Posted in SF Links. Tags: . 10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Linkathem”

  1. Graham Says:

    Your link re discussion of Dozois doesn’t seem to work, at least for me. (“Topic not found”)

  2. Liz Says:

    Maybe I have totally missed the point of ebooks, since I don’t have an ebook reader, but surely they should be cheaper than a paper copy?

  3. Joe Sherry Says:

    Liz, I agree. I don’t have a reader either, but if an ebook is not significantly cheaper than a paper copy there is no chance I would ever purchase one. Assuming, of course, I had a reader.

  4. Blue Tyson Says:

    No one has said it, but

    Would you buy a book from an Angry Robot? (with no Will Smith protection).

  5. Martin Says:

    The imprint will target early adopters of science fiction, who begin reading the genre between the ages of 14 and 16

    Those don’t sound like very early early adopters.

    It is an interesting decision to splint their imprints like this. I guess it is because Voyager is seen as a fantasy imprint regardless of the odd claim that “we really see Voyager as the gold standard for science fiction”. I can’t actually remember seeing any interesting science fiction from Voyager recently so I went to check their website. Oh dear. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how Angry Robot turns out because Solaris had an interestign – albeit not very good – list.

    PS The actual press release seems a bit different to the one Anders posted.

  6. Liz Says:

    I would totally buy a book from an Angry Robot, even though I am not in their group of “massively aggressive” consumers.

  7. Rich Horton Says:

    As a heads up, I will mention that I’ve read ECLIPSE TWO, and the Ted Chiang story is, well, Ted Chiang. It took my breath away. (Which is a pun as you will see when you read the story.)

    (Very fine book overall, I will add.)

  8. Niall Says:

    I’m sure we all appreciate the heads-up, Rich, and aren’t the least bit jealous. ;-)

  9. Marc @ Angry Robot Says:

    Re Angry Robot press releases – Lou’s note was derived from a piece in The Bookseller (journal of the UK booktrade). It’s… well… yeah. Let’s just say that perhaps the reporter’s shorthand failed him on the day. The real pr linked to above, at the HC site, is the right one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: