Big. Nay huge HawkwindFan here Ned


Sent from my Verizon Storm

-----Original Message-----
From: "yorkshirened" <templeoftheowl@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:22:59
To: <Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [JP] Re: Michael Moorcock to write Dr Who novel

I'll be honest - I have never read a single Michael Moorcock book. I have always
meant to, especially after reading Grant Morrison's endorsement of the Cornelius
books and after hearing about his association with Hawkwind but the world is
full of good books so it simply has not happened.

However, I do find it very exciting and interesting to hear of an "established"
non-Who writer coming into the fold. It brings a nice air of "anything can
happen". I think I will make this book my first Moorcock and approach it with a
curious, open mind.

Ned

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "andrewjbrook" <andrew_brook@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, mike.montfort@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to as his worst
work and ignore anything that he considers good."
> >
> > -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf. written, 4 Sept. 2001
> >
> > By far the silliest thing I've ever heard.  Mm's writing has matured over
the years from sheer action madness  and mayhem to thoughtful prose.  To not
take it in oneself to decide on ones own is missing the joy of discovery. The
way the most recent books have tied in the disparate lines from the Elric and
Von Bek sagas is a joy to read and discover.
>
> That's part of the problem. I opened an allegedly more-or-less mainstream and
standalone book of his, and closed it after the first page after Moorcock firmly
embedded it in his own mythology with which I am mostly unfamiliar.
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

excuse me Lance, But i'm not kidding until the name was meantioned on this
list i didn't know who he was and i've not lived under a rock for nearly 3
years , i've been living in finland . So i'm sorry i haven't come across the
author, on the other hand i know of your work.

charlotte


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>
> > I don't know who Mr Moorcock is.
>

OK ... I clearly missed the post where the 'taking the fucking piss'
competition was announced. And poor
Bryan and Steve must have thought they were shoo-ins with their entries.

Lance

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, wdstarr@... wrote:
> Steven Kitson <skitson@...> said:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, wdstarr@... wrote:
>>>   "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to
>>>   as his worst work and ignore anything that he considers good."
>>>
>>>            -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf.written, 4 Sept. 2001
>> Yes, because the place to find good advice is random strangers on
>> newsgoups.
>
> Shrug.  It's an opinion.

The opinion of a random stranger on a newsgroup, quoted as if it had any
weight whatsoever.

> Is there a sense of "_We're_
> entitled to present our own non-expert and purely subjective
> opinions here, but $DEITY forbid that someone _else's_ non-expert
> and purely subjective opinion be quoted on our turf" here or what?

I don't get any sense of that, no. I do get a sense of 'why on Earth do
you quote Brian McGuinness's not-very-well-expressed opinion in support of
your own?'

On Nov 15, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Charlotte Lucy Clarke wrote:

> I don't know who Mr Moorcock is.

He's an important and influential fantasy writer, one of the genre's biggest
names:

http://www.multiverse.org/

--
Wesley Osam
wesley@...
http://www.superdoomedplanet.com

I don't know who Mr Moorcock is.
Charlotte


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steven Kitson <skitson@...> said:

> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, wdstarr@... wrote:
>
>>   "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to
>>   as his worst work and ignore anything that he considers good."
>>
>>            -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf.written, 4 Sept. 2001
>
> Yes, because the place to find good advice is random strangers on
> newsgoups.

Shrug.  It's an opinion.

I must say, I'm a bit taken aback by the piling-on that this is
getting.  (Yes it's a pretty small-scale pile-on but then again this
is a rather small-scale mailing list.)  Is there a sense of "_We're_
entitled to present our own non-expert and purely subjective
opinions here, but $DEITY forbid that someone _else's_ non-expert
and purely subjective opinion be quoted on our turf" here or what?

-- wds

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, wdstarr@... wrote:
> Or never cared much for Moorcock anyway.
>
>   "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to
>   as his worst work and ignore anything that he considers good."
>
>            -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf.written, 4 Sept. 2001

Yes, because the place to find good advice is random strangers on
newsgoups.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, graemeburk wrote:
> I must say, I'm a little stunned there has been no discussion about this
> thus far. I would have thought this would have been the news we were all
> waiting for.

Not really. I have little to know interest in a one-off 'Doctor Who'
novel, whoever it's by, beyond curiosity as to what 'Doctor Who by X'
might look like -- a curiosity which is unlikely to be strong enough to
get me to buy the actual book.

'Doctor Who' to me has always been a series, so it's a series (and by
that I mean connected series following on one from the other, not just
several books that happen tobe published sequentially) that is the 'news I
have been waiting for'.

If I wanted to read a Michael Moorcock book, I'd just read a Michael
Moorcock book. They're not hard to find.

> I hope it's a sign of a change to the approach to the novels. A couple
> of prestige books by notable authors doing Who in the mix with the usual
> fare would be very cool.

No, it wouldn't. I'm not interested in some notable author 'doing Who in
the mix'. I'm not interested in one-off curiosity pieces. I'm interested
in a good series of 'Doctor Who' by good authors, notable or not. We've
had it before, more than once; why not again?

I'll be honest - I have never read a single Michael Moorcock book. I have always
meant to, especially after reading Grant Morrison's endorsement of the Cornelius
books and after hearing about his association with Hawkwind but the world is
full of good books so it simply has not happened.

However, I do find it very exciting and interesting to hear of an "established"
non-Who writer coming into the fold. It brings a nice air of "anything can
happen". I think I will make this book my first Moorcock and approach it with a
curious, open mind.

