I'm being coy about books that I read for the SFBC these days, at least some of the time. There's nothing secret about this book -- it was published several years ago -- but I think it's best to let the rights-holders be the first ones to know if I liked a book or not, rather than you folks. (I hope you don't mind.)
This one is pretty good, actually, though exceptionally miscellaneous (and quite short, too).
3 comments:
I read both of your blogs. I am concerned as no one seems to comment on either one of the fine blogs. Do you think it is that people feel intimidated by an editor as is not the case with a writer? Maybe controversy is called for and I am willing to aid. I feel the SFBC needs ten times more erotica and should get rid of all those stand alone books. We want big series. Simple trilogies need not apply. I am here to serve. Good luck.
I think my posts are so long that everyone's exhausted by the time they reach the end, actually.
It would be nice to have more comments, but then I'd find myself obsessively checking comments, and arguing with people there, so I'm not sure it would be a net benefit.
Still: talk to me, people! Show me that you're out there.
Dave Garrett: I'm only being discreet because I'm posting all of the Book-A-Day entries, and it's really not professional to ramble on about unpublished books here before I've had a chance to deal with them for work. (At least some of the time.) Once I fall off the Book-A-Day wagon, I'll either not mention those books at all (which is what I did before) or say something innocuous about them in the month-end wrap-ups.
I did buy the three contemporary fantasies from last month for a 3-in-1, so I should post about them -- I'll try to do that in the next day or two.
Post a Comment