short story ("Sentence in Binary Code",at least according to his entries here and at ISFDB) in Fantastic, hardly a "regular". Circeus (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What Ashley actually says is "Other writers who refused to be categorized and who seemed at home in Ted White's world began to appear in the magazine. These included [a list including Priest]." I interpreted this as "began to appear regularly", but that's evidently incorrect. I have changed the text for now to avoid the implication of repeat appearances; I will have another look and make sure that there are no cases where the author listed only appeared in Fantastic but not Amazing. It's not absolutely clear, but Ashley does seem to be talking about Amazing and not Fantastic when he says "in the magazine". More when I've checked. Mike Christie (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I ended up just cutting the sentence completely. I checked all of the authors in the list but Farmer; in every case but one they appeared only in Fantastic, and in that case I could find no evidence of an appearance in either magazine. Mike Christie (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors

I've added a graphic showing the editors over the years. I think it's inconsistent with the text at the moment, so this is just a note to say I plan to make it consistent. I am not at all sure that the sources are consistent with each other here -- I've been looking at Contento, Tuck, the ISFDB and Nicholls, and I have many of the issues so I can check those too. It might take some time before I get it straight. I'll post notes here as I sort them out.

There's also the question of who is the "real" editor. In some cases an editor had an "editorial director"; Lobsenz for Goldsmith for example. I believe the first issue of Amazing has Sloane as editor; he's demoted to literary editor in the second issue or something like that, but I doubt the actual relationship with Gernsback changed. (I think that was in Kyle's Pictorial History of SF; I'll add the ref if I find it.) Then Ashley, as far as I can tell, describes the transitions in terms of which issues the editors actually gained or relinquished control over, which might not tie up with the masthead. Anyway, there is clearly going to be some difficulty in conveying consistent information. I'll post backup details here when I have something pulled together. Mike Christie (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gernsback era

• Mastheads: per Ashley (History of SF Mags 1926-1935), it appears Sloane was Managing Editor for April 1926, then Associate Editor through October 1929, then Editor November 1929 to April 1938. Note the transition to "Editor" doesn't coincide with Gernsback's departure.
• Nicholls/Clute: Sloane was Gernsback's "assistant", and "assumed full editorship" after Gernsback left. Sloane "carried much responsibility for the actual running of the magazines, though they were in the overall charge of, successively, Hugo Gernsback and Arthur Lynch. He succeeded to the editorship [...] in 1929."
• Tuck: Lists Gernsback as editor through April 1929, then Lynch through October 1929, then Sloane through April 1938.
• ISFDB: Agrees with Tuck.
• Ashley (The Time Machines): <will check later this week>
• Ashley (Hist SFM 26-35): "Essentially Sloane was the editor. He read the new fiction and moulded the magazine's contents, leaving the gimmickry and ideas to Gernsback." Later Ashley refers to Gernsback departure by saying "Gernsback was no longer its editor. Although Miriam Bourne was by now Managing Editor, Arthur Lynch was brought in as Editor-in-Chief. However the main job was done by Sloane. The change came with the May 1929 issue, and by the November 1929 issue Sloane was fully in charge."

So far it seems the right thing to do would be to list Gernsback, then Lynch, as most of the sources have it, ignoring the first issue as an anomaly (though it might be worth mentioning that in the text, as Kyle does). I'll check Ashley's Time Machines later this week -- I think it ignores Lynch completely, but I'm not sure.

Palmer

• Nicholls/Clute, Tuck, ISFDB, Ashley (Hist SFM): June 1938-Dec 1949

Browne

• Nicholls/Clute: Jan 1950-May 1956
• Tuck, ISFDB: Jan 1950-Aug 1956
• Issues: Browne is listed as editor until Aug 1956; Fairman is listed from Sep 1956. However, Fairman starts writing the editorials beginning in May 1956, and in the July 1956 issue he explains that Browne is on a two-month contract in Hollywood, writing TV scripts for Westerns, and that he (Fairman) is running the magazine in Browne's absence. The following month he announces that the change is permanent.

I think Browne's last issue should be listed as Aug 1956, but a comment should be added to the effect that Fairman took over earlier per the editorials.

Fairman

• Nicholls/Clute: Jun 1956-Nov 1958 (under AMZ entry, but "from May 1956 [...] until Sep 1958" in Fairman's entry)
• Tuck, ISFDB:Sep 1956-Nov 1958
• Issues: Fairman is Editor until Nov 1958; in Dec 1958 Lobsenz is editorial director and Goldsmith is editor. The editorial in December is by Lobsenz. The Nov 1958 issue introduces Lobsenz as the new editor, without saying that that will be his title; that blurb does not mention Goldsmith at all.

Goldsmith

• Nicholls/Clute: Dec 1958-Jun 1965; does not mention Lobsenz at all
• Tuck, ISFDB: Dec 1958-Jun 1965, and mentions that Lobsenz was Editorial Director for this period
• Ashley (Hist SFM): Dec 1958 start; end date not given.
• Issues: last issue is June 1965. See above for start date and Lobsenz.

