Hey Folks,

This month's editorial interview will be with Jetse de Vries, one of the assistant editors at Interzone Magazine:



Jetse de Vries is a technical specialist for a propulsion company, and used to travel the world for this. Of late, due to the increased time both his story writing and joining the Interzone editorial team is taking up, he's trying to settle into a desk job.

Published stories:

• “Bridge Across Forever” in the In the Outposts of Beyond from Samsdotpublishing (available at Project Pulp);
• “Cultural Clashes in Cádiz” in Amityville House of Pancakes, vol 1 (available in a variety of places, see here )
• “The Frog’s Pool” in Nemonymous 4 (available at Project Pulp);
• “Rainmaker on the Run” in Here & Now 5&6 (double issue, sold out!);
• “The Philistine Detectives” in The Journal of Pulse-Pounding Narratives, vol. 2 (available at Project Pulp);
• “Real Virtuality” in Northwest Passages: A Cascadian Anthology (available at the publisher, or Amazon.com);
• “Near Absolute Zero” in Midnight Street #5 (available at Project Pulp);
• “Tribal Convictions” in TQR (read it in their archives here );
• “Gaudí, Cons & Spires” in TEL : Stories. Available at Wheatland Press, or Clarkesworldbooks);
• “The Three Scholars” in Forgotten Worlds (available here );

Upcoming stories:

• “The Ultimate Coincidence” in DeathGrip: Exit Laughing (available at Hellbound Books, or Clarkesworldbooks);

Which makes him a sort of late-labelled, experimental pulpster with a modern sensibility, and a wicked sense of humour, all drenched in stylistic excess, with the odd tendency of extreme extrapolation. And all he really wants to do is write SF...

Comments are welcomed at jetse (at) home (dot) nl. When he really is at home, Jetse lives in the historical city that was the birth place of Hieronymus Bosch.


1. How did you end up joining the editorial team at Interzone?

Long story. Let’s get way back and say that initially I read mostly SF and fantasy *novels*. Until a year ago – when I settled into a job in my company’s Training Center, where I try to teach both our own service engineers and customers how to work with our equipment – I travelled very extensively, and was in the UK, USA and Australia quite regularly, where I bought a lot of books, because they were – to a Dutchman like me – relatively cheap. Then I bought a Year’s Best SF volume from Gardner Dozois, and this learned me to appreciate short stories, as well.

Checking several of the Dozois YBSF, I noticed that there were quite a few stories reprinted from Interzone, so I decided to subscribe to them (we’re talking 1995). Via Interzone I found out about that there were quite a lot more fiction magazines: not only the big professional ones, but a whole cornucopia of Small Press titles, too. So I bought sample issues, and subscribed to quite a few of them (at one point I think I subscribed to over 30). I also found out about a short fiction review magazine – The Fix – and started subscribing to that one, as well, mainly as a source to find even more good magazines or anthos.

At some point I queried Andy Cox – editor of The Fix, The Third Alternative, and CrimeWave: all three magazines I was enjoying very much – if I could send in reviews for The Fix. He said OK, and I sent in six reviews, hoping he’d place one or two. He published all six of them, and almost everything I sent him after that (and the only reason he wasn’t publishing all my reviews, and those of others, was simply lack of space).

I was also writing fiction in those days (my increased involvement with Interzone has dwindled my writing output very considerably), so sometimes submitted stories to The Third Alternative (which were rejected in a very friendly manner). As I got more involved with the UK short fiction publishing scene, I also visited the so-called TTACons – very informal meetings in a pub – which was (is) possible due to very cheap airfares. Now, at some point – March 2003 – there was another TTACon upcoming in Cambridge. Right then I had a story lingering with Andy for TTA for almost 5 months, and the last thing you want to do with an editor is bothering him/her by asking about your story at a social get-together. Now, I was never going to do that while sober. Problem was – since I booked a bed and breakfast in Cambridge – I didn’t plan to remain sober at the end of the evening. So in order to avoid embarassment, I decided to query Andy a week before that TTACon, and get it out of the way.

