Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:25:54 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: An imaginary conversation in the backroom of abookstore . . . .
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

>samlubell at yahoo.com 02/03/03 11:16AM
>>--- Michael Walsh <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu> wrote:
>> >bnewton at ashcomp.com 02/02/03 02:05PM
>> >Aw, c'mon Mike.  Don't hold back.  Tell us how you
>> *really* feel!
>> >
>>
>> Feel about Baen?
>> The folks who've published re-written Schmitz and
>> passed it off as =
>> original?
>> Sorry, I don't want to offend sensitive eyes reading
>> such <g>.
>
>There was an extensive debate over this in USENET.
>The editor, Eric Flint, made two telling points in my
>opinion.  The first was that this wasn't a choice
>between the edited Schmitz and an unedited volume but
>the edited Schmitz or not being able to publish the
>book.

But since no where on the books did they proclaim: Newly Edited for Your =
Taste ! ! !  I think that a false arguement.

>  The second point was that any publisher in the
>last 30 years could have reprinted the stories
>unedited if they thought these stories were so good
>that they didn't need editing, yet no one did (even
>some of the Telzey stories had not been reprinted.)

Good has nothing to do about it.  When I mention the sales of the Lens =
books to Ginjer at Ace (their prior publlisher), she basically goes, =
that's great, but still way too small for us.

If some publisher thought there was the right kind of money in reprinting =
the collected Works of R. Lionel Fanthorpe . . well, they would.