There’s a discussion going on about Locus’s reviews of Ellen Datlow & Terri Windling’s fine anthology, Salon Fantastique, over on the Night Shade boards. I’ve lost my password so I can’t post there, so I thought I’d put my response here for the moment:
PM: It seems to me that it’s implicit in your question that reviewing every story in an anthology, collection, or issue of a magazine is a desirable thing. While in many cases this may be true, it’s also the case that there’s little or nothing useful to be said about a given story, and so it’s perfectly reasonable not to mention it. I’d also say that Locus’s review staff is the best in the field today. I have no desire to tie their hands with unnecessary restrictions. Rather, having agreed what is to be reviewed and the space limitations involved, I prefer to give them as free a hand as possible. That said, on rare occasions I’ve asked for changes, and have even edited some reviews to remove unnecessary coverage of some stories. In the case of Salon Fantastique, I was pleased with the coverage of the book that the two reviews provided. Between Rich and Nick, I felt that the book was very well handled for the magazine. As to your specific questions: I have no objection to all of the stories in a book or magazine being reviewed, but I’m not looking for it either. If a reviewer feels that the best approach to the book or magazine is to review every story, and they can do the job well within the magazine’s length restrictions, then I’m happy with that for the most part, but it’s not necessary. As to publishing online: Mark Kelly does a great job editing Locus Online and I wouldn’t presume to comment on what he does, but Locus magazine isn’t looking to publish reviews online at the moment. Jonathan