Ross

• Nicholls/Clute, Tuck, ISFDB: Aug 1965-Oct 1967
• Issues: Aug 1965 lists Joseph Ross as Managing Editor, and Sol Cohen as Editor and Publisher. Cohen wrote the editorial and signed it as the Publisher, not as Editor.

I think it's fine to list Ross as editor; the work was done by Ross, not Cohen, and the titles of Managing Editor and Editor don't seem well enough separated to make it sensible to list Cohen as editor. No bibliographic source lists Cohen as editor, either.

Harrison

• Nicholls/Clute, Tuck, ISFDB: Dec 1967-Sep 1968
• Issues: Harrison is listed as editor starting with the Dec 1967 issue; Sol Cohen is just listed as publisher. The previous issue Cohen was still being listed as editor and Ross as Managing Editor. The Sep 1968 issue is clearly by Harrison; he is listed as editor and wrote the editorial. See below for more.

Malzberg

• Nicholls/Clute: Nov 1968-Mar 1969
• Tuck: Dec 1968 onwards (seems to be an error in Tuck as there was no Dec 1968 issue).
• ISFDB: Nov 1968-Jan 1969
• Issues: Nov 1968 has Barry Malzberg listed as editor, but Harrison wrote the editorial. The Jan 1969 issue has Malzberg listed as editor again, with an editorial by Robert Silverberg. The Mar and May 1969 issue have Ted White listed as Managing Editor and Malzberg is no longer listed. Starting in May 1969 Cohen gives himself the Editor title again.

I think this makes Malzberg's issues just Nov 68 and Jan 69, and White's issues start in March.

White

• Nicholls/Clute: May 1969-Feb 1979
• ISFDB: Mar 1969-Feb 1979

I'll stop there for now as I didn't see any inconsistencies in the later editors. Mike Christie (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohan

I have just cut this sentence from after the editor list: "Pierce Watters was "Executive Editor" and superior to Mohan during Mohan's second term." It's unsourced. It would be good to have something to this effect in there if it can be sourced. I don't think the magazine mastheads are going to be a good enough source for this, since the term "editorial director" isn't well enough defined to make it clear who has responsibility for what. Ashley's book on the 1990s isn't out yet and I don't know of another possible reliable source for this, except perhaps old issues of Locus. Mike Christie (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To do

An incomplete list of things to do:

• Media crossovers section needs sourcing and possibly reducing.
• July 1926 section should be integrated and/or cut. I don't see how to integrate it at the moment but I'll think about it some more.
• List of title changes needed, as well as additional bibliographic details -- page counts, magazine size.
• Section on historical influence, probably following the content/reception section and before the media crossover section. This should include quotes from people such as Asimov and Clarke about their early exposure to sf, as well as anything that can be found from scholarly papers in places like Foundation.
• Post 1982 details are a bit thin -- I don't know any good sources for these years. Will see what I can find.
• Additional images are probably a good idea; perhaps a collage of title styles, as at If (magazine) and Authentic Science Fiction.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is getting too long to read/skim easily, which means it needs to be broken up - particularly if you want to add long sections like the historical influence with quotes. Divisions like that are hard to do well, however, and require a lot of thought.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I half agree. I think the article is not particularly long; readable prose length is 37Kb, compared to Offa of Mercia at 38Kb and Joseph Priestley at 51Kb, both featured articles. On the other hand, it hasn't really had an edit/cleanup pass -- I've been dumping sourced information in and trying to keep it organized, but haven't gone through with a critical eye to cut material. So I suspect that it can be shortened.

I'd like to suggest that the article be expanded to include the above sections, if that can be done effectively, and once the material's in there an edit pass is the next step to try to trim it down to the right material and the concisest statements. I would like to try to get the article to featured standard, if possible, but I don't know if the sources are there for the later period. Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above tasks, the lead needs to be rewritten. Mike Christie (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lede" ... newspaper lingo needs newspaper-lingo spelling (deliberately misspelled from the days of hot type, so notes written by the editor on copy wouldn't be put into type by the Linotype guys). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for influence

I'm going to drop some notes in here about places I can find mention of early influence of AMZ, just to keep track before I try to assemble them into paragraphs. I'm also going to track which references I've looked in and found nothing useful; just to

• Clarke, in Astounding Days, near the beginning, talks about the first issue of Amazing he saw, from 1928; that was his first exposure to sf magazines. However he mostly discusses Astounding.
• Paul Carter's The Creation of Tomorrow covers the contents but doesn't talk much about the influence. Would be good to use this to augment the Ashley refs and prevent the article depending so heavily on Ashley.
• Eshbach's Of Worlds Beyond (p. 37) mentions that Jack Williamson was inspired to write sf when he found Amazing.
• Aldiss, in Trillion Year Spree, (pp. 204-5) says that Amazing activated the sense of wonder, and Science Wonder Stories followed; he seems to mean that the trigger having been pulled on the creation of the genre, the following magazines were inevitable. He also dismisses the importance of Amazing as anything more than a pioneer, and comments that the magazine "has in fact contributed little to the field".
• Knight, Futurians, (p. 4): Amazing "never made a lot of money for anybody, not even Gernsback; but it was a snag in the stream of history, from which a V-shape spread out in dozens and then in hundreds of altered lives."