So I queried him about the status of my story, and he answered that he had received it (stories *do* get lost in the mail), but needed some more time to think about it. Then there was this almost nonchalant by-the-by, as in: BTW, if someone would ask you to become assistant editor of a magazine like, say, Interzone, what would you say?

I could hardly believe what I was reading. I knew that Interzone was having a difficult time: issues appearing irregularly and such, but I never surmised that David Pringle was actually quitting, and eventually decided to let Andy Cox take it over.

Of course, I did say yes, and that TTACon in Cambridge was mainly about discussing Interzone’s future than having a good time, although we eventually did that, as well. From that point I was part of the editorial team.

2. What are your responsibilities as assistant editor?

At the moment, as an assistant editor, I discuss the stories that are seriously considered for publication in Interzone, and the editorial team as a whole decides which stories get published or not (more on that a bit later). It’s not limited to that: we also discuss the path the magazine should take, we discuss possible artists and artwork for the stories (although that’s mostly Andy’s department, he does value our input highly), basically all the things that have to do with the fiction that appears in the magazine.

Apart from that, I read email submissions (Andy reads the postal submissions) when we are open to email submissions (in certain months only), and am – this happened mostly by default – the public face of Interzone at big Conventions. Andy Cox is like Dennis Bergkamp (well-known Dutch football player, who just had a special goodbye match with Arsenal): he does not like to fly. I have no problem with that – as I have done that all my working life – so if you check out the dealer’s room at both LACon IV and Dragon*Con , you’ll see me behind that table, together with some fine local people helping me out, representing TTAPress and Interzone.

It just grew that way, which I will explain in the next question.

3. I know that there are other assistant editors at Interzone (including a recent addition). How do your responsibilities differ from theirs? Also, how do you all coordinate your efforts to make sure everyone works together smoothly?

Mainly, the roles we ended up having at the moment are a consequence of what we can do very well (hopefully ;-), and the time we have available for it. Not only in the editorial team, but with Interzone as a whole. And it works in an organic sort of way: each person’s role grows and gets better defined as we go along, and these strengths become more apparent.

The original Interzone editorial team – as it happened from that fateful TTACon in March 2003 – consisted of Andy Cox, David Mathew, Peter Tennant, and me. After two-and-a-half years, Pete (Tennant) begged off the IZ team, for a variety of (personal) reasons, one of them being that it took up so much time that he hardly had any time left for actual writing (Pete is widely published in the UK short fiction scene). And believe me, I can sympathise: my own writing has dwindled to almost nothing, as well (although I find that I am enjoying the editorial gig very much, and am learning invaluable things).

However, Pete still helps us out as a proofreader: he’s very good at that (hell: he was a fantastic co-editor, as well; incredibly well read in SF, fantasy, and horror; and a highly intelligent and incisive commenter on the stories we were considering seriously, and we still miss him in that regard), and I found out I wasn’t: if I really like a story, a writer can get away with murder in the spelling and grammar department: I just read what I think should be there, rather than what there is, as long as it’s not too blatantly wrong.

So, after struggling with the three of us for about half a year, we decided we needed a fourth voice again, and asked Liz Williams (check her writing credits on her website ) to fill in the gap Pete left behind, and she accepted. So, since about July 17th Liz is part of the IZ editorial team.

People might wonder why we want a team of *four* people, since with an odd number you always have one part outvoting the other. The point is that the IZ team is not exactly a democracy: it more closely approaches a meritocracy. That is, we discuss stories, and normally if three of us are in favour of a story, and one is against, then it will get in.

But not always: for example, if those three are only mildly in favour, and the one against has very strong arguments, then it might still get bounced. If two are against, and two in favour, but nobody can get heated up about the story either way, then it will get bounced. On the other hand, if two are fervently against, and two are fervently in favour, then we figure that this story has something special, and should be published.

