|
Post by David A. Riley on May 5, 2021 16:27:12 GMT
I have just finished selecting the stories for Swords & Sorceries: Tales of Heroic Fantasy Volume 2, which will be published in paperback and kindle within the next few months. There are ten stories in total (as opposed to eight in Volume 1) and the page count has risen from 222 to 270. The stories are: The Essence of Dust by Mike Chinn Highjacking the Lord of Light by Tais Teng Out in the Wildlands by Martin Owton Zale and Zedril by Susan Murrie Macdonald The Amulet and the Shadow by Steve Dilks Antediluvia: Seasons of the World by Andrew Darlington A Thousand Words for Death by Pedro Iniguez Stone Snake by Dev Agarwal Seven Thrones by Phil Emery The Eater of Gods by Adrian Cole There will also be an introduction with details of all the contributors. The book will again be dedicated to Charles Black, whose idea this was. It will also be dedicated to Steve Lines whose story opened Volume Onr but who sadly died earlier this year. The cover and interior artwork is by Jim Pitts. Parallel Universe Publications
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on May 5, 2021 19:05:57 GMT
Contributor's roster seems to bear more than a passing similarity to that of volume 1. Only with added PUP alumni. But that's purely a coincidence, I've no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on May 5, 2021 23:02:00 GMT
Contributor's roster seems to bear more than a passing similarity to that of volume 1. Only with added PUP alumni. But that's purely a coincidence, I've no doubt. Only 3 of the 10 contributors were in volume 1: Steve Dilks, Susan Murrie Macdonald and Adrian Cole. The other seven are brand new to the series. There was definitely no favouritism - each story was chosen on its own merits. More than one "PUP alumni" was rejected.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on May 5, 2021 23:42:53 GMT
Contributor's roster seems to bear more than a passing similarity to that of volume 1. Only with added PUP alumni. But that's purely a coincidence, I've no doubt. Only 3 of the 10 contributors were in volume 1: Steve Dilks, Susan Murrie Macdonald and Adrian Cole. The other seven are brand new to the series. There was definitely no favouritism - each story was chosen on its own merits. More than one "PUP alumni" was rejected. Except that three of the stories are holdovers from the first volume, according to your blog. Which is fair enough. But it means that actually it is approximately half of the remaining slots that are filled by returnees or PUP alumni. In light of the "tremendous number of submissions" you received a degree of cynicism is only natural concerning the nonpartisanism of the selection process.
|
|
|
Post by johnnymains on May 6, 2021 8:10:42 GMT
Cro, what's wrong with you? He's the editor, the publisher - he can do what he likes when he likes, it's his book - are you suggesting that if he got poor submissions he should have used them anyway? Baffling.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on May 6, 2021 11:14:48 GMT
Cro, what's wrong with you? He's the editor, the publisher - he can do what he likes when he likes, it's his book - are you suggesting that if he got poor submissions he should have used them anyway? Baffling. Far be it from me to suggest anything Johnny. And if you can show me where I disputed anyone's right to do what they wanted then I'd be obliged in having it pointed out to me. I was simply making an observation. And expressing a certain scepticism that the calibre of a heavy submission response is genuinely reflected in such a toc. Particularly when one name on that list has never published anything that staggered above the level of retrograde sub-Carteresque baloney. People of a jaundiced nature could question the credibility of a submissions process that results in a roster composed largely of leftovers, mates and clear favourites.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on May 6, 2021 12:11:42 GMT
Cro, what's wrong with you? He's the editor, the publisher - he can do what he likes when he likes, it's his book - are you suggesting that if he got poor submissions he should have used them anyway? Baffling. Far be it from me to suggest anything Johnny. And if you can show me where I disputed anyone's right to do what they wanted then I'd be obliged in having it pointed out to me. I was simply making an observation. And expressing a certain scepticism that the calibre of a heavy submission response is genuinely reflected in such a toc. Particularly when one name on that list has never published anything that staggered above the level of retrograde sub-Carteresque baloney. People of a jaundiced nature could question the credibility of a submissions process that results in a roster composed largely of leftovers, mates and clear favourites. Well I am sure those authors whose stories have been accepted for Swords & Sorceries 2 will be grateful for your kind comments about them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on May 6, 2021 12:25:08 GMT
Far be it from me to suggest anything Johnny. And if you can show me where I disputed anyone's right to do what they wanted then I'd be obliged in having it pointed out to me. I was simply making an observation. And expressing a certain scepticism that the calibre of a heavy submission response is genuinely reflected in such a toc. Particularly when one name on that list has never published anything that staggered above the level of retrograde sub-Carteresque baloney. People of a jaundiced nature could question the credibility of a submissions process that results in a roster composed largely of leftovers, mates and clear favourites. Well I am sure those authors whose stories have been accepted for Swords & Sorceries 2 will be grateful for your kind comments about them. See my comments on Dread and Delight: A Century of Children's Ghost Stories below. I've just dissed its editor Philippa Pearce, and Arthur Machen, Walter de la Mare and Isaac Bashevis Singer among others. They can take it - they're all dead (I hope).
