Series:Science Fiction Chronicle

This is an ISFDB Bibliographic Comments page for the Science Fiction Chronicle series. This page may be used for a list of the titles in the series, bibliographic comments or extended notes about the series, or discussion on how to organize and/or record the works in the series. The link above leads to the ISFDB series record for Science Fiction Chronicle. To discuss what should go on this page, use the talk page. For more on this and other header templates, see Header templates.

Science Fiction Chronicle was founded in 1978 as a department of Porter's magazine Algol, and became a separate publication in October 1979. It was a general Newszine about sf, whose coverage was not as broad as that of its competitor, the West Coast magazine Locus. It contained fan material, a film column by Ed Naha (until September 1990, giving way to "SF Cinema" by Jeff Rovin) and the "London Report" by Stephen Jones and Jo Fletcher (replaced in the twenty-first century by "UK Report" from first Tanya Brown and then Paul Kincaid), all of which covered ground rather different from Locus's.

Science Fiction Chronicle was published and edited from New York by Andrew Porter, monthly (latterly bimonthly), letter size, 206 issues to 2000 (#206 being dated June/July 2000). Further issues to #267 (September 2006) were published by DNA Publications, edited first by Porter and then (from #229, October 2002) by John R Douglas and (from #257, April 2005) Ian Randal Strock.

Something of an East Coast institution, Science Fiction Chronicle offered an alternative voice for the sf community. In its one-man-band editorial performance it long showed astonishing stamina in its producer, Porter, who received a Special Award at the World Convention in 1991 for his "years of continuing excellence" in editing Science Fiction Chronicle, in the pages of which he subsequently apologized for his less than graceful acceptance of the award, which he regarded as "a consolation prize". No such response was necessary in 1993 and 1994, for Science Fiction Chronicle did indeed win the Hugo award in the semiprozine category in both those years, bringing to an end Locus's astonishing run of nine years' domination of the award ever since that category was first established.

Warren Lapine's DNA Publications bought Science Fiction Chronicle in 2000, the first issue under new ownership being #207 dated August/September 2000. Porter was initially retained as news editor but was replaced by John R Douglas in 2002; Ian Randal Strock took over in 2005. Porter's editorial in #214 (July 2001) claimed that circulation had now exceeded 10,000, making the magazine ineligible for the Semiprozine Hugo. DNA had returned Science Fiction Chronicle to monthly publication soon after acquiring it, but the schedule slipped again in late 2005, and #267 (September 2006) seems to have been the final issue.

From #228 (September 2002) the magazine was renamed as simply Chronicle, supposedly to avoid confusion with the San Francisco Chronicle; the words "Science Fiction" reappeared in the title in #265 (December 2005/January 2006). Another DNA experiment was the merging of Science Fiction Chronicle with Absolute Magnitude for #266 (February/March 2006); the following issue included fiction from DNA's Dreams of Decadence.

Taken almost verbatim from SFE The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction

Editing Notes

Not all of the issues have been entered yet. The purpose of this area is to discuss completing the entry. Answers, opinions and conclusions can be entered here. There are some inconsistencies and possible errors in the currently entered issues.

• There are multiple entries for the same year in the series view (1984 has 2 – one empty; 1993 has 7 – one for each week). I expect some kind of merge needs to be done. The total number of issues is the same for following the grid and series views (54). There doesn’t seem to be series entries for 2000 and beyond. I expect we should have entries for up to 2006.

I'm no expert at some of this and I'm still learning so please correct if I'm wrong. I've submitted merges for the above. Some of the EDITOR records have no publications submitted but are there for the awards. As issues are added to that year, their EDITOR records can be merged. I believe that's why there are no series records for some years - they have no pubs and no awards entered. As they are, they will appear. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is one issue that covers two months that cross a year boundary (Dec 95/Jan 96). The grid seems to put multiple-month records in the first month. Does the grid do that automatically or is there something special that needs to be done or is it based on the date entered for the publication? Ditto for the serial summary.

I don't see any such issue. I believe the grid is determined by the magazine issue date, and that goes by the first month of a multi-month entry. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not there yet, it's in my pile to enter. I was trying to get this stuff figured out before starting. Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Most issues in the grid show issue number and month. There are exceptions, starting in 1997, whence all but one do not include the number. The exceptions are all unverified, so finding the number may be difficult.

This is due to different people entering the data whether verified or not. Some of us tried to maintain the same conventions but stuff happens. It looks like all the unverified ones need to be changed if we want to keep the "number/month" convention. If we don't, we'll have to change the other ones. I like the "number/month" method (as long as the number is shown prominently on the cover) because it shows immediately where there are gaps in subs entered. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the number/month as well and am happy to change the existing. If anyone else has an opinion, jump in. Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Remember, if you want to change someone else's verified data, you should talk with him first on his talk page (if we don't get any more response here). I'll say here that I patterned my SFC entries after those of Locus. Check out various Locus pubs to see the various series and formats. Doug / Vornoff 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I figure this is a discussion forum for getting a reasonable, consistent approach. Once we figure that out and document it, we can identify changes to specific issues and notify the verifier(s). Doug H 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I also like the number/month method even though many issues don't display it on the cover. Syzygy 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

John, I looked at most (not all) of the SFC covers on the ones entered and all had the number. Where are you seeing these? Are these for some that aren't entered. Also, I started looking through various magazine grids (by entering "magazine" in the series search) and they are all over the place on magazine titling conventions. I'd vote for the way Locus does it. Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• One of the bimonthly publications uses " - " (Science Fiction Chronicle, #198 July-August 1998) and another uses "/" |(Science Fiction Chronicle, #189 May/June 1996). The one's I have use the "/" notation.

Again, different people entering data. The " - " notation is used by Analog - good enough for me. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Counter-argument is the magazine itself puts the "/". One vote each way, although I'm more interested in consistency so will go either way. Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right that it should be as shown on the title page of the magazine, if there, and then by the cover if it's not. Remember any questions you have can also be posed on the Help Page. Doug / Vornoff 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

By title page, I assume you mean page 3, under the title banner, above the table of contents, next to the publication information. The copies I have give me (cover date in brackets): (July / August 1992): July 1992/Volume 13, Number 10/Issn 0195-5365/Whole #153; (October/November 1994): October 1994 / Volume 16, Number 1 / Issn 0195-5365 / Whole #177; (December 95/January 1996): Issue #187 / December 1995-January 1996 / Volume 17, Number 2 / ISSN 0195-5365. It looks like they use only the first month unless it spans a year and avoid "/" because it is a separator for other information. Given the cover is a) more visible / recognizable and b) more complete, I think I'd prefer using its spanned "/" notation. The title page is not only inconsistent about order for Issue/Date, but changes what it calls it (Issue / Whole). Doug H 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

On this help page it says "A hyphen should be used between two months used for a bimonthly issue." If you go by the Help, it looks like a hyphen should be used. Here's an example done by an experienced editor where he uses the hyphen. Not only that but the month is given as "March-April", the date is "1985-03-00" and the cover shows the month as "April", so inside on the publisher page it probably says "March-April", or "March/April". Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Obituaries and Editorials are part of separate series, but none of the other regular features use this approach. Is it because there are different names for these, while the other features go by the same name each issue? Would the Releases feature go here (April Releases, September Releases, …)? These two series use a different approach Editorial (Science Fiction Chronicle) and Science Fiction Chronicle Obituary, as opposed to Obituary (Science Fiction Chronicle). The only other obituaries are from Locus and Analog and they follow this naming.

I'm guessing the two you cite were modeled after existing Series conventions. There are many "Editorial (xxx)" series and the only other obit series were from Locus, Analog and Algol, although the latter uses "Obituaries" in the plural. I believe making new series is up to the individual editors; if you want a series for (Releases) you'd have to figure out some sensible way to do that. The question I suppose you have to ask is it worth it? Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Most of the features in the issue use “(Science Fiction Chronicle #nnn)” in their name. There are some issues that follow this rule and some that don’t. Two verifications have a mixture within the issues (#134 and #143). This means that if you list all titles for a feature (e.g. “Authors & Editors (Science Fiction Chronicle”), you get a mixture of naming types. Both (and a combination) have been used in various magazines at ISFDB.

Those were done by the same editor, a possible oversight? It happens all the time. This is another case where a consensus is needed and all the prime verifiers should be aware and agree. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal then - for consistency - use the (Science Fiction Chronicle #nnn) and I'll change the existing ones. All in favour (or favor), say Aye, ... Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're taking about disambiguators here, and I prefer the month year method. I will follow any consensus reached, though. Syzygy 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In this example we got around it by using both. They are seasons instead of months but the idea is the same. If that doesn't work for you all, I guess I don't really have a preference - I've used both. Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Of the features, not all names have been used consistently. Some exceptions (some are possibly typo’s, but some may reflect changes in titles between issues). There are also variations within a publication between the name in the table of contents and at the head of the article.
  • Authors & Editors (27) vs. Authors and Editors (1)
  • British Market Report (1) vs. British Market Reports (1) vs. The British Report (4) vs. The London Report (35)
  • Ed Naha’s Hallywood (1) vs. Ed Naha’s Nahalywood (21) vs. Nahalywood (2)
  • Jeff Rovin’s S.F. Cinema (2) vs. S.F. Cinema (10) [Kay Anderson’s Continuum (3) never appears without the nane {Continuum}, nor does Marvin Kaye’s Nth Dimension (1) or Don D’Ammassa’s Critical Mass (3)]
  • London Report (5) vs. London Report: Or, Beer and Loafing in Los Angeles (1)
  • Newsnotes (4) vs. Newsnotes and Events (8) vs. Notes (1) vs. Small Press Notes (3).
  • Publishers (19) vs. Publisher’s Notes (1) vs. Publishing Newsnotes (26)
  • The Twiltone Forest: Fanzine/Small Press Reviews (1) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Fanzines & Small Press (5) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Fanzines & the Small Press (1) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Fanzines/Small Press Stuff (2) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Small Press & Fanzines (3) [likely should be The Twiltone Forest].

I believe here the rule is enter what is on the title page (or the header of the column), not the ToC. So you will have those variances. I suppose you could gather them together under a Series if they were all definitely related. One choice, though, is whether to add the sub-heading or not. The Twiltone stuff could benefit from a Series, I think. Naha does have a Series. As to "London Report": I can't recall if that column has a sub-title every time, because if it did you could use it as the title and "London Report" as the Series as is done with many columns that have sub-titles. These are things that could be discussed on a column-by-column basis. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I missed that one, as well as the London Report. I'll go back and check my stats. Is this the right place for those column-by-column discussions? Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Missed them because I'd searched the series for Science Fiction Chronicle, which these don't include. Doug H 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems ok to me but I haven't seen this before. Otherwise it would be on your talk page or some public help page. Doug / Vornoff 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not use the 'Discuss This Page' feature for this magazine series? Discussions here are going to get bogged down. Syzygy 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree - we are rapidly getting confusing with the responses all over the place. I don't see that 'Discuss This Page' on the Science Fiction Chronicle series page. I think we are on it now, aren't we? Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Common Features

These have been documented as both Feature (Science Fiction Chronicle #nn) and Feature (Science Fiction Chronicle, month yyyy). No standard established yet.

• Authors & Editors
• Conventions
• Ed Naha's Nahalywood
• Events
• Fandom
• Headlines
• Market Report
• Newsnotes
• Publishers
• Publishing Newsnotes
• Random Factors: Letters
• S.F. Cinema
• The London Report
• The Twilltone Forest
• Month Releases - e.g. April Releases,

Commonly used entry:

• Letter (used to record letters, but also is a heading for Random Factors:

Essay Series

• Editorial (Science Fiction Chronicle) - the actual entries reflect the title of the editorial but not the magazine or issue. E.g. The End of Life As We Know It - Again?
• Science Fiction Chronicle Obituary - the actual entries are under the deceased's name. E.g. Taylor Caldwell
• The London Report - does not include 'Science Fiction Chronicle' in the series name. The entries reflect the actual column name and include the name and issue. E.g. The London Report (Science Fiction Chronicle #94)
• Ed Naha's Nahalywood - does not include 'Science Fiction Chronicle' in the series name. The entries reflect the actual column name and include the name and issue. E.g. Ed Naha's Nahalywood (Science Fiction Chronicle #82)

Issues

The issues have not been tabulated yet.