-More later. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Things to do redux

I've done a bit more since posting the "to-do" list; here's what I think the current list is.

• It would be nice to have some of the more trivial bibliographic details in such as page counts. This is very minor stuff, though, and shouldn't delay PR or GAN.
• Section on historical influence: I'm no longer convinced that this is necessary. I haven't been able to find anything that asserts Amazing had any influence beyond its mere existence, pioneering the market.
• Additional images. These would still be worth adding; not necessary for GA, though. I am not convinced by the fair-use rationales in all cases and will go through and see whether they can be beefed up or should be removed.
• The lede should be expanded.

Once the lede is rewritten, a copyedit pass should be done and an attempt made to cut and make it more concise. Then I think it would be good to go to GAN.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It also needs something on contents after 1982. I have posted a query to rec.arts.sf.written for sources for that period. If none show up, I can do a little with the magazines themselves up to 1991 or so; I have most of the magazines up to that point. The ISFDB can help for the remaining issues. However that will only give me contents, not reception. Without any sources for reception it's going to take some thought as to how to complete that section of the article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amazing Stories/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article and will report shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I picked up these points from the lead. You may want to address them as I go through the rest of the article.

• Lead
  • "pulp fiction "should be linked (I note the pulp magazine link in the Origin section, but the link should be here]]

    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Suggest "continued under Sloane’s editorship until the late 30s" is a better form. "Continued until the late 30s..." sounds as though it didn't continue after then.

    I've switched to your version, though I'm not sure it completely eliminates the ambiguity. I'll mull this over some more, but for the moment I've made the change. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "digest format" should be linked, (digest size)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "Undistinguished interlude" sounds very POV; it's not cited in the body of the article

    Ashley says "During the mid-1950s one of the weakest magazines had been Amazing"; he marks the change as coming when Fairman left. You're right that it's not well-supported in the body; it just says that Browne (and subsequently Fairman) were not able to sustain a short high quality period in the early 1950s. I don't think it's necessary to draw attention to a short-lived period like this in the lead, so I've changed it there; I may add a little more negative comment to the body. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "The 1980s saw Amazing pass into the hands of TSR, a gaming company, and over the next twenty years attempts were intermittently made to reincarnate Amazing as a successful modern sf magazine." The repetition of Amazing is awkward; also, "and" is wrong, since the two parts of the sentence are not really related. (TSR only owned it for half the 20 years).

    Reworded; let me know if it's fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Works fine Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There is an element of contradiction in first sentence of final lead para: "had an enormous impact" and "was rarely an influential magazine..." Sounds a bit odd - What was the nature of its enormous impact?

    It founded the genre; it was the existence of Amazing that was so influential -- not the quality of the fiction it published. Damon Knight has a comment somewhere about it being a branch sticking in the river, from which an ever-widening V of genre publications has come. I've reworded this section a bit, so let me know if it's clearer now.

    • Yes, works well. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Later sections

Further prose comments

• Origin
  • Example needed for upmarket "slick" magazines

    Added, with a source. I only have an electronic copy of the Nicholls Encyclopedia with me; I can't add the page number till this weekend when I get back to Texas. Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • (Final sentence) There’s no call for a "thus" here (Sloane’s appointment wasn’t the inevitable result of closing one magazine and starting another)

    Fair enough; cut. Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Publication history –early years
  • "manoeuvred" is Brit spelling. Assume Brit spelling throughout?

    No, I think it should be US spelling, given the topic. I fixed this. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Is "deep pockets" encyclopaedic?

    I'd say it's OK. The underlying reference says "Amazing fell into the comparatively wealthy lap of". I could change it to just "wealth", if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • No, I like "deep pockets" - just wondered whether, with your wider experience, you were sure it was OK. Let's leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "probably to little more than 25,000" seems strangely uncertain and vague, and at odds with the otherwise sure-footed presentation of the facts. Is it possible to be more precise – or less vague?

    I cut "probably"; the reference supports the more definite statement. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1940s
  • Howard Browne previously linked. Also, on "leave of absence" from what?

    Clarified and unlinked. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "Pocketbook" requires link or explanation

    According to the WP article on paperback, "pocketbook" is a US synonym for paperback, but I think it's better if I just use the more universal term. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1950s
  • "...became more involved with the magazine once again" is a bit ponderous. Alternatively, "...revived his involvement with the magazine."