In short, there are no fast and hard rules: only that the more we get heated up about a story, the better its chances are.

Outside of the fiction, Sandy Auden is handling the review section (after Iain Emsley begged off in order to have more time to work on his bookshop The Aust Gate ), Roy Gray is our tireless publicity and advertising man (and incredible salesman, I must say, after running an IZ/TTAPress dealer’s table with him both at Interaction and EasterCon: he never gives up, and always tries to make that sale), Pete Tennant is our proofreader, and Michael Reuter is working on an electronic version of Interzone, which we hope will be available on Fictionwise (and possibly other online retailers) soon.

And I must mention that we discuss the whole scope of the magazine with the whole team (Andy Cox, Dave Mathew, Liz Williams, Sandy Auden, Roy Gray, Michael Reuter, and me) on a regular email basis. Of course, in the end Andy is the publisher (who pays the printing and distribution bills), and has the final say, but he does listen very carefully to our opinions.


4. I know that Andy Cox lets you request rewrites on submissions if you feel the stories have the potential to reach that next level, which would make them suitable for Interzone. But before I ask my question, first let me heap upon you much public thanks for seeing something in my work, enough that you put me through two strenuous but worthwhile rewrites, which led to my first sale. And as to my question, what is it about certain stories that makes you say “I want to work with this author on a rewrite?” What, if anything, are you looking for?

One of the reasons I asked the IZ team to open IZ up for email submissions was to lighten Andy’s workload (not sure of this worked, as he’s still receiving over 200 submissions a month, although these are for Interzone, Black Static, and CrimeWave), but another was that I also wanted to get involved with the whole process myself.

So I was (am!) quite honoured and happy that Andy let me handle that responsibility. Make no mistake: trusting somebody with a slushpile (or a part thereof) is a big responsibility, as you expect that person to pick up the stories, and the new talents, that are suitable to the magazine. And in the end, that’s where the long-term viability of the magazine comes from: to be able to infuse the magazine with fresh blood.

Therefore, I took the very first email submission period (May 2005) very seriously: I read each and every story completely, to make sure that I didn’t make a stupid mistake (I still might have, but at least I tried to reduce the chances of making a horrible one). Also, during that period I gave a personal reply to every submission (also to try to avoid making horrible mistakes: formulating why a story didn’t work made me think hard about it, again). Actually, those personal replies were the most time-consuming part of the process, and I must admit that I have come to appreciate the tried-and-trusted form reply quite a bit. Just try to reply to over 300 submissions personally within a month, in your spare time…

Anyway, as I was going through this very first submission period by reading each story completely (I have learned to trust my instinct after that, so am skipping a lot of stories after the first few pages. But I needed to hone that instinct first), I thought there were a few that were good, but had something missing that would make them really succeed. Also, the old Interzone had a reputation for being very helpful to aspiring writers, and I wanted (still want!) to continue that tradition. So on that very first email reading period I decided to try four rewrites.

It wasn’t very successful: only one rewrite was accepted (Gareth Lyn Powell’s “The Last Reef”, in Interzone #202), although two of those rewrites – to the best of my knowledge – have sold to other magazines.

This was also a learning experience: not only for the writers involved, but also for me. So, with the second email reading period (August 2005), I learned not only to select stories for rewriting more carefully, but also how to do a rewrite more succesfully. The rewrites of that period were both accepted: “Distro” by Tim Akers (slated for Interzone #206), and “Feelings of the Flesh” by a certain Douglas Cohen… ;-). BTW, note that the appearance of a story in IZ mostly depends on how fast we can get artwork for it (we do publish every story with artwork, and in full colour since issue #200), and that we had your story with an artist who later begged off. So it fell through – which happens more often than you think – and it’s with its second artist now.

Now, to finally get to the gist of the question: what I learned to look for in a successful rewrite, is for a story that is *almost* there, but is lacking that certain something (let’s call it the X-factor) that would change it from a merely ‘very good’ story into an irresistible one.

