<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Heroic Fantasy Quarterly #3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://billwardwriter.com/heroic-fantasy-quarterly-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://billwardwriter.com/heroic-fantasy-quarterly-3/</link>
	<description>science fiction, fantasy, and horror book reviews and news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:29:35 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill Ward</title>
		<link>http://billwardwriter.com/heroic-fantasy-quarterly-3/comment-page-1/#comment-2891</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Ward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://billwardwriter.com/?p=3002#comment-2891</guid>
		<description>Well, I think either way might be viable, so long as the zine keeps its focus. It seems a high content zine needs to focus on post frequency, like a blog, rather than coming out with discreet issues that dump a lot of words out at once (in my opinion).

I like what both HFQ and BCS are doing, though obviously BCS is a little closer to the frequency model. I think, so long as a pub is consistent, if it presents each issue in easily digested (and tasty) chunks like this it&#039;ll do better than bigger online issues that people may not read all of. I think HFQ is better paying three authors 100 dollars each per issue than twelve authors 25 bucks apiece -- and I think the consistency and quality plus the smaller size seem to work really well. Of course, that&#039;s more for the guys at HFQ to answer definitively, I just know as a reader and writer this seems to work really well for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I think either way might be viable, so long as the zine keeps its focus. It seems a high content zine needs to focus on post frequency, like a blog, rather than coming out with discreet issues that dump a lot of words out at once (in my opinion).</p>
<p>I like what both HFQ and BCS are doing, though obviously BCS is a little closer to the frequency model. I think, so long as a pub is consistent, if it presents each issue in easily digested (and tasty) chunks like this it&#8217;ll do better than bigger online issues that people may not read all of. I think HFQ is better paying three authors 100 dollars each per issue than twelve authors 25 bucks apiece &#8212; and I think the consistency and quality plus the smaller size seem to work really well. Of course, that&#8217;s more for the guys at HFQ to answer definitively, I just know as a reader and writer this seems to work really well for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason T</title>
		<link>http://billwardwriter.com/heroic-fantasy-quarterly-3/comment-page-1/#comment-2890</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://billwardwriter.com/?p=3002#comment-2890</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve got to agree, it is a consistently good read and I look forward to each new issue.  I do wonder, though, about your thoughts on the online quarterly magazine strategy versus a venue that offers its content more often, even if there is less of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve got to agree, it is a consistently good read and I look forward to each new issue.  I do wonder, though, about your thoughts on the online quarterly magazine strategy versus a venue that offers its content more often, even if there is less of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