    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1960s
  • "Goldsmith was an innovative editor..." I realise that there is a later section on Goldsmith, but would it be possible to mention here one of her innovations? Otherwise we have it that she was an innovative editor, but that circulation lagged, which rather suggesta a failed innovator

    In some ways she was a failed innovator; though you could argue that the failure was due to the decay of the magazine market. Since the current organization of the article has publishing details in the first main section, and contents and reception in the next, I just cut the note about her being innovative; I think giving context for it is too hard to do concisely at this point in the article. I'll add another comment below under your point about the second half being more engaging. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the rest

• 1970s
  • "slushpile" is jargon

    Changed to "manuscripts"; I was going to make it "unsolicited manuscripts", which is technically what they read, but I think it's OK this way. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gernsback’s Amazing
  • It’s a long time since Frank R Paul was mentioned, and I suggest that he be properly reintroduced, rather simply as “Paul”

    I made it "Frank R. Paul"; is more needed? Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I'd probably say "illustrator Frank R Paul", but I'm not insistent. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "installment" is US spelling

    OK -- should be US spelling per above comment. Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sloane, Palmer etc
  • End of second sentence – is "market" the right word here? They didn’t defect to a better-paying market, but to a better-paying element within the market.

    This is standard usage for writers: see here for example, where Speculations, for example, is said to focus on "paying markets". Is it too confusing for someone not familiar with the usage? I could make it something like "when Astounding was launched in January 1930, with better rates and faster editorial response, some of Sloane's writers quickly defected." Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • That would clarify it for me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "His instructions to one writer, Don Wilcox, 'Gimme Bang-Bang'..." I got this eventually, but I think it needs a "to" after Wilcox, for clarity.

    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• After Ted White
  • Para 4 – I can’t detect the contrast

    Nor can I. I think something's wrong with the Gunn quote; I can't fix that till Friday or Saturday, I'm afraid, since I don't have that reference here. I'll look this weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Publishing history.
  • Why is the first section, Editors, in bullet-point format, while the subsequent ones are in tables?

    No particular reason. Do you think it would look better in a table? I suppose I could argue for the bullets as variety, but it wasn't the intent, it just seemed a natural way to list them. I guess I would also say that the explanatory notes are more suited to a bullet list as they are only necessary for a few editors and would lead to a lot of blank space in the table. Plus it's adjacent to the graphic, and would get crushed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Fair enough, leave. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The graphic, while pretty, is somewhat confusing, and the caption (80 words) is surely contrary to WP:CAP#succinctness?

    Um, yeah, can't argue with that. I've cut it down somewhat. I could also cut the note about "Winter" and "Spring" and so on; is it self-evident from the table? As for it being confusing, do you mean inherently confusing or is it poorly presented? I could eliminate the volume numbering from the table, so it's just colour coding for the editors and dates, but I hate to drop information. Plus then I'd have to put the volume numbering info in the text, which would be quite tedious. What do you find confusing about it? Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • In its unforced size it rather resembles psychedelic wallpaper, with the detail too small to be interpreted even with the help of the caption. When I enlarged it I lost the explanatory caption, and had to go back and memorise it before enlarging again. Then, I found that with the aid of a magnifying glass and a bright light I could just about make out some dates and figures, and it started to make sense. But it was a struggle. I can understand your wish to retain such an attractive and potentially informative visual, but I wonder about its actual utility when the figures are so small. Could you get another opinion on this? Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m sure that these issues can be dealt with quite quickly. As a general comment, I found the second part of the article rather more engaging than the first, where I found the record of constant changes of publisher and editor a little difficult to follow, and somewhat unvaried. I am not much of a science fiction reader myself, but I recognised some of the names, and it was interesting to see how they got started.

Yes, I think your reaction is probably going to be a common one. The publishing minutiae just aren't very interesting unless you're deeply interested in magazine history; the contents and reception material is more interesting to most people. The alternative would be to make the article straightforwardly historical, mixing publishing history and reception in each period. My feeling is that this approach is better: a reader who cares about the publishing details knows where to look; readers who don't can skip it. I'm open to suggestions for improvements, though! Mike Christie (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine was more a passing comment than a request for action. I don't think any action is needed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for you responses before proceeding. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So, there are a few outstanding issues, but nothing in my view that prevents its promotion to GA, which I will now fix. I am sure that you will continue to work on the article, and perhaps I will meet it again further down the line. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough and thoughtful review! Much appreciated. I have tweaked a couple of remaining things and will follow up on the two or three outstanding points. Yes, I hope to take it to FAC; I think I will let it lie fallow for a bit and run through the prose again, as well as trying to figure out what to do about that gigantic image. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To do post GA

Left over from the GA review:

• Add a page number to the Nicholls "slick" reference.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Figure out what's up with the Gunn quote and fix it.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Figure out what to do with the giant issues graphic.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should the references for the New York Times be The New York Times? See Feature Article Ima Hogg -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I think this is close to FA-ready. I plan to nominate it when my current FAC is off the list; if anyone would like to conominate, please say so. Any other input before FAC would be welcome too. Mike Christie (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I will conominate the article, or nominate it myself (I have not done that before). SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do one more read through and nominate this weekend. Let me know if there are any other changes you think would be good. I'll add your name to the nomination when I do it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a list of publishing companies just like the list of titles and the list of editors. The magazine had several notable owners.