This is, as I hope you can appreciate, a very difficult call, and the reason that I misjudged it in three cases initially. And often, the missing part is not one single thing: it can be a combination of things. And it can be different for each story. Best thing I can do is demonstrate it by example:

In case of “The Last Reef”, in the original version there was a point in the plot, a certain (relatively minor) assumption that took away all the tension from the story’s finale. So I worked with Gareth through four rewrites addressing that very point (and other things), eventually reworking the story in such a way that the tension remained – and was even highly increased – throughout the story, making the finale a true grand finale. There were some technical matters which were relatively easy to address, and we made the opening more evocative (it still is the part where you need to hook the reader), and tightened up the prose (although that was already pretty thight).

In case of “Distro”, in the original version it was apparent, quite early in the story, who was behind certain actions (I don’t want to tell more in fear of giving away too much, as the story is still to be published). So we rewrote it in such a manner that while the story does give the hints, those hints are – especially in a first read – not immediately apparent. A few red herrings, some handwaving, and trying to hide the obvious in plain sight. I think we succeeded, but the reader can decide that in IZ #206.

I did another rewrite with Tim Akers, for his story “Toke” – which is also in our inventory – and in that one we added a certain depth, an extra angle to the story by giving a deeper motivation to one of its central characters. It was a relatively minor rewrite, but Tim was still a little bit annoyed (at himself) that he still needed to do a rewrite before making a sale to us. Make no mistake: this is – in my book – exactly the right attitude: I do like to help a writer develop, but with the intention that she/he will write an irresistible story without my help in the future.

Which brings us to “Feelings of the Flesh”. With that story, my feeling was that its scope was a bit too limited, and that the story could provide a much bigger picture by expanding the role of one of its characters. A bit like what I did with Tim on “Toke”, but then on a much larger scale, and rather more ambitious. Also, in contrast with the previous (successful) rewrites, it made the original story quite a bit longer.

At this moment, I’m working on three rewrites from the January email period, and am seriously considering doing two rewrites from the May 2006 email period (well, I want to finish the January rewrites first).

With one – I’m not going to name names and story titles at this stage, only when the stories are accepted by us – the main idea is to add extra depth, an almost hidden layer to the story that only surfaces after the reader reminisces about the story, or rereads it.

With another, I’m trying to get more conflict in the story. And with the third I’m trying to completely change the viewpoint, which might make the story not only much more compelling, but also even a bit controversial.

The ones I’m thinking about for the lastest reading period are mainly polishing exercises: that is, I think the stories are almost good as is, but need to be much clearer in what they are telling: some of the concepts are *very* involved, and need to be put forward with much more clarity for the reader to really grasp them.

So it depends on what stories I get, and – this is the most important part – if I can see a clear and straightforward way to rewrite the story in such a way that we will take it. I certainly don’t want to put so much energy in a story to have it rejected (but if that happens, I surely hope it sells elsewhere).


5. Since Andy Cox has taken over as publisher/editor of Interzone, the magazine has undergone some changes, perhaps most notably in terms of its artwork. That said I’m curious as to how much you feel the story content has changed.

Roughly speaking, the old Interzone was at the top of its powers in the late 80s and early 90s. Then it was at the forefront of SF, launching a whole new generation of SF talents. And that is something we also hope and intend to do.
However, in the late 90s and early oughts the magazine was losing steam (no disrespect intended, but that is my opinion), and the number of tired and unexcting stories increased. The magazine still looked, felt and *read* like an 80s magazine, and one of the first things we did when we took over was modernising it into the 21st Century, bith with look, tone, and content.
Of course, we didn’t quite get it right the first time around, but we felt it was necessary to start that ‘revolution’ from the get-go, rather than gradually introduicing it, as that was against our instincts and sensibility, and would have been a bit hypocritical.
So while a lot of the older readership was shocked, we continued with our agenda of renewal, and I think we finally found our stride around issues #199 and #200 (our Anniversary issue). Not only did we – well, Andy mostly – get the design (both ex- and interior) right, but were also getting better stories.
Now, the stories we publish are, like in almost every other magazine, the stories that the editors like best. However, since four people decide on this, we hope that this leads to a greater diversity without sacrificing the magazine’s sensibility.
I’d describe our sensibility as modern genre fiction in the broadest sense of the word (although with the emphasis on SF), with room for more classical stories if these are outstanding.


