?

Log in

The Past | The Previous

Announcement

The Australian Journal for Critical Review of Speculative Fiction has been shut down.

Most of you will probably not remember the earlier announcement to begin this, so the end of it will mean nothing to you, but I figure it is better said than not. There simply hasn't been enough response for the project to justify it, and rather than create something that is full of half measures and compromises, we've elected to close it, and to focus on the other projects that we've all got going. Over the years I've seen too many independent projects emerge that should have been shut down in the early stages to want to create something I couldn't, in all honesty, stand behind. If I am part of the creation--at any level--of a project, I have to be able to stand behind it and say, yes, this is something that you can, and should, read. It simply wasn't happening here, so Alisa Krasnostein (girliejones), Ben Payne (benpayne), Tansy Rayner Roberts (cassiphone), and myself, have elected to kill it now.

There you go.

Comments

( 7 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
Jul. 4th, 2007 03:57 am (UTC)
yeah, it happens.
strangedave
Jul. 4th, 2007 03:34 am (UTC)
I think the goal was laudable, the execution was not, and I'm basing that just on things like who was on the board (or rather, who wasn't). I got the impression that there was a lot of enthusiasm in principle, but very little idea of what academic critical review stuff had been done historically and was being done elsewhere.

If there is an attempt at a similar project in the future, I'd be happy to help in some capacity, even if its just advice.

In the meantime, you might consider advising anyone who submitted to consider sending it to Foundation

benpeek
Jul. 4th, 2007 04:04 am (UTC)
well, i'm not really fussed if you thought the wrong people were on it or not. they were the people on it, and they and i knew what was around in the area, and we felt confident enough to try it. it just didn't take off, though, and maybe you're right, and maybe not. who knows. its no real thing--we had an idea, we rolled it, it didn't work, and so we canned it. shit happens, y'know? there's more projects in the future, though i doubt any of us will be rolling a similar project any time soon.

thanks for the offer, though.
strangedave
Jul. 4th, 2007 04:40 am (UTC)
Exactly, maybe I'm right and maybe you are - which is why I didn't say anything at the time, I figured criticism from outside the project wouldn't be particularly welcomed and comment wasn't asked for, so I shut up and let you do it your way.

But considering it didn't work out, if any similar projects arise it seems worth considering a different tack. The recommendation I'd make for a future project would be to have broader involvement, and attempt to more actively involve people with a long history in the field. I've got no complaints with who was on the board (good people all), more I think there were a few people who weren't, or, as far as I know, involved at all, and who had obvious long term credentials in the area and whose support/involvement would seem an obvious asset. An advisory board or similar, perhaps.
benpeek
Jul. 4th, 2007 04:43 am (UTC)
yeah, if we (or even i) did it again, it'd be done different. there'd be no point in doing it the same way twice--especially when the first didn't get the response it needed.

ah well. better a dead project than a half baked one, though.
girliejones
Jul. 4th, 2007 05:59 am (UTC)
I think there was a misunderstanding in how we were going to run the project. The board was merely to facillitate the project, we were always going to take peer review and advice from others.

But like Ben says, it's dead and we've moved on.
strangedave
Jul. 4th, 2007 07:37 am (UTC)
Oh, sure, but if the project dies before it gets to that stage, then there was a flaw somewhere. I'm hoping the flaw was in the execution, not the goal, because I think it was a laudable goal -- and I'm hoping the next group to attempt it, if there is one, do it differently, which is facilitated by some public discussion of what happened.
( 7 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )