future shocks

[malkymac]

There is a massive debate on here ongoing about new contribitors attempts to write these things and the perceived difficulties in doing so. As for the published ones, is it just me that thinks 95% of them are shite anyway? (No offence)

I think the last time I genuinely enjoyed one of these efforts was about 3 years ago (it was a pulp fiction episode that was a Star Wars Parody).

So the point is; if the best of what is published is basically shite; then how poor is the mountain of submissions that are routinely rejected?

Why even bother having these tripe filled things if 90% of them are shit anyway? Why not just publish the good ones instead of the space fillers? If there is nothing new that is worthy of publishing then sell the extra space for reprints (i.e. other publishers work)or advertisng.

I am all for seeing new work, but what is the point in publishing new shite?

[Jared Katooie]

New shite is better than old shite malkymac, are you serious about slapping in five pages of adverts instead of a story?

But you're not far wrong, the concept of originality seems to be lost on a lot of writers. Maybe there are good submissions but most of the ones they publish are written by si spurrier ( or Dan Abnett ). Say, that gives me an Idea for a post!

[paulvonscott]

heheheheheheh

Well, they are fillers, they cement the gaps in the intricate lattice of thrills, they may not seem as flashy and excting as bricks, but where would be without them?  Eh?

I don't like to criticise them for various reasons (like, I have this great idea for a crab based future shock I'm working on), but mainly because very few people can master them. I mean Alan Moore isn't your average writer and he produced a few duffers!

I'd actually like to see a few of them appear in the Meg, but then again I'm sure Alan Barnes would be devestated by the prospect :)