User talk:Robertreginald

[Archived Messages]

The Radio Red Killer
Hello, your submission would lead to adding a second (longer) title for a title we already have. Wouldn't it be better to use the 'add publication' feature? (Holding your submission for that time). Stonecreek 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I finally accepted it and merged the two titles. Stonecreek 10:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chambrion and Other Stories
You gave the author of this collection as "Ponson du Terrail, Pierre-Alexis". I've corrected it to the ISFDB standard of entering the author credit in the order in which it is given in the publication ("Pierre-Alexis Ponson du Terrail"). Also, based on the introduction and afterword credit, can we assume that the translation was also by Stableford? If so, that should be noted in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We've signed with Stableford for a number of his original translations of early French fantastic literature. Robertreginald 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Christmas Megapacks
What are the pieces which begin each of these two publications: here and here? If they're introductions, they should be typed as ESSAY. Mhhutchins 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, both of these are nonfiction introductions. Robertreginald 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Then I'll correct them to ESSAY. Do they have a title such as "Introduction", or are they the title of the anthology (as they're given now), or are they untitled? Mhhutchins 19:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

They're as given now, with the essay title the same as the title for the overall compilation. I'll probably change that with the new bunch Mary and I are currently editing (two cat and one dog Megapacks), to use a standard "Introduction" title for the preliminary essays. Robertreginald 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Valencies
Please check the ISBN given in this record. It's come up as an invalid number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Check digit should be "5". Robertreginald 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Xeno Fiction
I changed this record from ANTHOLOGY to NONFICTION. The first is for a publication which collects short fiction by more than one author. Mhhutchins 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This one was also incorrectly accepted. I've fixed it too. Mhhutchins 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Deathwind of Vedun
Are you certain that this work retitles the 1983 novel Samurai Combat? There's a 1982 novel with a similiar title: Deathwind of Vedun. Mhhutchins 03:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the way that Ted Rypel wanted it in this new edition of the trilogy. Robertreginald 20:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fearn's Golden Amazon reprints
I meant to tell you this before, while you were adding the past three or four volumes of the Borgo Press reprints of this series. Don't use the Clone function to create the record, because the records you're cloning include contents which are not included in reprints. You should only use the Clone function if the contents are identical and the types match. (The Borgo Press reprints are novels while the Gryphon editions were collections.) It takes several subsequent submissions to fix the record. The best method is to use the "Add New Novel" function. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Robertreginald 21:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dog Megapack ebook
Are all of the stories that you added as content in this publication record speculative fiction? There are a few that I'm familiar with which are not spec-fic. Mhhutchins 21:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * They may or may not be, but even the content on the questionable pieces can often be evaluated in several ways. For example, KAZAN, the longest story in the book, isn't told in the first person, but it presumes knowledge of a dog's intellect and thoughts that simply is impossible to gauge in any ordinary way. How DID Curwood know exactly what his chief character was thinking--and are canines REALLY that profound? And I won't even comment on "The Sound of the Barkervilles," which is a Sherlock Holmes pastiche--but with all-doggie characters. So, with the animal-oriented megapacks, I'm providing complete contents' listings. Next up will be Horse and Bugs (not the same books!), with Cat 3 and Dog 2 to follow. On something like the Slavery anthology, or Victorian Mysteries Deux, which are some of the ones currently under development, obviously I won't. Robertreginald 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If the stories are borderline, there's no problem, but in cases where stories are obviously ineligible, you can enter the non-spec stories in the Note field and create content records only for the spec-fic and borderline ones. (Even if the subject is slavery or Victorian mysteries!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this on the substantially non-genre megapack anthologies, of which there'll be an increasing number as time goes on--and only list the very few items that might be considered SF, fantasy, and horror. Thanks, as always, for your help and advice. Keep in mind that whenever you want to look at these yourself, I'd be happy to copy you a PDF of the final version; you have my email address. By the way, I forgot to add on the Contents list for Dog-1 an ABOUT THE AUTHORS section, which I wrote, starting on p. 610. Robertreginald 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

[And] Happiness Everlasting
