Jump to content

Talk:SF Masterworks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

#71: Dune

Apologies, the 2007 hardcover reprint of Dune is indeed #71. It makes you wonder if Gollancz only have the rights for the hardcover edition in the UK (someone else already publishes Dune in paperback). What's nice about this new 2007 edition is that the text has been completely reset: It's nice and clear instead of looking like a back photocopy (like every other edition of Dune, including the 'I' 2001 hardcover edition). It's also the same price as the larger paperbacks, so no extra cost for the hardcover (which makes me think they were forced into making it hardcover, rather than their usual softcover). I picked it up today and it's great! Apologies again! Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

#72 The Moon is a harsh mistress

I preordered this book, expecting it to be shelved like others have. Surprisingly, Amazon has now sent me a message saying it has shipped and on Amazon marketplace the book is being listed as available new from other sellers. Could this mean a restart of publishing of titles in this series? In recent months quite a few have slipped out of print, which had been an ominous sign. Will the list reach 100 I wonder?

When The moon is a harsh Mistress arrives I'll see for certain if it is #72. --jek (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: I found this page on the Orion books website which confirms The moon is a harsh mistress as #72. However, it shows as being hardback rather than paperback so I wonder if this means it will be not dissimilar from #71, Dune? --jek (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally arrived - this book is exactly the same style as Dune - i.e: hardcover in the same size as the softcover ones. It has number 72 on the spine too. --jek (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The man in the High Castle

Whilst browsing in Waterstones today I noticed on their computer that The man in the high castle by Philip K. Dick was listed on their computers as available in the SF masterworks range. It was not the version published in 2001. When checking at home on Amazon, I can find the following forthcoming book listed as due out in 2010. Its ISBN 13 is: 978-0575082052.

I can find absolutely no reference to it on the Gollancz website, even when I do a search for it. It is definately a different edition to the original paperback, as Amazon has that listed here with a totally different cover.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Is it really forthcoming (new releases have been somewhat lacking since #71, Dune) or is it one of the releases which was shelved? Strangely the release date is listed on Amazon as 2010. --jek (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Have to keep an eye out. It might be something they're considering or trying to negotiate. Thanks for the heads up! Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is on the Gollancz/Orion website, but it's buried in their catalog on page 24. The catalog seems to indicate that it should have been published in July 2008.--Rtrace (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The catalogue contains listings for three books in 2008/9. Where does the number 72 come from for The Robert Heinlein book? I cannot find any confirmation that this will definitely appear as this number as two other books in the Gollancz catalogue are listed for earlier release (though did not appear, admittedly) I also notice that 'Childhood's end' was supposed to be released in August but its ISBN now lists it for the nebulous date of Jan 2010. Does this mean that the Heinlein book will in fact disappear too without trace? It's a shame as this is such a great set of books and I was looking forward to 'The man in the high castle'. --Zoe.R (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found this listed on Amazon for this book. It looks like this really is coming out. On the other hand, on the face of it, Amazon's listing suggests that it is already available. I'm going to keep an eye on this one. --jek (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's listed as forthcoming on the Gollancz website with a release date of September the 19th 2009. Also, Childhood's end by Arthur C. Clarke also appears with a release date of January 2010. --jek (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally arrived this morning, though Gollancz have lost count and it has the number 72 on the cover instead of 73. It is hardback, the same as Dune and The moon is a harsh mistress. --jek (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbers after 73

These have been added to the list, but there is no evidence of these numbers being allocated. Childhood's end is the only book I can confirm that will match the SF Masterworks format of the previous 73. In addition, I find it hard to believe that The Time machine will appear again, given it is already in the list at 24.

If nothing can be put forward to back up these listings, I suggest their removal until they can be verified. I have seen some of the 'new' SF Masterworks in the flesh and they are not the same series, despite the recycling of the name. I have Childhood's end on order and will confirm its number when it arrives. It is at least looking to be in the same style as the traditional series. --jek (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence on the Gollancz site that the books listed after #73 are actually part of the same set as the rest of the SF MAsterworks. They share a name, but that's where it seems to end. Covers are different, and there is no numbering system. I believe therefore that unless the style of new books matches those of the older books, they should be considered a different series.
Childhood's end was touted as being the next SF Masterwork, however despite having a matching cover in the ISBN database, Gollancz's site confusingly shows this with a different cover (on the same ISBN which I was under the impression from my own work in publishing that the cover image was not changeable after the details had been uploaded to the ISBN database). I am therefore removing all titles listed after #73 for this reason. --jek (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason

At the moment, this reads a bit like an advert. However, the SF Masterworks series does have a very good editorial policy, and is widely regarded as an authoritative list of classics. Certainly most of these books deserve an article. How can we NPOV this page?

Hi, I'm not affiliated with Gollancz in any way, and added the articles for precisely that reason. And besides, I thought it was useful to have an up-to-date list of the books online, most other lists (including the one at the SF Site) aren't updated very often Goblin 01:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think such a list is very useful. However I would be interested in learning more about the series: publication date for each book, projected "finish time", how they have been selected, has the list been finalised entirely prior to publication? Can I buy the lot somewhere? :> -- Jon Dowland 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This page about Malcolm Edwards the editor who started the series provides some of this info and should be incorporated into the article. Htaccess 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing the article was--why this publisher's list? I've seen any number of similar projects over the last 30 years, and while they're always interesting and useful as an index of what (usually) OP items a publisher thinks will sell, they're no more authoritative than any fan site's list of faves. If I understand wiki culture correctly (and I've only been participating for a couple months), a "best of" list is better served by, say, a list of award winners (or winners and nominees) or best-sellers, or even a compilation of other "best" lists. In fact, such a compilation of lists already exists for SF, as Chapter 16 of Anatomy of Science Fiction, 5th ed., ed. Neil Barron. RLetson 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To sort of support Letson's point: neither "Frankenstein" nor "Looking Backward" is on this list of "the" classics of SF.
It's quite a highly regarded list that's been going for nearly 10 years now. Ian M. Banks described it thusly: "An amazing list - genuinely the best novels from sixty years of SF'. Note he says the past 60 years. This might explain why Frankenstein and Looking Backward are not the list. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking at this list on the Orion books website and couldn't help but notice that all the HG Wells books are out of print. Indeed, book number 24 (the time machine) is conspicuous by being missing from this supposed complete list. Does anyone know why the HG Wells books have dropped from the list? Is there a copyright issue with them? --jek (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just an oversight on the website, I don't *think* it has to do with anything. There's a few other titles missing, and they're not HG Wells. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the fact that Malcolm Edwards devised the list or that Iain Banks likes it doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia (as much respect as I have for both those guys). Why not any of the half-dozen or so historical reprint series that have come and gone over the last 30-some years? If one wants some sort of authoritative list of "best" SF, it seems more reasonable to collect a bunch of them (and lists from reference works such as Anatomy of Wonder) and note the common items. If it's a matter of which of "the best" might be in print, that's a job for Amazon, not an encyclopedia. As it stands, this is either an ad or a fannish tribute, and in either case it probably ought not stay here in this form. RLetson (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the series, but if you list this you'll have to list A LOT of other stuff too. That's not the nature of an encyclopedia. --217.18.181.18 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the parent posters are aware that the series itself is called 'SF Masterworks'. This is not just a list of great SF novels by whoever feels they want to contribute, it is specifically about the SF Masterworks series as published by Gollancz. I believe that this article is no different from any other 'Best of' or 'Greatest Hits' list on Wikipedia. Take for example the article: Guns N' Roses Greatest Hits - the songs chosen for this album may not be GNR's best songs in the opinion of everyone, but the page exists because the album does; and just because this page lists what someone thought were their best songs, doesn't mean the page should list what others think the best songs are. Brattgeoff (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Brattgeoff. The page is explicitely about the Gollancz series, which is now in print for quite some time, i.e. it has had and still has some impact, and is a very good reference for getting to know SF in general over a longer timespan. Links to other series would be appreciated, though :) Plmr (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Future Releases