|
|
|
Post by šrincess šµuvstarr on May 6, 2021 12:37:58 GMT
This cover has the look of one of those old '80s Fighting Fantasy type gamebooks.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on May 6, 2021 12:39:18 GMT
Far be it from me to suggest anything Johnny. And if you can show me where I disputed anyone's right to do what they wanted then I'd be obliged in having it pointed out to me. I was simply making an observation. And expressing a certain scepticism that the calibre of a heavy submission response is genuinely reflected in such a toc. Particularly when one name on that list has never published anything that staggered above the level of retrograde sub-Carteresque baloney. People of a jaundiced nature could question the credibility of a submissions process that results in a roster composed largely of leftovers, mates and clear favourites. Well I am sure those authors whose stories have been accepted for Swords & Sorceries 2 will be grateful for your kind comments about them. Of that I have no doubt. Constructive criticism is after all far more beneficial than blind patronage.
|
|
|
Post by johnnymains on May 6, 2021 12:49:08 GMT
Cro, what's wrong with you? He's the editor, the publisher - he can do what he likes when he likes, it's his book - are you suggesting that if he got poor submissions he should have used them anyway? Baffling. Far be it from me to suggest anything Johnny. And if you can show me where I disputed anyone's right to do what they wanted then I'd be obliged in having it pointed out to me.
I apologise - I mistook your puritanical snobbery for something else. Please, as you were.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on May 6, 2021 15:41:40 GMT
Far be it from me to suggest anything Johnny. And if you can show me where I disputed anyone's right to do what they wanted then I'd be obliged in having it pointed out to me.
I apologise - I mistook your puritanical snobbery for something else. Please, as you were.
Oh, we've abandoned dialogue for insults have we. Well that's ok. It's a shame you weren't around when Pitts's original cover illustration was being ridiculed on another forum as looking like the effort of a third grader. Because no one seemed much inclined to defend it there and in the wake of the criticism another was substituted. But that must be another one of those coincidences. Because otherwise it would look as if slurs and ridicule carry weight at PUP as long as they originate somewhere else while a mild dissenting opinion here is considered beyond the pale. Its an impressive display of little publishers umbrage you're demonstrating. But the last time I looked editorial decisions weren't the judgements of the cardinal's conclave: neither infallible, divinely inspired or indisputable. And I'm not going to be kowtowed from voicing a legitimate opinion because it offends the quailing sensibilities of your pompous ego.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on May 6, 2021 16:09:29 GMT
Controversy! I love it.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on May 6, 2021 16:20:35 GMT
Given your previous pointed, acerbic & often witty comments, I'm not at all surprised. ?
|
|
|
Post by Swampirella on May 6, 2021 16:26:37 GMT
As you can see, I've deleted my comment, so just ignore it.
|
|