On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Tarr, Kevin wrote:
> > From:       Andrea Leistra [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> > Getting the British editions is probably your best bet.  (Actually,
> > are you sure the ones you saw _weren't_ British?  $21 sounds a bit
> > steep for a US trade paperback, I'd expect more in the line of $15.
> > If it really was $20 or more, you'd certainly be better off with the 
> > British mass-market editions; even at $15, if you order a bunch
> > you should come out ahead.  (It's the shipping that really hurts
> > on these orders.)

>       I forgot that regular paperback books were $7 now. The price was
> about $15 for each, didn't look at the publishing. Never saw the type of
> book before, they were just a little smaller than hardcover size, and not as
> thick. To me they looked like those large print Reader's Digest you might
> see in a doctor's office. Don't remember the titles now.

Oh.

Um.

If you don't mind me asking, how long has it *been* since you bought
new books in the US?  Trade paperbacks, which is what those are, have
been around for years and years (and mass-market books haven't
been $5 for quite a while either!)  They're becoming increasingly
popular with publishers because they can't be stripped (mass-market
paperbacks can be "stripped", which means bookstores can rip off the
front covers and return them for credit, destroying the rest of the
book; most bibliophiles view this practice with undisguised horror).
I assure you they have nothing whatsoever to do with Readers' Digest.

The two you saw, in that case, will have been _Player of Games_ and
_The Bridge_, which are in print in US editions.  _Player of Games_ is
excellent, a good Culture book to read early on in the set.  _The
Bridge_ is debatable in its SFness; it was originally published as one
of his mainstream fiction books, but it certainly has SFnal elements.

I don't know when or if _Look to Windward_ will be released in the US,
but do not read it until after you've read _Consider Phlebas_.

--  
Andrea Leistra                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we could put a man on the moon, why can't we do it again?


Reply via email to