>>Mainstream publishers will always chose what they
think will sell -
>quality has little to do with it. Not all the Jim
Thompson books are
>masterpieces but almost all have been reprinted since
the 1980's.
>Personally, I'm glad to have the material available
for me to decide
>which are the good ones & which aren't). And what
is junk to one reader
>may be a flawed masterpiece to another(again, see
Thompson reprints). I
>agree you'd want to see the "good" books republished
but I also feel
>that some authors' books are worth republishing even
if they aren't all
>masterpieces - in the end there's only one way of
finding out if a book
>is any good & that is to read it, which is rather
problematic if the
>book isn't available to read.
>
Rene:
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind seeing an author's works
reprinted in toto a la Thompson. I'm in hock to the rare book
dealers enough as it is. I just think that publishers should
start with the top drawer material. They should dig deeper
into the barrel only after getting (and keeping) the best
stuff in print. I think there's nothing worse than stacks of
remaindered books to kill a publisher's interest in a reprint
program.
I'm thinking specifically about my personal fave, Fredric
Brown, a man who has been poorly served by the reprinters.
True, some of his best books have been resurrected over the
years, but several excellent titles(MADBALL and THE WENCH IS
DEAD spring to mind) have been out of print since the '50s.
Yet ROGUE IN SPACE, perhaps his worst ever book, has been
reprinted at least once.
It just hurts.
--Scott
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 01 Jun 2002 EDT