It was suggested that "Ex Machina" didn't sell well enough in its first release, but I was thrilled to note a recent copy I examined in my local bookshop said it was a third printing.
I miss the old days...
- Thread starter Garm Bel Iblis
- Start date
It was suggested that "Ex Machina" didn't sell well enough in its first release, but I was thrilled to note a recent copy I examined in my local bookshop said it was a third printing.
I'm all for the "alongside", too. Clearly, what we need to accommodate this is to go back to the two MMPBs per month schedule.Then we have plenty of room for both, and you author folk are just going to have to work harder. That's all there is to it.
Agreed!!! Anyone at Pocket Books listening?
^ Yep. The accountants. So, you know.....buy more stuff.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
That was great!
^ Seconded. I literally was laughing out loud.
.
I second this suggestion in the most enthusiastic manner possible!
but they didn't have trade back in those days. For example, with the 2 Myriad Universe books, we had 6 extra stories in that year, stories that were about the length of the old novels. Plus the Trek novels these days are a lot longer than the old days.
I know people complain there are fewer ST books on shop shelves these days but look at some of the recent MMPB releases. They take up three times the spine width of the Bantam and earliest Pocket novels.
Hell, I wouldn't trade Mission: Gamma: Twilight for any three of the numbered books put together that I can think of, regardless of size.
If Mission: Gamma: Twilight were printed with the same font size and at the margin size as the old books, it'll probably be about 5 times the spine width. As for Crucible: McCoy, not only did they have to use tiny fonts, they had to resort to extremely thin paper!
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
This is all true, but to play Devil's advocate, more novels meant that if a certain Trek book's story didn't appeal to you, maybe the other one that month would.
It also meant that there would be more stories from the different shows, as one novel usually sticks to one show, so more novels might mean you'd get to see TNG more often for example.
It also meant that there would be more stories from the different shows, as one novel usually sticks to one show, so more novels might mean you'd get to see TNG more often for example.
No, it's more like 3; I think I had a conversation with Christopher about this once where he mentioned that Twilight was bout 180,000 words; that the Ordover-era commissions were for about 60,000 words each but that some undershot; so Twilight was slightly longer than the entire Rebels trilogy.
But not 5 times or, as someone kept saying a couple years ago, "one DRG3 book is longer than 10 books by Susan Wright!"
I'd pick quality over quantity. 60,000 awesome words > 180,000 rubbish filler-packed ones.
I'm not talking about any book in perticular here. Just principle.
I'm not talking about any book in perticular here. Just principle.
I think books in the Ordover era were typically in the 70,000 to 85,000-word range. 60,000 seems more like the length of the very early Pocket novels or the Bantam novels.
Similar threads
