| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 26 Jul 2003 : 22:38:34
Heres a question hopefully the WotC FR authors here at Candlekeep or someone might be able to clarify for me...
When FR novels were part of a trilogy (as was the norm in the days of TSR) or a series, the title of the series was actually suffixed with "Trilogy" or "Series" ("Quintet" or "Saga" in a couple of cases, just in case anyone wants to be picky  ), why has this been dropped? Its much nicer to call it, say, The Sembia Series rather than just Sembia, or The Rogues Series instead of The Rogues.
Also in the same way, lately being the above two mentioned (Sembia and The Rogues), there is no novel numbering. Now I can partially understand this for The Rogues as the novels are stand alone, but the novels in Sembia should really be read in order to get the full story and information which is passed between some of the novels. Certainly in the case of Sembia, the reading order and such numbering is very relevent.
Bring back the old "Book n of The x Trilogy"  |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 02 Aug 2003 : 04:27:08
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
That's okay Mr Reid. I should be the one to apologise. When I originally wrote that post, I was extraordinarily tired.
Ok, gotchya. Just wanted to be helpful if I could.
Thomas |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 02 Aug 2003 : 00:08:30
Actually it always bothered me that the HARPER series was numbered. I wanted to shelve all the Arilyn books together, but their numbers were screwy then, and people would look at my shelf and go :" er duh do you know the books are out of order duh..." it used to really annoy me. Then I threw the other harper books in my book box and left Elaine's books on the shelf. THen I got the " er duh where are the other books of the series duh..." and I got annoyed and told them I was made from pure Chaos and a Duke of the Abyss so numbering was contrary to my nature.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 01 Aug 2003 : 15:42:53
That's okay Mr Reid. I should be the one to apologise. When I originally wrote that post, I was extraordinarily tired.
What I had actually meant to say was that, I was just a little disappointed that readers who have FR novels (like myself) that include numbering and series titles, felt like we would now be missing out.
|
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 01 Aug 2003 : 14:28:19
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
What is the case for those of us then, who have the 'older (lower) numbers in the series'?. Why must we miss out on series titling and numbering?.
SoP,
I wasn't just blowing you off when I said I didn't understand your question. I'm not sure why you must "miss out" on anything. Can you reword the question? I'm just slow, but I'd like to understand.
Thomas |
| Faraer |
Posted - 30 Jul 2003 : 23:22:01
Some of the recent books, such as the Avatar reissues, do number the volumes. It's the really large series, like Harpers and the FR sourcebooks, that seem to really make people think 'damn, I can't start on this series so late'. |
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 30 Jul 2003 : 23:15:35
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
What is the case for those of us then, who have the 'older (lower) numbers in the series'?. Why must we miss out on series titling and numbering?.
I'm not sure I understand your question.  Sorry to be dense.
Thomas |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Jul 2003 : 07:04:24
Hmm...that's interesting.
What is the case for those of us then, who have the 'older (lower) numbers in the series'?. Why must we miss out on series titling and numbering?.
|
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 30 Jul 2003 : 00:49:37
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
I preferred the "Book n of The x Trilogy" system. I really like seeing all my novels lined up on my shelves in proper numbered order.
This is precisely the reason the publishers avoid doing it. The problem arises in the bookstore when a potential customer comes in and sees a series on the shelves with numbers missing. Often, the older (lower) numbers in the series are out of print, which means that said customer can't get the whole set. Typically, this dissuades them from buying any of the books, and the publisher loses sales. So, they have stopped numbering the books in a series (such as the Harpers series) so that they can sell off even partial backlist.
Thomas |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Jul 2003 : 02:17:41
I used to have that problem when I was reading my way through that particular storyline, but I find the easiest way for me to distinguish them was just to note that Pools of Darkness was the only title to have a plural form of 'Pool', and therefore I always equated that as the second book, since it was obvious that Pool of Radiance always came first.
|
| Mythander |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 17:58:08
quote:
Originally posted by Rad
Bring back the old "Book n of The x Trilogy"
YES! I do like numbering. I had a problem the other day with the Pools books or the Phlan series, depending on who you talk to. As we all know there are Pool of Radiance, Pools of Darkness and Pools of Twilight. Well, going by logic and nothing else I figured it would go Radiance, Twilight and then Darkness since there was no numbering. I did not find my error until I was a chapter into Pools of Twilight. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 06:50:54
DrizztFan said -
quote:
Question is are there new material in these releases or are they the same publication? Appreciate if someone could shed some light on this please. Thanks.
In most cases, no. These newer editions contain no new material. It just adds a level of completeness to the series as a whole. Although there a few cases where some novels contain revised or updated material, like Ed Greenwood's re-release of the original Spellfire. However if you regularly check the WotC website, they normally annouce whether a re-release contains any new material.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 06:21:33
If one has an old copy, I cannot see buying a repackaged mass market book. I WOULD buy a repackaged Hard Cover, but when I found the avatar trilogy re-packaged I felt no desire to have to buy it. But then again very few Forgotten Realms books make it to my display bookshelf (you all know why), usually I throw them in my box of mass market books that I keep. I am way more into the REALMS for its game material, though I always find myself succumbing to the need to read FR novels
|
| DrizzitFan |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 03:31:50
There have been recent re-releases of earlier titles under new fancy arcs, e.g. the Arilyn/Danilo, Shandril aka Spellfire and one more perhaps. Question is are there new material in these releases or are they the same publication? Appreciate if someone could shed some light on this please. Thanks.
Also agree that the "Book x of n Trilogy/Quintet/etc" works best. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 11:59:12
Repackaging does have it's advantages. It allows those fans who may have missed the first printings of particular novels a chance to purchase the newer editions.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 11:53:55
I think I have to agree as well, though I don't find it really that annoying. Just a matter of asthetics.
Of course, now Wizards is going to repackage everything again, to suck more money out of our pockets . . . . |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 02:34:27
I support this idea fully Rad .
I preferred the "Book n of The x Trilogy" system. I really like seeing all my novels lined up on my shelves in proper numbered order.
As for the series titles though, isn't that a personal choice on what you decide to call it. I mean you can pretty much say the Sembia novels and most FR readers will know you are talking about the Sembia Series so...
|
