Book Thread

Post by **Nanook** » Tue, 21. Nov 17, 20:47

mrbadger wrote:...Orwells 'The Time Machine'....

Silly me, I thought H.G. Wells wrote 'The Time Machine'.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Tue, 21. Nov 17, 20:48

Nanook wrote:
mrbadger wrote:...Orwells 'The Time Machine'....
Silly me, I thought H.G. Wells wrote 'The Time Machine'.

Oops....

It was Autocorrect wot dunnit, honest.....

Post by **Nanook** » Tue, 21. Nov 17, 20:53

Can we blame autocorrect for all the awful books written since the dawn of computers? Or is it monkeys + autocorrect?

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Tue, 21. Nov 17, 22:14

Monkeys, all the way down

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 11:06

mrbadger wrote:Monkeys, all the way down

Oh no, not another flat-earther...

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 11:33

Flat as the flattest of flat things made of purest flat.....

I'm still trying to get my head round how the Universe is flat. That I can't quite grasp.

I kind of get it, but a flat thing having a three dimensional topology just ends up confusing me again.

I'm no physicist.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 15:11

mrbadger wrote:...I'm still trying to get my head round how the Universe is flat. That I can't quite grasp...

Don't think in terms of "shape" and it may be easier.

Related: Friedmann Equation.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 16:59

You give me that to read after a day writing parallel programming assignments?

I think it'll have to sit on my desktop and wait till I have room to take it in.

Looks interesting though. Starts easily enough anyway. Then it fast heads into 'you've used me too much today' territory for my poor brain.

Beware scientific papers that use the word 'Simply'.....

But anyway. I had something to show. I found this by chance in a second hand book shop a few years back.

[ external image ]

Anyone see why I was so excited to find it? Cost me £1.50, no idea as to its actual value, not that it matters, since resale is not an option.

The book itself is pretty mediocre. Nothing I would have set out to buy deliberately.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 07:05

No idea. It looks interesting, though. The mechanicals look somewhat familiar, but can't place them atm.

The crawler does look like an old "hot-dog" truck, though.

Or, an industrial sized marital aid...

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 10:03

That book looks like the cover of every single publication in the "Science Fiction/Fantasy" shelf of my local library when I was growing up.

One artist to rule them all.

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 10:09

mrbadger wrote: I don't actually like 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. I tried to, but like much of Dicks work, it's a hard read.

I don't like most of it, including the word Kible in every other paragraph. But I did like the concept of 2 separate police forces, not knowing about each other, no one knowing if they are replicants or not, working around each other but never crossing paths. Something about all that part really appealed to me... And then it went nowhere. "Well, I'm not a replicant, so you must be." "Oh my God, you're right! What should I do with my squirrel?"

It's like he just ran out of ideas.

mrbadger wrote:
I'm sure I've read some Alan Dean Foster, but for the moment I don't recall any specifics. Only it wouldn't have been short stories.

I'm now wondering if it was Alan Dean Foster or John Sladek... Need to dig further... Or am I mixing up different short stories form different authors... I was stuck in France with nothing to do but sit in the sun and read a huge stack of books that were left behind.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 16:55

Jericho wrote:...It's like he just ran out of ideas.

I don't think PKD ever experienced a moment in his writing life where he was "out of ideas."

However, he did have a knack for putting together stories that were weirder than the sum of their parts.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 18:00

Second clue in the book cover mystery (I own both these books, but this image I nicked off the interwebs, so if you wanted to cheat you could google image match it). This one really did cost me a lot of money, because it wasn't a lucky find.

[ external image ]

Post by **CBJ** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 18:36

Is this something to do with the covers of several books joining together to create a single picture?

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 18:52

That's cool!

I've seen "spline" cover-art match, but can't recall any front-cover-art matches at the moment.

Nice find!

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 20:07

Both of the books are examples of the technically illegal practice of using cover art intended for one book on other books, which was occasionally done by some imprints licenced to do some or all of the paperback runs of novels.

In both the examples I gave the Imprint (publisher) was Manor Books, and they got into a lot of trouble for the Philip K. Dick Book, which became quite famous, and was thus really quite hard to get a copy of, cost me a fair bit.

The other book was written by an author of only minor success Donald John Pfeil. No-one even mentions his work when talking about mis-use of this particular cover art, making me suspect only few were ever printed using it.

But What Cover Art is it?

[ external image ]

Little surprised no-one got it really. Is that not obviously a Spice Harvester and a scout ship? I get that the Fremen wouldn't be recognized, Lynch didn't represent Stillsuits the way they were in the book, skintight coverings under traditional Arabic style clothing, and neither did the ScyFy Adaption.

Although I'm thinking that from the perspective of someone who is willing to spend hundreds to get my hands on obscure covers of books, so I'm possibly not a reliable witness....

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Thu, 23. Nov 17, 23:37

mrbadger wrote:Both of the books are examples of the technically illegal practice of using cover art intended for one book on other books

Er, why is that illegal, technically or otherwise? Surely, as long as the publisher has paid the proper royalties to the artist for the use of their work, they could put it on as many darned book covers as they choose?

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Fri, 24. Nov 17, 00:07

Because the imprint publisher hadn't paid for it, they were given it by the people who had, the main publishers, who were getting them to do the paperback version.

Manor Books had to pay a fine I believe. Maybe illegal is the wrong word, perhaps more breach of contract? They didn't have the right to use the artwork for any other books.

They weren't the only Imprint who did it, or the only one who got into trouble, but it tended to result in contracts being lost, so it wasn't too common.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Fri, 24. Nov 17, 08:43

Ah, OK. Breach of contract makes a lot more sense than "illegal", certainly.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 24. Nov 17, 16:50

mrbadger wrote:Both of the books are examples of the technically illegal practice of using cover art intended for one book on other books, which was occasionally done by some imprints licenced to do some or all of the paperback runs of novels.

OOoooooooh, nice one!

...Although I'm thinking that from the perspective of someone who is willing to spend hundreds to get my hands on obscure covers of books, so I'm possibly not a reliable witness....

I think it's darn cool!

So, no worries, you're a good witness. Often, hobbyists and enthusiasts know more about esoteric bits of a subject than the professionals!

I'm ashamed I didn't recognize the cover art, though I did think it looked familiar in some ways.

I honestly don't remember what edition I first read. I did buy one of the new hardback special editions for a friend of mine's son as a Christmas present, last year. (Last year was "Book Christmas" for my friends and their families - Everyone got cool books!)

"Commissioned" artwork for a book cover would, indeed, be "illegal" to use for other purposes without authorization from the owner. In fact, anyone who doesn't own the rights to the artwork can't use it at all for anything other than individual, personal, use. Images, photos and reproductions could also be restricted use/illegal, no matter their origin if they weren't authorized by the license holder. ie: Taking photos in the Louvre or in art or regular museums is prohibited for a reason.

I applaud your enthusiasm and don't see the cost as anything other than a reasonable cost for someone with such interests.

PS: "Illegal" and "Criminal" are slightly different, usually, terms with certain implications, namely "State/Government/Criminal" law vs "Civil/Contractual/Copyright/Trademark" law. In the end, either usually represents bad news for violators.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Book Thread

Re: Book Thread

Re: Book Thread