Do you know if Gerald Warfield's And Happiness Everlasting (dated 2011) in might be the same story as his Happiness Everlasting from 2010's ? Thanks. --MartyD 11:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I think Timelines uses the wrong title in its TOC (but the right title within the book).  I am double-checking with the verifier of that publication.  --MartyD 13:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TIMELINES is the original source publication for this story--which we licensed--and I have the story title listed appropriately, based on the credits in the ebook anthology (which I own). Robertreginald 19:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Verifier confirmed, fixed, and everything merged and looking good.  --MartyD 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your help--and your attention to detail, which is very important with these records. I'm not immune to making mistakes, so I always appreciate the cross-check. I'll be adding records for many more of these books in the Megapack series in the near future--all of those that fit the parameters of this database--and editing (with Mary) a bunch more of these volumes for Wildside Press. Robertreginald 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[The] Peacemaker
In, is Dozois' Peacemaker by any chance missing a leading "The"? We have a bunch of over verified publication using "The Peacemaker", including the August 1983 ''Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine", which prominently features "The Peacemaker" on the cover, so I'm guessing "The" was indeed present in those publications. Thanks.  --MartyD 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This IS the same story (the credit on the Acknowledgments Page is identical). But...I just checked the ebook, and "Peacemaker" is the way it's used throughout this particular volume. So, it's a title variation. Robertreginald 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Varianted it is. Thanks for checking. --MartyD 17:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Poe story in The Steampunk Megapack
Can you confirm the title of this story? It's usually "Adventure" and not "Adventures", and the name is usually given as "Hans Pfaall" and not "Hans Pfaal". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The title is exactly as shown on the anthology Contents page and on the title page for the story. However, Hans's name is given as "Pfaall" throughout the story itself. Robertreginald 20:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll make a variant. It's typos like this that really make me wonder if I'll ever get into ebooks. Do ebook publishers these days even have proofreaders? It's like they rush these publications by using electronic files that have been scanned from print books and no one ever actually reads the results. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's always a problem--and not just with ebooks. Mary and I are constantly finding misspellings, typographical errors, continuity issues, lapses in logic, grammatical errors, illogical plots, a complete lack of sense in the storylines, etc., in present-day trade print books, which seem to be edited by a bunch of moronic monkeys pounding the keys of those infinite typewriters in the sky. This includes bestsellers. Most of our Borgo Press print books are currently being proofed by their authors, all of them long-time pros--and if they fail to catch these things in their own publications, I'm not sure what we else can do beyond that. We WILL proof volumes where the author has no connectivity, or where we've seen a pattern of problems with their own proofing. We're also trying to proof the Megapacks we're editing for Wildside--we were brought into this process this past year, and have now completed two CAT Megas, two Christmas volumes (2012), and one DOG, most of them in the last month, and have almost finished the first HORSE Mega (I'm still writing my own story for that one). But...you need to understand that the huge number of words included in these anthologies makes detailed proofing difficult. I edit 200+ books a year for Wildside--we do far more than the SF-related titles listed in this database--but there are just two of us here at the Borgo Press imprint. No staff whatsoever. Adding selective Megapack editing to our duty-roster has forced us to scale back the production of our other books, because some of these anthologies reach 500, 600, even 1000 pages of text. They're very time-consuming to edit, and neither of us are as young or energetic as we used to be. That's not an excuse--just a fact. I'm also trying to enter retrospectively on this database the biblio details of the Megapacks edited by John Betancourt that were previously published by Wildside, and whose subject matter qualifies them for inclusion here (about a third fall outside the spec-fic category). More than 80 Megas have been published thus far--and many more are in development. I resisted Kindle for many years. One of the reasons I use it now is that when I fall asleep reading late at night (more often than not!), I don't lose my place--which I often do with print books. It's not the format that matters, only the content--and how comfortable each individual is in adapting to new media. I love my work--I'd do it for nothing. Cheers. Robertreginald 22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A typo here and there in a 1000 page publication is understandable. But in the title of the work? That's inexcusable. Mhhutchins 22:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I once complained to a writer friend at a con about another writer who was way too loud, in my opinion, whom I felt was out-of-line with the decorum