EVALUATION SHEET RESPONSES

Legend: 1 = VERY POOR

5 = VERY GOOD

PLACE AN ‘x’ AGAINST CHOSEN NUMBER

(EG: 1 2 3x 4 5)

Magazine title 1 2 3 (10%) 4 (40%) 5 (50%)

Text size 1 2 3 (10%) 4 (20%) 5 (70%)

Quality of fiction 1 2 3 (30%) 4 (50%) 5 (20%)

Quality of interviews 1 (10%) 2 3 4 (60%) 5 (30%)

Quality of poetry 1 (20%) 2 (30%) 3 (20%) 4 (10%) 5 (0%) NOT MARKED: (20%)

Quality of articles 1 (10%) 2 (10%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%) 5 (10%)

Quality of internal illustrations 1 (10%) 2 3 (30%) 4 (40%) 5 (20%)

Quality of colour cover 1 2 (10%) 3 (10%) 4 (50%) 5 (30%)

Favourite and least favourite story (Issue 1):

PLACE ‘x’ AGAINST FAVOURITE STORY AND ‘o’ AGAINST LEAST FAVOURITE STORY.

War Stories – Andrew Humphrey RUNNER-UP

Other Voices – Andrew Humphrey

Jesus God in Heaven – Cathy Buburuz

The Final Thing – David Rawson

Rat – Paul Finch

Sweet Little Memory – Antony Mann

Showtime – Antony Mann

Out Stack – Gary Couzens FAVOURITE

Against My Ruins – Joel Lane

Nastassja’s Honour – Steve Redwood

Old Songs – Catherine J. Gardner

Please give reasons for your choices here:

(Out Stack) – Beautifully written character driven piece.

So many good stories, its hard to choose just one, but ‘Out Stack’ edged it. Quality writing.

Not a ‘bad’ story at all, just not my sort of thing!

Simply beautiful.

(Old Songs) – Garbled. No real focus to story.

‘Old Songs’ I found unreadable – I couldn’t finish it and found the beginning very confusing (I hadn’t a clue what was going on!)

(War Stories) – Beautiful use of language, subtle, interesting approach to subject, deeply atmospheric.

‘War Stories’ just beating ‘Out Stack’ here – believable characterisation and just the right nuance of something strange happening.

(Jesus God in Heaven) – It’s a horror cliché!

Nice short story, well written and succinct. Best illustration in both issues.

(Nastassja’s Honour) – Found the tone a bit annoying. Maybe it was the ‘dear reader’, maybe it was a lack of empathy with wanking men!

Very poor; if it’s supposed to be humorous it wasn’t.

Still find the Redwood a bit tiresome…

(Rat) - was an easy to follow story, very well told and with a satisfying twist. There was nothing in Issue 1 I actively disliked.

In the first issue all the stories were so-so…Not really good – not really bad – so I didn’t have a favourite or least favourite.

Favourite and least favourite story (Issue 2):

The End of Things – R.D. Robbins

The Beautiful Dead – Peter Tennant RUNNER-UP

The Choices You Make – Peter Tennant

Tooned In – Byron Starr

A Specialist in Souls – Tim Lees

Silence: Deathmasques VI – A.C. Evans

The Condition – David Penn FAVOURITE

Analog – Jonathan William Hodges

Natural Freak – Roz Southey

Stock – David Hudson

Coffin Dream – Terry Gates-Grimwood

Please give reasons for your choices here:

(The Beautiful Dead) - ‘The Beautiful Dead’ had a point to it, was imaginative and original and stays in the mind. I felt there was a writer at work here who wrote because he wanted to communicate something.

Great writing, sinister, concise, winningly gothic.

A memorable story, quite well written.

(Analog) – ‘Analog’ was merely schlock-horror, devoid of any thought or meaning and designed simply to disgust its readers.

I liked the tension in ‘Analog’; the contrast of what is said on the phone with the bullet dropping.

Not really a bad story, but rather slight.

(Tooned In) - I loved the idea. The story captured the feel of these cartoons brilliantly and gave them a dark side.

This had an enviably light touch and delicious humour throughout.

Couldn’t really engage with ‘Tooned In’. I didn’t finish it.

(Silence – Deathmasques VI) - I have no idea what this story is about. Too abstract (at least for me).

The last lines hit hard after being drawn in by the imagery.

Complete rubbish!

(The Condition) - I liked ‘The Condition’ for its tenderness.

Penn: What an elegant, simple story. More from him please.

Told beautifully, with a real feel for the subject matter, this was an extraordinary piece of fiction.

Penn’s story is really good because it’s very original and well written – He has got everything just right.

(Natural Freak) - I appreciated the technique – developing a world without the “info dump”.

(Coffin Dream) - It’s a horror cliché!

‘Coffin Dream’ scared the crap out of me. Unfortunately I read it last thing at night.

So full of clichés I wondered if it was a pastiche – just didn’t have any redeeming qualities at all.

(The End of Things) - Was just a little “wacky” for me.

Robbins’ sense of wry apocalypse is great.

(The Choices You Make) - Had me cringing, more so than ‘Guts’, a story that recently appeared in ‘The Guardian’, by Chuck Palakniak, that carried a warning as to its content. However, whereas the latter story was merely gratuitous, P. Tennant’s story spawned a pub debate. The conclusion: There’s no excuse for torture.

This could have been such a powerful story – but Peter’s lack of respect for his readers’ imagination turned it into something hateful and vile. I felt lessened by it – but not in the way the writer perhaps intended. Shame on him for writing it! Shame on you for re-publishing it!

(A Specialist in Souls) - Lees was a hoot – and the final pun actually worked!

(Stock) - Hudson: Fantastic! A masterly sense of “otherlyness” and worth expanding.

What was your favourite interview and why?

• The Peter Tennant one. I felt I knew him, having read the interview, and that he was an interesting, thoughtful man. I didn’t agree with absolutely everything he said, but it was thought-provoking. By contrast, the Sephera Giron interview didn’t seem to dig very far or reveal much of a personality.
• Peter Tennant’s – I guess because he went into theory as well as the practical and left me with a lot to think about; helped me to define more clearly questions I had about horror.
• Peter Tennant – Good length interview with an eloquent speaker.
• Peter Tennant (by Cory Harding) – It was useful to me as a writer. It roamed through a variety of topics and was basically more interesting.
• Peter Tennant’s in Issue 2, provided a good insight into his creativity, influences etc.
• Probably the Peter Tennant, but only because it was pretty exhaustive and I’ve never seen an interview with the man before.
• Peter Tennant’s because the length allowed more depth.
• Antony Mann. The questions and answers were more interesting, possibly because I already know Andy H fairly well, so nothing new there, while I’m not engaged with Sephera’s work.
• Ashley interviewing Mann because he asks good questions – short questions – and gets good replies – It’s a “quick fire” interview.
• Sephera Giron. The interview was given enough space to go into detail about her work, ideas etc. Maybe North Americans are better at talking about themselves?
• I enjoyed Sephera Giron for her “can do” attitude – even though I’ve never heard of her!
• Of no interest whatsoever.

What would you change about, and/or like to see included in ‘Midnight Street’?

• I’d change all the things I guess you, Trevor, would change if you had the money! Better production values, card cover, better cover illustration (I thought the Issue 2 one was just a bit garish and confusing; why not go for something simpler, something that the production level you’re financially constrained to can cope with better?). I’d be more selective about poetry too. I think it’s a brave thing to include poetry, but I’m afraid I thought this batch was a bit amateurish.
• Seems to be a good balance right now.
• Lose the poetry, as mostly fluff (sorry). A bit more artwork would be nice. One showcase per issue, instead of two. Would like to see a regular comment / opinion column, if you can get the right person to do it. Maybe an artist showcase. Stronger articles.
• More slipstream, less traditional horror (but that’s only my personal preference – the horror is great, of its kind!).
• Just a personal preference – I can’t cope with too much gore. I had to skip most of ‘The Choices You Make’, although it was well written, clever and very relevant.
• Maybe short comics? The comic industry needs a boost and I think the small press can help. Comics are a very under-exposed storytelling medium.
• Nothing in particular. I think the mag is ‘just about right’. However, as a beginning writer I’ve enjoyed the interviews and Allen Ashley’s ‘Second Page Syndrome’. Depending on the percentage of readers who are also writers – maybe the inclusion of a ‘writers workshop’ focusing on the genre?
• Omit all interviews.
• It’s all rather good, really. I’m personally not much of a one for poetry but I have no objection to it being included.
• Maybe a little more thought ref: layout and an avoidance of those little computer-generated interior illos – but then we’ve been spoilt by TTA, haven’t we?!
• I’m not fussed about poetry and I don’t think it would matter if it were removed.
• Throw all the poetry out – It’s rubbish. Include some reviews and letters. Perhaps a column by a good columnist.