6. Every so often I stumble across discussions about how the short speculative fiction market in the UK is dying. But lately I’ve seen nothing but praise for Andy’s magazines, and Postscripts, another UK magazine, has also been receiving its share of praise. One would think with so much praise going around that the UK magazines are back on the rise. What are your feelings on the matter? Are the UK spec magazines reviving or dying?

Since the UK market is about the fifth of the size of the US market, it’s much more difficult to make a magazine financially viable. In that light, magazines like New Worlds (which ran over 200 issues) and Interzone (which will celebrate its 25th Anniversary next year) are the exception rather than the rule (and to a lesser extent BBR and The Third Alternative).

To the best of my knowledge, PostScripts Magazine is financed by the income that all the other titles of PS Publishing generate. A quality magazine, and I hope it thrives, because the more good magazines in the UK, the better.

So, while it’s relatively easy (and that *very* relative, mind you) to start a magazine in the UK, it’s extremely hard to make it earn its costs back. For example, a few years ago two new magazines were launched: 3SF and Spectrum SF. 3SF folded after its third issue, and Spectrum SF didn’t outlast its 9th issue (and especially Spectrum SF had top quality fiction). About two years ago I was asked to write a column about the UK Small Press for a planned UK science/science fiction magazine Orbital (which would have been a cross between SFX and New Scientist, as far as I could see), but that one never got off the ground. There’s Futures, an online feature of Nature, which is open for very short stories, edited by Henry McGee. Very recently there is Farthing, a nice new mag, although their publishing schedule is a bit erratic. And now a new major SF magazine called Hub has been announced (claiming a 15,000 distribution run), with its debut planned for September. I hope it works out, as the UK scene could certainly use a success story.
I think this – quite a few new magazines launched, and only a very few successful in the long run – has been going on for about the last 50 years, although people like Mike Ashley – who is now writing a massive reference work about SF magazines from the 70s onward – will certainly know that better than me.

Of course, there is also a very lively scene of smaller scale magazine publishers, who mostly do it for the love of the genre, and take the losses in stride. I’m talking about magazines like Midnight Street, Premonitions, Here & Now, Fusing Horizons, Jupiter SF, Whispers of Wickedness, SciFantastic, Sein und Werden and recently Forgotten Worlds (with the sad note that Scheherazade is bringing out its last issues).

Also, there are small scale publishers in the UK that are bringing out books using the flexibility of POD who are doing OK (while they’re not becoming millionaires – at least not the last ime I saw them – they do seem to be making a profit on their projects, which is a good sign), like Elastic Press, Pendragon Press and Gary Friar Press.

Finally, there are – again to the best of my knowledge – only very few ezines or webzines in the UK. Only Andy Robertson’s The Night Land website comes to mind, and not much more (OK, Infinity Plus, but they only feature reprints).

So I guess the UK scene is doing what it’s been doing for years: struggling along, with various degrees of success. And while I’m typing this, a few messages come in from Des Lewis’s Weirdmonger email group in which several UK small press mags which have died over the years are discussed: that list is longer than you might suspect.

7. What sorts of stories would you recommend writers to send along for consideration? What sorts would you advise against?

Their best. Their very best.

I know that sounds a bit pat, but it’s what any magazine worth its salt wants to see. Also, I certainly don’t want to burden a writer with a long list of “do’s” and “don’t’s”. Write the story you *need* to write, the one you *must* write, with passion and fire and to the very best of your ability. Rewrite and polish as necessary, have it critiqued by a good critique group, and then rewrite and polish again. Then send it to me and let me sort it out.