I will do a complete search of Amazing Stories copyright renewals and post the results on the talk page. Almost all pre-1964 issues are public domain but a handful of issues were renewed. Frank R. Paul was a staff artist for Gernsback (see Image:Science and Invention Jan 1922 pg822.png) and his work was always reviewed by Gernsback. There is no evidence Paul had any copyright on the early cover art.

I am also doing an article on Science and Invention and it should be done next week. All of the pages for the "Vibrator of Death" scientific fiction story are now on the Commons. (See Image:Science and Invention Jan 1922 pg824.png.) You can get a feel for the writing style Gernsback liked. SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done the copyedit and added a publisher table. I don't think we need to wait for a copyright search to nominate; that's useful information for identifying images and so on we can use, but the article is ready now, I feel. Anything else before we nominate? Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the correct end date for Sloane as editor? The article now shows May 1939 with Palmer taking over in June 1938.

On the list of publishers, MacKinnon changed the name from "Experimenter Publishing" to "Experimenter Publications" when he took over in 1929.

You can see that on the Radio News publications details on my web site. [4]

Here is a "reliable" source: "Corporate Changes". The New York Times. June 21, 1930. p. 30. "Experiments [sic] Publications to Radio Science Publications" -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The 1939 date was a typo; I fixed it. I split the publisher line so we now show Mackinnon's era as "Experimenter Publications"; thanks for catching that. I added the NYT cite to the publisher table -- probably not strictly necessary, since we can reference the primary sources for this sort of thing, but very nice to have.

Anything else? Mike Christie (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I made all of the reference dates uniform: Month Day, Year. Some were using "accessmonthday= 14 June" and "accessyear = 2008" which yields 14 June, 2008. The fix is use accessdaymonth= or switch everything to the American style June 14, 2008. I did the latter. I will reverse them if you want. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, uniformity is definitely good. That was a good catch. Can you spot anything else you think we should fix? Mike Christie (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Frank R. Paul

Frank R. Paul was a staff artist in 1921. He did the illustration for the article "Spring Heels Replace Rubber Ones" in the January 1922 Science and Invention. Image:Science_and_Invention_Jan_1922_pg822.png

"Mr. Paul, one of our able staff of artists, has shown his conception of how we will walk, or rather hop, along the street when the spring heel has taken hold of us."

I did not see anything from him in my 1916 Electrical Experimenter but it has mostly photos. Paul did several illustrations in two 1924 issues of The Experimenter. Two other illustrators also contributed to those issues.

The Amazing Stories article states "Gernsback also hired artist Frank R. Paul, who had worked with Gernsback as early as 1914 and had produced many illustrations for the fiction in The Electrical Experimenter." This implies Paul was hired in 1926. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right; my phrasing was dependent on Ashley, but when I checked, Ashley just says Paul completed the team, not that he was hired. I've revised the wording -- does that fix it? Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is better, now just work those spring loaded shoes into the article. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How could I rob the Science and Invention article of the privilege? Mike Christie (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gernsback and MITSFS

I only met Hugo Gernsback once, in 1965 or 1966, not too long before his death, at the MITSFS. At the time, MITSFS has every issue of Amazing available, including some from Gernsback's archives. I do not know it they kept up through all the later incarnations, however. MITSFS purports to have 90% of all SF published in English, and a good amount in German if I recall correctly. Gernsback had a particular fondness for MIT. Collect (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing Stories vs. Amazing

Is it customary to shorten the title of the magazine to Amazing? The title is already short and I think the shortened version reads oddly. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In specialist reference works it's fairly standard. I just checked a few: Aldiss's Trillion Year Spree, Kyle's Pictorial History, and Ashley, in various places; all use "Amazing". The Nicholls uses its own set of abbreviations for magazines: they refer to Amazing as "AMZ". I checked the Clute Encyclopedia and it doesn't mention it enough to warrant a repetitive abbreviation, so I don't know what he'd use.

If you think it should be changed, you may be representative of a wider world of readers than those of us who know half of Nicholls, Tuck and Ashley off by heart. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the wider world of readers won't understand that this is permissible (in fact, when my students and I were editing I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings they specifically asked about the convention of shortening titles and whether it was allowed), but you should do what works best for your writing style. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been ignoring this, just thinking about it. I think it's a very natural abbreviation, and since it's customary in the reference works on the topic to abbreviate, usually in just this way, it seems defensible. Using the full title would seem long-winded to me; and it would make possessives uglier too: "Amazing's" is a lot easier to read and say than "Amazing Stories's". So I'd like to leave this as it stands, unless others also feel as you do about the abbreviation. Mike Christie (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs to be reworked. The importance of the magazine is drowned out.

