I’m having a difficult time articulating a response to this, to be completely honest. My mind keeps returning to the ebook vs paper book debate that’s happening, and I suppose that means something. I mean, I guess the format of the magazine irritated me a bit; I hate reading in columns. I don’t like the way it looks on a page, cluttered and clunky. This means something, because I suppose it makes me far more conscious in the way I perceive the world we live in now, even the work we do on this blog. How this can be typed out, as long as I want it to be (within reason, of course) and disseminated across the planet in a matter of seconds, whereas Gernsback and the staff for “Amazing Stories” had to put their work out on newsstands, were dependent upon subscribers and advertisers to put their work out there. And how they were also limited by space; those columns that I hate so much needed to be done to conserve space, so fewer pages would be used, and more copies could be put out for cheap. The paper had to be cheaper, of course; glossy paper means higher subscription prices and maybe fewer subscribers. Sure, it would be nicer looking, but it would also be way more money to print. I mean, there’s always the argument that the magazine material reflects the content, but I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. Making a cheap item look expensive is way easier now. Also glossy paper is way cheaper.