Don’t send me something you’re not really happy with yourself. Most probably, I’ll start to yawn somewhere on page 2 or 3, and send out from reject no. 1.

Having said that, most stories, both SF and fantasy, lack both audacity and inventivity. Kelly Link decribes it expertly on Charlie Finlay’s LJ here: http://ccfinlay.livejournal.com/56645.html .

Personally, I’d rather see a story that is highly ambitious and fails, than an extremely well-written story with some very ordinary subject matter. It’s a thing that you see in a lot of writing competitions that are judged by a committee, or – as Kelly Link mentions – in workshops: the harder-to-understand, or more controversial pieces are passed by in favour of the more bland stories that do not offend anybody. It’s exactly why the winning stories of any writing competition judged by a committee are almost never the best ones.

Also, I see a lack of inventivity, especially in a lot of fantasy stories. Again, very competent and accomplished stories, but the majority follows the high fantasy conventions so narrowly that they’re predictable to the point of somnabulism. And if they show some inventivity, it’s often in one aspect only, especially a richly imagined world inhabited by stock characters. Basically, fantasy is the largest genre of all, with the most freedom for the writer. Paradoxically, when a lot of people write fantasy they feel that they have to obey most of its unwritten rules, and must inhabit their world with the same stereotypes: wizards, demons, dragons, trolls, elves, golems, vampires, werewolves, zombies, dwarves and whatnot. Invent a new type of creature, let really unexpected things happen to them (death to plot coupons!), surprise me (and the reader!) with your crazy imagination.


8. Personally, I love to blab on and on about my slush discoveries. What about you? Any authors or stories you’ve discovered that you’d like to mention?

Slush discoveries make the whole slush reading affair worthwile! Still, on a more sober note I must add that the writers that I felt I had ‘discovered’ already had been published elsewhere (although I didn’t know that at the time I read their story).

But I’m proud of unearthing the following:

i) “Third Day Lights” by Alaya Dawn Johnson. This was the very first story that I lifted out of the very first email period that I did. Because it was the first time I read slush, I made a commitment not only to read each and every story completely, but give personal comment on each story as well (and especially the latter was very time-consuming: it probably took me an extra month). So I had been reading quite a lot of stories that day, Alaya’s among them, but for some reason I didn’t really get it the first time around. However, I had promised myself to write, in the rejection letter, at least one good reason for the rejection. So I set to typing that rejection for “Third Day Lights” (I had the story open in another window, just in case), when I found that every reason I tried to bring up was, after consulting the story, nonsense. So I decided to read it again the next day, when I was more rested. Then the coin dropped, and I almost kicked myself: this was a great story! (And it reminded me of a remark by Gardner Dozois that an editor should trust her/his intuition: if you have trouble rejecting a story, your subsconscious is trying to tell you something, like read it again.) I forwarded it to my colleagues and we accepted it the next day (sometimes we’re very fast), it was publsihed in our 200th Anniversary issue, and subsequently reprinted in the Cramer/Hartwell YBSF, so I was pretty chuffed. And later I found that Alaya was already published by Strange Horizons just a month or so before (which story went into the Cramer/Hartwell YBF), so they had ‘discovered’ her earlier.
ii) Ed Morris: he came recommended by Paul Di Filippo, and sent in a story called “Imagine” which we publised in IZ #200. Then we rejected the next couple of stories he sent us, until he very recently sent us “Journey to the Center of the Earth”: a mind-blowingly inventive novella, which we like so much that we have special plans for it.
iii) “The Last Reef” by Gareth Lyn Powell: I did a rewrite on the original with him, and the end result was all I hoped for (and Gareth was a real pleasure to work with).
iv) Tim Akers: we rejected the first story he sent me (which recently appeared in Electric Velocipede #10), but since I really liked it, I sent him a *very* encouraging rejection. Since then, we’ve taken three stories by him (so far), and published one (“The Song” in IZ #204). I really see him maturing as a writer, and I think he has the talent to go far. Most of his stories are set in a city called Veridon, although the one we have that isn’t – “Distro” slated for IZ #206 – is a real treat, as well.
v) “Longing for Langalana” by Mercurio D. Rivera (IZ #204). After some fence sitting, we bounced the first story he sent me. But the second one just blew us away.
vi) “Blue Glass Pebbles” by Steven Mills (in IZ #205). Superb political near-future SF that pulls no punches.
vii) Upcoming in a future issue is a story called “The Star Necromancers” by Alexander Marsh Freed that’s also in a class of its own. I read slush on a PDA, which I carry with me almost everywhere, so I read stories at the strangest places. For example, I almost missed a train because I was so absorbed in a story (not this one, but another one that Andy Cox had sent me). I was taking a peek at “The Star Necromancers” when I was taking a short break after bicycling for almost two hours on a very hot day. I sat on a bench under the burning sun, had some water, and switched my PDA on. Started reading the story, and after the first paragraph forgot where I was, that’s how much the story drew me in. This happens only very rarely, but if it happens (and that can be from a story from the e-slush, or a story Andy selected from the paper slush) then I’m certain that we will publish it.
viii) And there’s this story called “Feelings of the Flesh” from a certain writer who had talent, but then foolishly decided to become a slush reader. Now he’s most likely a lost cause…