• There are too many details regarding the editors and the publishing companies and nearly nothing on the kinds of stories published. Do we really need to know, for example, that the Amazing switched to a digest format in 1953? Is that important enough to mention in the lead? And, do we need to know in the lead that TSR was subsequently bought by Wizards of the Coast?

• The lead gives us no real reason to believe this statement: "Gernsback's creation of a specialist magazine for science fiction had an enormous impact on the field, spawning an entire genre publishing industry". I think one way to help us understand why this argument has been made is to list some of the famous SF authors that were published in AS.

I hope these are helpful suggestions. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the lead, I wonder if these two points are both symptoms of the same thing: the magazine was not in fact important, so there is little to say about its importance, and the lead must perforce be about its history. I've got a quote from Aldiss ("Amazing ... has in fact contributed little to the field") which I was just about to cite in the lead to support the statement about the lack of influence the magazine had. Reading your comments, though, I think a problem is that that statement is not reflected in the body of the article, as it needs to be. I think I need to add a few sentences on the overall unimportance of the magazine to the start of the Contents section.

That in turn makes it hard to list the famous authors and stories, since by and large the situation is that they published there despite the fact that the magazine was a backwater, and their stories did not lead to the magazine acquiring a good reputation. (The exception is Goldsmith's editorship, and to a lesser extent White's.)

I'll shorten the TSR/WotC reference; you're right it's not very interesting. I'd like to leave in the mention of the switch to digest, though perhaps it needs a bit of context in the lead: only digests survived the next few years in the magazine industry, largely because of the control the distributors had. If Browne had not had the urge in the early 1950s to move Amazing away from its pulp origins, it would have probably died in the late 1950s.

I'll make some edits along these lines and post here when done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go along these lines. I'd be interested to know what you think of the result. The lead is still dense with publishing information, but I don't think it can usefully be replaced with information about significant fiction, because there wasn't much. I did add a sentence about the Shaver Mystery, sadly one of the most notable things about the magazine. Mike Christie (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reread the lead yet, but this information seems important to include: Science fiction fandom traces its beginnings to the letter column in Amazing and its competitors,[8][45] and one historian of the field, author Lester del Rey, has commented that the introduction of this letter column "may have been one of the most important events in the history of science fiction." Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What about mentioning the illustrations in the lead? What about the educational/entertainment tension? Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that so many important SF writers had their first stories published in AS is important - could that be put in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to sexual content in the 1970s? Nominated for Hugo Award? Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

New lead is better, but I still think it could better reflects the "Contents and reception" section (per above suggestions). Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated some of the suggestions above; let me know if that's closer. Mike Christie (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I think this is a dramatic improvement. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Vibrator of Death

Any particular reason this image with this title was chosen? ;) Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I would never have noticed any double entendre if you hadn't added that smiley. Just in case it's a serious question ... Swtpc6800 added it, so you'd have to ask him, but my view is that a pre-Amazing Paul interior illustration is worth including, since Paul is so closely tied to the early history of Amazing.

The image was selected because it is clearly public domain and because it is the best quality magazine (on this subject) that I have of the era. (85 years in someone's basement is hard on magazines.) The Wikipedia article explains how Gernsback started his science fiction publishing in his technical magazines. Because it is the public domain, I put all of the pages of the story on the Commons. The writing style of the story shows the scientific and technical details Hugo Gernsback wanted from his "scientific fiction" authors.

The table of contents clearly labels this as "scientific fiction" article. Much of the Hugo Gernsback lore is how he invented the term "scientifiction" around 1928. This article shows he was using a similar term in early 1922.

The artwork shows Fran R. Paul's early background as a technical illustrator. This contrasts to his bug eyed monsters on some of the Amazing Stories covers.

I don't know if the vibrator in the title would get a giggle in 1922. The ride is a bit of a phallic symbol. Remember, families used to go to amusement parks to have a "gay old time". -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this was not really a serious question! I just found it funny. (Of course, considering the themes of SF at this time, I briefly considered the possibility that you two were making a subtle point.) Awadewit (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting questions