that one ought to expect of professionals at a public function. My friend said: "But...don't you realize, he's very hard of hearing, and he doesn't realize he's speaking too loud." No, I didn't understand--and I never said anything about this writer ever again--and I felt terrible about my impulsive leap-to-judgment. Similarly, there are reasons why this particular error occurred that you're completely unaware of--and that must remain private. But I'm aware of them, and I assure you that it wasn't carelessness or incompetence that caused the problem. I make too many mistakes myself--particularly as I age--to worry overmuch about such things at this stage of my life. Yes, I lament what I see as a general drop in standards in the editing of books for publication--at every level. I try to make as few errors myself as I can--which is all I can do in the end--and I make certain that Mary reads everything that I write myself: for content, for continuity, for spelling, for missing words (something I have a tending to do when typing fast). But things slip through anyway--including on cover copy, much to my mortification. All you can do is fix them, when that's possible. So, my dear friend, be kind--at least to my work! You do an excellent job here, and are to be commended--along with your colleagues--for the care you take in maintaining a (mostly) error-free database. Good bibliography is very hard to do, as I know from personal experience. Robertreginald 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that you were involved in any way with the publication in which this error appeared. (My assumption was that your involvement in these Megapacks was limited to those in which you were credited as editor.) If you had a hand in the editing and proofing of this publication, please accept my apologies since it's obvious that you feel that what I said was inappropriate or insensitive, or both. My remarks were spur-of-the-moment without much thought put into them and without regard to any consequences the posting of them would make. I meant no disrespect to you and the work you're doing, both professionally at Borgo Press and voluntarily here on the ISFDB. Again, I apologize. Mhhutchins 04:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't involved directly in the production of any of the Megapacks save Christmas-1, Christmas-2, Cat-1, Cat-2, and Dog-1 (plus a slew of others forthcoming), all of which were co-edited with Mary--but I'm privy to information you're not. Indirectly, I've suggested topics for various of these anthologies, as well as stories to be included in ones that I didn't edit myself; and it goes the other direction as well. It's easy for any of us to point fingers at a distance, and say (perhaps with justification), "I would have done that differently," without being aware of circumstances that may have been beyond anyone's control. Many hands have contributed to the creation of some of the Megapacks, not just mine or Mary's or John's. Small publishers all suffer from the same ills that the original Borgo Press had: not enough time, not enough help, not enough money. One of my previously published stories was purchased a year or two ago for reprint in a Mega that has yet to appear, one that was edited by an outsider; it's been left unfinished thus far. Presumably, I or John will have to pick up the pieces at some point, and make do with what we've already got--because we can't really toss the work already accomplished. The one overriding principle that I learned early in my career as a writer and editor is that you absolutely have to finish projects within a reasonable period of time. Yes, the content is important too, and I'm not denigrating the need for quality control--but if you don't actually publish the work, what good is it? I've left at least 40 books lying by the wayside in my 45-year career, perhaps half of which were beyond my control (the rest I never completed). I had at various times offers of major editorial positions (one with a six-figure salary), and promises of major break-out novels, none of which were ever realized--again, often beyond my control (I turned down the high-paying editorial job for what I considered to be valid reasons). I do the best job I possibly can for my authors, some of whom are facing the end of their careers in very poor circumstances, having nothing to show for perhaps 200 professional books published in the lifetimes save a lame Wikipedia entry. It's all about the writing--and the writers--not us. Or so I believe. Anywho, I need to complete "Horse Latitudes," my sequel to Gulliver, to put THE HORSE MEGAPACK to bed--and these wretched ramblings are just one way of trying to dodge the work! Cheers, my friend. Robertreginald 17:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Horse Megapack
I'm uncertain about the inclusion of Black Beauty in this record. I can not recall any fantasy or speculative elements in the novel (other than being narrated by the horse, which in itself doesn't make it spec-fic.) Is there any other reason why the title should be eligible? The author doesn't qualify as a spec-fic author, so her non-genre works would not be eligible for the db. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The story is told by--and from the POV--of the horse. Might as well be Mr. Ed. Robertreginald 20:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Ed talked to his owner. I don't recall that happening in Black Beauty or any other unnatural event. I guess we have different definitions of speculative fiction and leave it at that. Mine is closer to the one you used in compiling your standard reference Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, which doesn't include Sewell's novel. Would you also consider the novel War Horse spec-fic, since it is narrated by the horse? Mhhutchins 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In essence, these works make horses sentient beings, with considered thoughts and comments of their own that are far beyond any possible realistic estimation of an equine's actual intelligence. Definitions change over time--and one is never omniscient in gathering data in any case. How many works of SF are omitted from this database, simply because folks are unaware of them, or if they are aware, have no firm data to contribute, or they just can't be bothered to contact anyone here? Case in point: Phil Harbottle's anthology series, Fantasy Adventures. You're missing #13, the last one published (in 2008, I believe). I don't own this book, so I can't give you the data--but I know it exists, because we've published collections under my imprint that drew on this volume as a source for the credits. I have no idea how many Wildside Press books you've missed, but I would guess that there are more than a few. Again, without spending a considerable amount of my own time tracking down this stuff, time that I just don't have right now, I have no easy way of finding or adding the data. I would if I could. Back to THE DOLL MEGAPACK. Robertreginald 02:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pointing out what is missing in the db is a pointless exercise, especially since the discussion was about whether a single title is eligible. There are going to be missing titles, ones that are truly spec-fic. If they were all here, I wouldn't be systematically going through Tuck and Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, and adding new titles every day. I find it strange that in the 18 years of the database's existence know one has added such a famous title if they thought it was spec-fic. It can slide for now, but it will come up for discussion when another editor or user stumbles across it. Mhhutchins 03:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My own experience suggests that there's a randomness to data gathering that defies description or corralling--just as one can never seem to find all of the typographical errors in a book that one's writing or editing. Witness the efforts of the OED recently to track down an obscure mid-nineteenth century British tome that was cited by an early researcher as the first appearance of a number of words in the English language. That the book existed is incontrovertible--but no one's been able to find a copy (so far). Years after I finished SF&FL, friends of mine kept sending me notes on books I (and everyone else) had missed. I think they finally gave up when they realized I wasn't going to do a Third Edition (no market for it). You do the best you can with the time and resources you have. In the end, that's all you can do. Overall, you and your colleagues have done a great job with this database. It continues to become increasingly valuable as time goes on. I wish all of you could get the credit you deserve. Robertreginald 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Robert. Your efforts, both present and past (and future!), are much appreciated. Mhhutchins 21:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On another topic, do you consider the original Tom Swift series as non-SF? If so, then I won't list this Megapack. Robertreginald 20:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're speaking of this series, there's no problem with adding this omnibus publication to the database. Mhhutchins 02:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Weinbaum listing in SF&F Literature 1975-1991
On page 1041 of your reference, there is a listing for The Best of Stanley G. Weinbaum (#14959) published by Fantasy Press. All details other than the title match this ISFDB record. Were there two variants of this collection with different titles? Mhhutchins 14:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a note in my master copy that this was an error--I accidentally flipped the two titles between the original and the British reprint. Robertreginald 19:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Annual 4
I rejected the submission to update the 2010 printing, and created a record for the 2000 printing. Please update it to make any changes or additions to the record. Mhhutchins 16:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Updating primary verified publications
When you're making changing to a record which has been primary verified, you should first notify the editor which verified the record. Some editors may no longer be active (like Dragoondelight). In this case, you should give the source for the changes. If you're working from a physical copy of the same publication, do a primary verification of the record, which lets the moderator know you have a copy, or add a note in the "Note to Moderator" field that you're working from a copy-in-hand. Keep this in mind when making future changes to primary verified records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Adventures #1
