Talk:SF Masterworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] #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)

[edit] 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)