Nice review of Winterbirth in The Times over the weekend, which was particularly pleasing because it’s comparatively – and given that The Guardian has dropped its similar sf/f review column, perhaps increasingly – rare for the genre to get even this kind of quite brief mention in the ‘quality’ press. I can’t get that worked up about this low level of coverage – newspapers have no duty or responsibility to cover anything they don’t want to, and plenty of other ‘genres’ don’t get drastically better treatment – but I am mildly curious about the reasoning behind it. As a wholly uninformed guess, I imagine it’s to do with some or all of the following:
(a) a belief that newspaper readers aren’t interested enough in sf/f to justify the column inches
(b) an assumption that sf/f readers only read sf/f, and will therefore look to more specialist outlets for info on new releases
(c) a belief that sf/f books automatically don’t have enough substance to merit more extensive coverage
(d) a personal lack of interest in the genre amongst those who commission the reviews
Others will know far better than me whether there’s any truth in this, but from a personal point of view, while I suspect there might be a grain of truth to (a) and (b), I’ve actually found sf/f readers to quite often be rather diverse in their reading taste and habits, up to and including newspapers! With that as a rather feeble excuse, I offer a random selection of recentish newspaper stories that I found interesting in one way or another:
From the footballing frontline: pigs seen sprouting wings. I’m still in a kind of delighted shock about this.
We’re all toast by the end of the century.
The latest ‘but is it art?’ installation to grace Tate Modern’s fantastic turbine hall. It sounds great to me – wish I could go and see it.
How much is a load of people showing each other short videos worth? $1.6bn, apparently.
Is this the price of investigative journalism in Russia?