Talk:SF Masterworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the moment, this reads a bit like an advert. However, the SF Masterworks series does have a very good editorial policy, and is widely regarded as an authoritative list of classics. Certainly most of these books deserve an article. How can we NPOV this page?

Hi, I'm not affiliated with Gollancz in any way, and added the articles for precisely that reason. And besides, I thought it was useful to have an up-to-date list of the books online, most other lists (including the one at the SF Site) aren't updated very often.

Goblin 01:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think such a list is very useful. However I would be interested in learning more about the series: publication date for each book, projected "finish time", how they have been selected, has the list been finalised entirely prior to publication? Can I buy the lot somewhere? :>

-- Jon Dowland 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This page about Malcolm Edwards the editor who started the series provides some of this info and should be incorporated into the article. Htaccess 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing the article was--why this publisher's list? I've seen any number of similar projects over the last 30 years, and while they're always interesting and useful as an index of what (usually) OP items a publisher thinks will sell, they're no more authoritative than any fan site's list of faves. If I understand wiki culture correctly (and I've only been participating for a couple months), a "best of" list is better served by, say, a list of award winners (or winners and nominees) or best-sellers, or even a compilation of other "best" lists. In fact, such a compilation of lists already exists for SF, as Chapter 16 of Anatomy of Science Fiction, 5th ed., ed. Neil Barron. RLetson 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To sort of support Letson's point: neither "Frankenstein" nor "Looking Backward" is on this list of "the" classics of SF.