9. Who are some of your favorite authors, both in and outside of the genre?

So many. In my youth, I was torn between the SF that my father read, or the literature that my Dutch teacher got me to read (he was very good at getting literature books your way that you really liked).

So early on I read a lot of Dutch and Flemish writers like Louis Paul Boon, Harry Mulish, Willem Frederik Hermans, Hugo Raes (one of the rare ones who also wrote SF stories, as well), Walter van den Broeck, Louis Ferron, amd more.
Later on, though, when I started travelling a lot, I started buying SF paperbacks and immersed myself in that genre. Too many to mention, almost. Right now I’d say Ian McDonald, Greg Egan, Greg Bear, Christopher Priest, Kathleen Ann Goonan, C.J. Cherryh, Philip K. Dick, John Brunner, Nancy Kress, Paul J. McAuley, Al Reynolds, Bruce Sterling, Gene Wolf, Charlie Stross, and lots more.

Terry Pratchett is a guilty pleasure of me, and I really enjoy everything I’ve read (so far) from Walter Mosley. And I read a lot of non-fiction, mostly on a large variety of the sciences.


10. What is your favorite part about working at Interzone?

The interaction with the team, in our efforts to put out a true quality product on all levels. Especially when we really get something special together, like a certain story that blows us all away (those are very rare), artwork that superbly captures the stories: such things give a buzz. Unearthing that great story from the slushpile. And the moment the magazine drops through my mailbox: to see the actual result of all that work

What I really hate doing is writing rejection letters. Not the standard forms: those are easy enough. But the personal rejections that I sent – sometimes directly from the slushpile, and always for stories I hold over for a second read – are hard to do, because I do like these stories, and genuinely hope that thy will get published.


11. What are your pet peeves as an editor?

Pet peeves as in “Absolutely no elves (Gordon Van Gelder)?” Not really, or none that come immediately to mind. Or I could mention some things that in general don’t work for me, but that do – very rarely – win me over when done really well. Like metafictional enterprises: mostly they make me roll my eyes, but once in a blue Monday I see a story where it it successful, and then I really like it.

There are exceptions to every rule, and that’s why I try not to burden a writer with too many rules: write what you *must* write (as I mentioned earlier), and let the slush reader/editor work it out.

