The Harlequin reprints were cut? Honestly?
What the hell were they thinking?
Hey, what was that thumping sound?
Why that was the three Harlequin reprints I bought dropping into my goddam wastebasket.
From: grbc74 <email@example.com>
Sent: Fri, November 27, 2009 9:09:36 PM
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: are authors the best judge of their work?
Not to mention that Hard Case is the only imprint that is reprinting paperbacks as it should be done. Harlequin's recent series of reprints was pathetic. Not only did they pick mostly mediocre novels (primarily based on their titles or their cover art, as one of their editors admitted in an interview on their website) but they censored and rewrote the parts that they thought might offend new readers. I bought all six as soon as I found out they were coming out. I wish I'd known about the butchering earlier.
--- In rara-avis-l@ yahoogroups. com, "davezeltserman" <Dave.Zeltserman@ ...> wrote:
> hardcasecrime" <editor@> wrote:
> > I'd think this would go without saying, but just to state the obvious: I
> > didn't want to reprint those. I wanted to reprint the first one.
> > Furst had no interest in allowing any of the three to be reprinted, and
> > he's right about two of them (but wrong about one).
> > --Charles
> Well, no. Your earlier post:
> "And a number of authors have said no to my requests to reprint some of their early work: Alan Furst won't allow his early comic pot dealer
> novels to be reprinted;"
> Gave other possible implications. But thanks for clearing this up. So far the quality of the Hardcase reprints has been very good, and I'd hate to think you'd start reprinting lousy books just to chase after some easy (easier??) money.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 Nov 2009 EST