I have your submission to change the publication date of this record to 2000-05-20. If that date isn't given in the publication itself, you must give the source in the "Note" field of the record. What is your source? Mhhutchins 17:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two subsequent submissions (all within 26 seconds of each other) that duplicates the same data. We've been having problems with duplicate submissions lately, and I'm wondering if you recall making these three submissions, or did the system duplicate them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I try only to submit records to you once. For a POD book, the only true date of publication is when the volume first goes "live" at one of the printers handling it--we use both LSI and CS. Any dates listed at the end of the books reflect individual printer production dates for that particular copy of the book only--and do NOT indicate a new printing--I notice that LSI has now dropped these dates, and is instead using a more complex production code whose meaning is unclear to me. As an editor for Wildside, I have access to the printer databases recording our titles and their status, and that's what I'm using correctly to date the first appearances of these volumes. I also now have in hand a complete physical set of the three anthology series that Philip Harbottle edited for Wildside--Fantasy Annual (5 vols.), Fantasy Quarterly (1 vol.), and Fantasy Adventures (13 vols.)--save only Fantasy Annual #1-#2 (which were produced as standard trade paperbacks, and are now out-of-print); and I'll be updating all of them with correct pub and contents info, and adding Vol. 13 of FAdvs, as I have time. I'm gradually doing the same with all of ebook-only volumes in WP's Megapack series whose subject content qualifies them for inclusion. The most recent one, which I just finished and submitted yesterday, is edited by Philip Harbottle, and includes 25 stories from the Fantasy Adventures anthology series. I'll send you the data for this book when the publication is finalized by Wildside (within a few days, probably). All best. Robertreginald 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We're still trying to figure out how to handle POD. Some editors have been using the printer's print date to date the printing. This procedure is no different than using the printer's code on any non-POD publisher's books, which is an accepted method of dating a publication. But I see your point. If a POD book is printed 100 times on 100 different days, do we really need a record for every printing?
 * But back to my original question, what is the source for the publication date of 2000-05-20? If it's not stated in the book, you have to give the source in the Note field, even if only to say "Publication date not stated. Date from (the publisher's website) or (Amazon.com) or (the publisher's records) or (the editor's records)." Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The publication date in this case was taken from the printer's internal database. Robertreginald 02:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please update the record when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Subtitles
Generic subtitles are usually not given in the title field of title records, so I rejected the submission to add one to this title record. I accepted the submission to add the same subtitle to this publication record. Title fields of title records do not have to exactly match the title field of publication records, because a work's subtitle may change when reprinted by different publishers, but the basic title remains the same. Mhhutchins 17:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Borgo Press still published by Wildside?
Your last two submissions (as shown here) give the publisher as just "Borgo Press" without an indication that it is an imprint of Wildside Press. Has this changed? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. Should be B/W. Just really, really busy--too much to do! Robertreginald 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fearn's Fool's Paradise
Is this novel substantially different from Annihilation! that it should be considered a new work? If there's only minor changes, then it should be varianted to the original title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have the original in hand to compare with this book, but Philip Harbottle has taken an editorial credit, and it appears to me that he's made a number of changes in the text to bring the science and story up-to-date. I just realized also that I failed to list Phil's "Introduction" (that's the title), which runs from page 9-12. In comparing the wordage of the text of this novel with the average wordage of the standard SF novels that Fearn penned for Scion, this one's about 6,000 words longer. I know he abridged this book in order to sell it to Scion, after first trying to place it in the States. It's a very unusual piece for him, wholly lacking the optimism that permeates most of the rest of his work. Robertreginald 01:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to be substantially different, so I varianted the two. I also added Harbottle's introduction. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page messages
Your talk page is becoming increasingly large. Would it be OK if I archived the older messages? That consists of moving them to another page which would be linked to this one. Mhhutchins 02:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please proceed. Robertreginald 01:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I've removed all messages from the start until the end of last year. You can access any by clicking on the "Archived Messages" link at the top of the page. Mhhutchins 02:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Murmuring Dust / Microbes of Space by John Russell Fearn
I just finished adding this licensed story to THE BUG STORY MEGAPACK, an anthology currently in progress. We'll be using the title, "Murmuring Dust" under Fearn's real name. This originally appeared as "Microbes of Space" by "Thornton Ayre" in Amazing Stories in 1939, and was reprinted as "Murmuring Dust" by "Herbert Lloyd" in British Science Fiction Magazine #12, Apr. 1955--you have the latter author listed as a separate writer. Robertreginald 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)