What do you really like about ‘Midnight Street’?

• There was a clutch of good stories – ‘The End of Things’, ‘Natural Freak’ and ‘Coffin Dream’ were good, as well as the Tennant ones. The ‘showcase’ idea works very well, I think, giving a better idea of a writer and his / her work. I like the magazine’s eclectic approach.
• What I liked most? In addition to the stories I noted particularly above, I’d have good things to say about all the selections really.
• A4 size – definitely an improvement. The showcases, which let me get to know the writers and their work better. Eclectic mix of quality fiction and art.
• It’s a great survey of what’s going on in the current speculative fiction scene. I also love the easy to read format.
• The quality of the fiction.
• General high quality of articles / fiction.
• Good quality fiction. I like the showcase, but perhaps one writer per issue as opposed to the two in Issue 1.
• The potential to improve content and layout.
• A good mix of stories and plenty of them. Good layout that’s easy on the eye and makes the stories a pleasure to read.
• The stories and a real sense of the small press heart beating. My warm wishes for your continued success!
• There’s an eclectic mix of stories, plus you get the feeling that some undiscovered talent might break through with a magazine such as this.
• The covers, the illustrations, the interviews – I really like the appearance of the mag.

Please include any other comments here:

• I think Midnight Street has made a very promising beginning. The possibilities for such a magazine are endless – exciting stories, from so many genres and mixes of genres; you can afford to be adventurous in the stories you choose, as you’ll never need to worry about alienating middle England! The future looks tantalising.
• I enjoyed ‘Soapbox’ too – little reminders about the craft – amazing how we forget things we’re taught. And this was just the thing I was struggling with in my novel (second page syndrome).
• Nobody, except the editor, likes everything about a magazine and we all have our ideas for improvement. Overall though, I think you’re doing an excellent job with Midnight Street and it’s a magazine I’m proud to be associated with. Keep up the good work and ignore the knockers.
• I do not like your story headings – It’s confusing as to where a story begins. The tiny star can be overlooked and I’m sometimes not sure that a story has ended.
• Well done for including such high quality non-fiction submissions. It’s great to hear what people have to say re: SF.
• I feel a lot of the stories you’ve published are just average – nothing really outstanding – except David Penn’s – But it’s really all just a question of taste.
• I think the title change and expansion to a larger format with a colour cover looks like it’s paying off.
• I like good writing, tales told with a clarity of purpose, often open-ended, leaving the story whirling around one’s head days afterwards. Stories that make you think. While I enjoy TTA I’ve found some of the recent stories a little too ‘abstract’, leaving me unsatisfied like I’ve missed the point. In the two editions of Midnight Street, while not every story has been my ‘cup of tea’, not one has left me believing I’m a dope for not getting it. I hope to subscribe for many years to come.
• Keep up the good work!

Please comment on the MIDNIGHT STREET EXTRA section of the website:

• I’m afraid I can’t as I just don’t like reading longer, or serious, pieces of writing from a PC monitor! That’s just me – it’s not a comment on your site.
• An invaluable adjunct to the print magazine, giving us the option to go a bit deeper while not swamping Midnight Street itself with material many readers might consider extraneous / unnecessary.
• A good idea, especially if you run out of space with the interviews, which is what has made me visit that part of the website.
• I think the website as a whole is a little bland, but obviously this depends on your resources. The ‘Extra’ site is a good idea to attract readers to the website and vice-versa.

YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENCE. E-MAIL ME WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND / OR SUGGESTIONS ON THE ABOVE OR ON THE PRINT MAGAZINE AND WEBSITE