• The editorial work was largely done by Sloane, but Gernsback retained final say over the fiction content - I'm not really sure what this means. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  That source is in NY and I'm currently in Texas, so it'll probably be Monday before I can look to see exactly what Ashley said. However, the typical situation when there is editorial oversight of this kind as that the junior person (Sloane, in this case) essentially does all the editing, while the senior person reserves the right to overrule. So Sloane would have read the incoming manuscripts, selected stories, worked with illustrators and the cover artist, worked with the layout department, and possibly even selected and answered the letters in the letter column. Gernsback may have insisted on running (or perhaps not running) certain stories, and perhaps occasionally read some incoming stories. My guess would be Gernsback chose some of the reprints, and at least some of the time answered the letters. I'll check on Ashley and see if I can be more explicit on Monday. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think it would help to explain this process to the reader, yes. Awadewit (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Ashley's not a lot of help here, it turns out. Here's what he says: "Essentially, Sloane undertook the practical editorial duties. Whilst he read the fiction the final choice of content was left to Gernsback." I'm not really sure how to expand what I've got without going beyond the source. The description above is taken from my general understanding of editorial work, and from reading other editors' reminiscences, so I'd hesitate to insert those details into this. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk)

  Do you have a general history of publishing of the time that would outline this material? I think it would be very helpful for the reader. However, if there is no source, there is no source. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shaver responded with a story called "I Remember Lemuria", published in the March 1945 issue, which was presented by Palmer as a mixture of truth and fiction. - "was presented as" or "was"? Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Shaver was delusional; these stories were fantastic paranoid nonsense. I added a comment in the lead about them; is that enough to clarify this? Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Excellent. Awadewit (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The pulps were dying, largely as a result of the success of paperbacks, and Street & Smith decided to concentrate on their slick magazines. - Would this be mass market paperbacks, specifically? Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  The source actually said it was because of the success of "pocketbooks"; I changed it as a result of the GA review. I think of "mass market" as a fairly modern phrase, and would hesitate to use it of this period. Or are you asking what kind of paperbacks caused the change? Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, it was pocketbooks? That is different and a big deal in the history of publishing. I think the specific word should be used. Awadewit (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I actually changed this from "pocketbook" to "paperback" at the suggestion of the GA reviewer as they seemed to be synonymous, as far as I could tell, and "pocketbook" is not a term most UK readers would be familiar with. At the moment pocketbook redirects to purse, so I can't get out of this with a link. I'm aware that there was a publishing revolution caused by cheap paperbacks, but I didn't know that there was more than one class of paperback (other than classing them by price). Can you give me a bit more info on the distinction you're looking for here? Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Pocketbooks" revolutionized publishing, as you said, because they were cheap and small (see also Pocket Books). The term is period specific and I believe the size was slightly different than today's mass market paperbacks. I would use the term and link it to paperback because at least that article discusses the "pulp" revolution a bit. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• He produced a dummy issue in April 1950, and planned to launch the new incarnation of Amazing in April 1951, the 25th anniversary of the first issue. - Is there a good link for "dummy issue"? Should it be a redlink? Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting thought; I can't think of a link here. What he did (I haven't seen it, but I've seen similar things) would have been to create a small version of the magazine, with a cover, artwork, ads or dummy ads, and one or two real stories. This would have been to show the Ziff-Davis management to make it clear what would be published, and also to show to potential advertisers so they would understand the vehicle. I believe some copies may still exist but I've never seen one or heard of one available. Does "dummy issue" need clarification? Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I found other articles that use this phrase, so I think perhaps a redlink is in order. (I don't think you need to clarify in this article, but I would have clicked to learn what it was.) Awadewit (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Although he stayed involved with Fantastic Adventures, Amazing's stable-mate at Ziff-Davis, he left the editing work on Amazing to William Hamling and Lila Shaffer - Is "stable-mate" publishing jargon? If so, I'm wondering if it can be replaced. I'm not sure it is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Goldsmith is well regarded by science fiction historians,[32] but circulation lagged during her tenure. - It seems strange to leave out the reason why she is well-regarded by SF historians. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Added a note on her impact. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I had to read the second and third paragraphs of "1960s" twice to catch everything. I don't know if it is possible to fix this - readers can't always catch everything - but I just wanted the editors to know that I stumbled a bit here. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the pointer. Maria has agreed to copyedit, so I might ask her to take a special look at this section. I'll also review it myself to see what can be done. It is a complicated story. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• White worked hard to increase the circulation despite this, though with limited success. - I'm not entirely sure what "this" refers back to - the wife problem? the low circulation? Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• She had worked for Bernhard as an illustrator, and had done production work for several magazines. - It is not entirely clear from this whether she had worked for Berhnard as an illustrator for AS or not. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  I believe she had never illustrated Amazing but I can't be sure. I will check the source on Monday, but if I remember rightly it doesn't say either. The online indexes are not yet reliable on details such as full lists of interior illustrations, so this may not be resolvable. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Good catch; Ashley says her work was on other magazines so I was able to clarify this. Had to do a bit of rewording to avoid getting three "magazine"s in close proximity to each other. Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• His continued belief in the instructional value of science fiction was not in keeping with the general attitude of the public towards pulp magazines, which was that they were trash. - I think we need a more specific word than "trash" (which also sounds slangy). Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Trash" is the word used in the source -- several times, in fact. Carter tells some stories of how people reacted to the magazines, and adds, "Was it the trash contained in the magazines (and much of it was trash, as even the most dedicated science fiction enthusiasts now admit) that prompted such putdowns?" How about if I put quotes around "trash"; would that do it? Alternatively I could change it to a more neutral phrase such as "very low quality". Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think quotes is a good solution. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• He wanted the magazine to provide escapist entertainment, and had no interest in scientific accuracy. His instructions to one pulp writer, Don Wilcox, regarding "Gimme Bang-Bang", sum up his approach. - What instructions? Nothing comes after this. Awadewit (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think you copyedited this from "to 'Gimme Bang-Bang'" to "regarding 'Gimme Bang-Bang'". The instructions to Wilcox were, in their entirety, "Gimme Bang-Bang". Perhaps if I change it back to "to" from "regarding", and add some phrase like "in their entirety" to make it clear that "Gimme Bang-Bang" is the actual instruction, that would help? Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Oops - I thought "Gimme Bang-Bang" was the name of the story! How about: "His instructions to one pulp writer, Don Wilcox—"Gimme Bang-Bang"—sum up his approach." Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done, with the addition of "terse" to make it "terse instructions". The "to" in front of "Gimme Bang-Bang" was added at the request of the GA reviewer, who also found this hard to parse. Perhaps a wholesale rewrite would be better, such as: "His approach is summed by his terse instructions—to "Gimme Bang-Bang"—to one pulp writer, Don Wilcox." Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Do we need Don's name? Also, perhaps using a lowercase "g" would help. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  You're right about dropping the name. I finally decided that part of the problem was that "Gimme Bang-Bang" was too far away from the word "instructions", so I tweaked it to this: "His terse instructions—"Gimme Bang-Bang"—to one pulp writer sum up his approach." How's that? I don't want to lower-case the "G", because the upper-case Bs would then look weird. Mike Christie (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  That's it. Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The changes she wrought were enough to bring Robert Heinlein back as a subscriber - usually "wrought" has a negative connotation Awadewit (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'll change it if you really don't like it, but my understanding is that the negative connotation belongs to "wreak", not "wrought"; "wrought" is just a (slightly archaic) past tense for "work". I could just make this "made", if you like, but I like a bit of variation in the prose if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  The Biblical (KJV) use (from whence cometh the archaic sound), can go either way, but today it is generally used negatively, for example here - "What Bush hath wrought". Awadewit (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  OK, done. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Despite its long history, the magazine has rarely contributed much to science fiction beyond the initial creation of the genre. - I feel like this downplays the creation bit. I mean, to be the first of a genre is HUGE. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, it is. Perhaps the expansion of the lead has helped on this? Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think that the "Influence on the field" section might need to be recast just a bit. I took an SF class in graduate school and the only pulp magazine name I remember from that class is Amazing Stories. It just kept coming up over and over. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  The problem is that I'm hamstrung by a lack of sources to support this. I can find innumerable sources that say Gernsback's launch of Amazing was revolutionary, but nothing about its influence. The Aldiss quote I recently added even asserts directly that it was not influential, which makes me more confident that I would be if I had to argue from a lack of evidence. There have certainly been occasional significant stories published in Amazing, and several of these are mentioned, but that's not the same as saying the magazine itself was important. If you can point me at a source here it would help a lot. I did try posting to a couple of places that are occasionally helpful, such as the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroups, and I heard that someone forwarded my query to Ted White, but I got nothing usable. Mike Christie (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'll look around a bit. I think scholars tend to focus a lot on the originating moment of a genre - something Amazing Stories represents - and it is that which determines its "importance" for them. :) I'll email a few people, too, who are much more knowledgeable than I. Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  My contacts are contacting others. SF scholars are now descending on this article. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Outstanding! It would be tremendous fun if some of them wanted to get stuck in and work on this article (or even other sf articles)! Thanks; I hope we get lots of responses. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Mike, I am now emailing you the responses that I am getting as they come in. Since these emails were posted to a listserv, I cannot post them to Wikipedia - the respondents did not think that they were going to immortalize themselves on a talk page history. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image questions

• Image:Amazing stories 196103.jpg - The other covers have a lot of detail regarding the lapse of the cover into the PD - perhaps that information could be included here as well? Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  Swtpc6800 has taken care of this. Mike Christie (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• All of the charts laying out the editors and issues need to indicate on the image descriptions where the information for the charts came from. Essentially, they need to have sources, too. Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'll do this on Monday; the sources are Ashley and the magazines themselves, and probably Contento too. I don't have the page numbers here in Texas. Mike Christie (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review and notes -- very helpful and insightful, as always, and much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Award

The article does not mention that the World Science Fiction Society named their annual award after Hugo Gernsback for his pioneering work in science fiction like creating Amazing Stories. The award is mentioned in the article but it should be clearly noted that the Hugo is Hugo Gernsback. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence to that effect in the influences section, reffed to Nicholls and the Franson/DeVore history of the awards. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)