In case I forget to update in the future, you can find info on upcoming releases here: link. I cross-referenced the dates with information found on Amazon UK and The Book Depository, both some-what trustworthy book-selling sources in the UK. Also, when I updated the list I made sure to go through Gollancz's previously releases and check if any books were missing, so now I'm confident that the releases up to and including 2014 the list is up-to-date. Ckrauser (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

New Additions to Numbered List

I noticed that another 70 books or so have been added to the numbered list by IP 203.215.117.2 with no confirmation of where the information came from. they are listed without ISBN or release date, can anyone confirm that these are in fact real, or remove them? It seems to me that they are just the hardcover books and unnumbered books, minus any that were already published in the numbered series, but then there are a few more on the end. I personally believe these should be removed from the numbered list, and if the ones on the end are future unnumbered titles they should go in the unnumbered list. AvatarIII (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on SF Masterworks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SF Masterworks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Titles originally published in hardback, later in paperback

Several - perhaps all, I've not yet checked - of the HG Wells books previously published only in hardback, have now been released in paperback, presumably due to his works entering the public domain. I'm not sure whether it's going to be better (clearer) to add the additional ISBN and publication date to the existing table, or create an additional one? Open to suggestions ahead of me collating and editing in the relevant info...ErsatzCulture (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of real vs pen names?

Swastika Night is attributed to Katharine Burdekin, whereas the book is actually published as being authored by the pen name Murray Constantine - amazon.co.uk page for reference. The James Tiptree Jr and Cordwainer Smith titles are listed under those pen-names, which seems a bit inconsistent to me. I'm guessing this is because those are the names of the relevant Wikipedia pages. Any objections to changing the label text to Murray Burdekin, whilst still keeping the link to Katharine Burdekin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErsatzCulture (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've now updated Burdekin to Constantine given lack of any objections.ErsatzCulture (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

New design vs original series

The article doesn't really describe the physically differences between books in the original "numbered" series (pre 2010) and those in the relaunched/new design series (post 2010). As someone with only a fairly recent interest in this series, I've assumed that the former are/were the "black" designs, and the latter the "yellow" designs.

The Worlds Without End page illustrates the two styles of cover, and the switch from one style to the other seems to broadly fall in line with the tables in this page. This understanding seems to be corroborated by other pages on the net, so I've added a photo and a bit of text to the new design section (with horrible markup to breakfix to ensure the table takes the full page width - if anyone can fix that, please do) to cover that. I guess it would be good to have something similar for the original series also?

However, this raises a couple of issues:

  • There are many titles that are available with the new design covers, which aren't listed in the "new design" section. For example, just from the ones visible in the photo I've uploaded, A Fall of Moondust, VALIS, The Dispossessed, Flowers for Algernon, Eon, More Than Human etc. There are 26 titles listed in both series (e.g. Forever War, I am Legend), but I can't fathom if there's any criteria determining what - if any - difference there might be to explain why some are listed twice and some not.
  • I relatively recently (early 2017) picked up a couple of "black cover" titles - The Shrinking Man and Flow My Tears..., for what it's worth - that don't have any numbering on the cover or the inside, unlike the spines visible in this photo. Was the numbering scheme perhaps abandoned before the new design came into effect? ErsatzCulture (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Long Loud Silence by Wilson Tucker

This appears to have been planned for around 2014, to the extent of the artist posting his cover art for it, stating "due out from Gollancz in a few months time". A July 2015 post on the SF Gateway forum by (I think) Malcolm Edwards states "it is still scheduled to appear", but I can't find anything since then. (That forum comment hints at contractual issues holding things up, which possibly never got resolved?)

Does this merit adding to the main page? We already have entries on the page for unpublished Thomas Disch works from the original series, but I don't know how "official" those were, to know if the information available for this title is comparable.ErsatzCulture (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now added a subsection to the Announced section, as there are now a number of announced-but-cancelled-or-delayed titles besides this one ErsatzCulture (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SF_Masterworks/Archive_1&oldid=1139989120"