Also, as Gordon Van Gelder already pointed out, the more I say about things I hate, the more writers are tempted to prove me wrong (as writers like a challenge, right?). Be true to yourself, and let the IZ editorial team – if the story gets that far – worry about it. Best recent example I can give of that is Jayme Lynn Blaschke: he sent me at least one story in each reading period, and one was more idiosyncratic than the other. He also – only partly joking – mentioned things like “here’s another over-long concoction that doesn’t have a natural market.” But he still sent them, receiving rejection after rejection (some very encouraging) from me. And recently we accepted one of these, called “La Riaza” (or actually: “Being an Account of the Final Voyage of La Riaza, A Circumstance in Eight Parts”. I’m not a fan of such long-winded, semi-pretentious titles, but again, this is one of these exceptions to the rule that completely won me over). It really blew us way!

So write as you must and keep trying and submitting.


12. On average, how many submissions a month does your magazine receive?

During an email reading month: about 350. I believe Andy Cox receives about 200 to 250 stories a month via postal mail, albeit that these are for all three TTAPress magazines (Black Static and CrimeWave, apart from Interzone).

(And to those interested in the exact numbers: May 2005 I received 333 subs, August 2005 I received 373 subs, January 2006 I received 369 subs, and in May 2006 I received 351 subs. Which makes the average 356,5, but 350’s good enough for me.)



13. What percentage is science fiction vs. fantasy?

I’d estimate 50/50, although it seems to shift slightly – say 45/55 – to fantasy.


14. Can you give us an idea of what percentage of science fiction vs. fantasy is being accepted for publication?

We mostly accept science fiction, I’d estimate about 75%. Then I’d say about 20% fantasy, and 5% for the ‘unclassifiable’ story. The old Interzone used to feature SF, fantasy and horror, but since Andy took it over we figured that it was pointless to let The Third Alternative compete with Interzone. So, roughly speaking, SF and most fantasy go into Interzone, while most dark fantasy and horror go into Black Static. That line is not drawn very sharp: if in doubt it’s mostly the story’s sensibility that decides where it goes.



15. Three times a year your magazine has been opening up the doors to e-submissions (thanks on behalf of all us Yankees). Is this practice still in the experimental phase, or has this become a permanent part of the Interzone submission process?

It will remain an ongoing feature as long as I am involved with the magazine.


16. Do you have additional editorial aspirations?


It would be great to edit my own magazine, but realistically I don’t have the money, time nor ability to do that. While I can see myself selecting and preparing stories for an issue, I just don’t see myself typesetting and designing it the way Andy does it: I’d really have to learn that from scratch. And I only see that happening when I win the lottery (and I never buy tickets).

It would be very nice, though, if I could edit a (loosely) themed anthology. But first I’d need to get a publisher inebriated…


17. I know that you also write speculative fiction. Has working at Interzone helped your writing at all?

Quite honestly, working at Interzone takes up so much of my time that I hardly have any time left to write! (Or I’d have to stop having a social life, and my family and friends – fortunately enough – prevent me from doing that.)

So because my writing output has dwindled to a trickle – I haven’t finished a single story so far this year, although I’ve certainly no lack of inspiration or ideas – it’s very difficult to say. It is true that a writer is too close to his/her own story to really analyse its flaws (I certainly wish that someone would pay the detailed and highly critical attention on one of my stories that I have paid to some others), but being involved with Interzone certainly has taught me to avoid clichés (on any level: in language, expressions, plot, characters, ideas, and whatnot) like the proverbial plague, or like a near-critical mass (OK: while it’s extremely difficult to be completely original, you should still try very hard); and it also showed me that you must always try to do the very best you can, or better, because at the top of the line the competition is very fierce. We’ve rejected stories that made me think: “I wish I had written that”, which gives you an idea about how good you need to be.


Thanks so much for your time.

And thank you for interviewing me.

So a big thanks to Jetse for doing this great in-depth interview, and a big "Woo hoo!" for Doug for finally using the LJ Cut. Be certain to check out Interzone if you haven't done so already. It's one of the finest speculative magazines publishing today (and I'm not just saying that because they're publishing me!) Anyway, tune in next month when I interview . . .???