Ned

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "andrewjbrook" <andrew_brook@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, mike.montfort@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to as his worst
work and ignore anything that he considers good."
> >
> > -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf. written, 4 Sept. 2001
> >
> > By far the silliest thing I've ever heard.  Mm's writing has matured over
the years from sheer action madness  and mayhem to thoughtful prose.  To not
take it in oneself to decide on ones own is missing the joy of discovery. The
way the most recent books have tied in the disparate lines from the Elric and
Von Bek sagas is a joy to read and discover.
>
> That's part of the problem. I opened an allegedly more-or-less mainstream and
standalone book of his, and closed it after the first page after Moorcock firmly
embedded it in his own mythology with which I am mostly unfamiliar.
>

I quite liked his Jerry Cornelius books when I was 14, but everything else,
not so much.  The mere fact of obtaining a 'name' like Moorcock is a
positive in itself, regardless of the perceived quality or otherwise of his
writing.  In other words, give me a Moorcock book I may not be very keen on
over any kind of book from the Baxendales of this world.

Also, yeah - quoting from rec.arts.sf.written from 8 years ago is
Magister-on-Gallifrey-Base performance art level funny :-)

Stuart

2009/11/15 Bryan Burford <bburford05@...>

>
>
> I've read two of his books and not been impressed enough to read more.
> So I'm largely indifferent to this announcement. But invoking usenet
> as authority I find absolutely hilarious.
>
> On 15 Nov 2009, at 09:37, "andrewjbrook"
<andrew_brook@...<andrew_brook%40btinternet.com>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> > --- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com <Jade_Pagoda%40yahoogroups.com>,
> mike.montfort@... wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to as
> >> his worst work and ignore anything that he considers good."
> >>
> >> -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf. written, 4 Sept. 2001
> >>
> >> By far the silliest thing I've ever heard. Mm's writing has
> >> matured over the years from sheer action madness and mayhem to
> >> thoughtful prose. To not take it in oneself to decide on ones own
> >> is missing the joy of discovery. The way the most recent books have
> >> tied in the disparate lines from the Elric and Von Bek sagas is a
> >> joy to read and discover.
> >
> > That's part of the problem. I opened an allegedly more-or-less
> > mainstream and standalone book of his, and closed it after the first
> > page after Moorcock firmly embedded it in his own mythology with
> > which I am mostly unfamiliar.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jade_Pagoda/
> > For admin issues, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/metajp/
> > For information, http://www.bondegezou.demon.co.uk/jp/faq.htmYahoo!
> > Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've read two of his books and not been impressed enough to read more.
So I'm largely indifferent to this announcement. But invoking usenet
as authority I find absolutely hilarious.

On 15 Nov 2009, at 09:37, "andrewjbrook" <andrew_brook@...>
wrote:

> --- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, mike.montfort@... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to as
>> his worst work and ignore anything that he considers good."
>>
>> -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf. written, 4 Sept. 2001
>>
>> By far the silliest thing I've ever heard.  Mm's writing has
>> matured over the years from sheer action madness  and mayhem to
>> thoughtful prose.  To not take it in oneself to decide on ones own
>> is missing the joy of discovery. The way the most recent books have
>> tied in the disparate lines from the Elric and Von Bek sagas is a
>> joy to read and discover.
>
> That's part of the problem. I opened an allegedly more-or-less
> mainstream and standalone book of his, and closed it after the first
> page after Moorcock firmly embedded it in his own mythology with
> which I am mostly unfamiliar.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jade_Pagoda/
> For admin issues, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/metajp/
> For information, http://www.bondegezou.demon.co.uk/jp/faq.htmYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, mike.montfort@... wrote:
>
>
> "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to as his worst
work and ignore anything that he considers good."
>
> -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf. written, 4 Sept. 2001
>
> By far the silliest thing I've ever heard.  Mm's writing has matured over the
years from sheer action madness  and mayhem to thoughtful prose.  To not take it
in oneself to decide on ones own is missing the joy of discovery. The way the
most recent books have tied in the disparate lines from the Elric and Von Bek
sagas is a joy to read and discover.

That's part of the problem. I opened an allegedly more-or-less mainstream and
standalone book of his, and closed it after the first page after Moorcock firmly
embedded it in his own mythology with which I am mostly unfamiliar.

"For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to as his worst
work and ignore anything that he considers good."

-- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf. written, 4 Sept. 2001

By far the silliest thing I've ever heard.  Mm's writing has matured over the
years from sheer action madness  and mayhem to thoughtful prose.  To not take it
in oneself to decide on ones own is missing the joy of discovery. The way the
most recent books have tied in the disparate lines from the Elric and Von Bek
sagas is a joy to read and discover.

Jmho & ymmv. Etc etc

MCM
Sent from my Verizon Storm

Wesley Osam <wesley@...> said:

> On Nov 14, 2009, at 7:54 AM, graemeburk wrote:
>
>> I must say, I'm a little stunned there has been no discussion
>> about this thus far.  I would have thought this would have been
>> the news we were all waiting for.
>
> I think we're all stunned speechless.

Or never cared much for Moorcock anyway.

    "For Michael Moorcock, read the stuff that the author refers to
    as his worst work and ignore anything that he considers good."

             -- Brian McGuinness, rec.arts.sf.written, 4 Sept. 2001

-- wds

Allyn Gibson <allyn@...> wrote:
> I -still- think every word of that is true.  But I have to wonder at
> the deal BBC Books offered Moorcock.  Because I can't help but wonder
> just how BBC Books is affording Moorcock, and how they're compensating
> him for all the rights that aren't his to sell that he's passing up by
> writing this and not an original work.

Moorcock hasn't sold rights to most of his books. Gaiman perhaps, but not
Moorcock. So it's no great loss. The Who books these days sell very well indeed,
plus it brings his name to a whole new audience. So I imagine the finances work
out OK.

Henry

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "Allyn Gibson" <allyn@...> wrote:
>
I have to wonder at the
> deal BBC Books offered Moorcock.  Because I can't help but wonder just how
> BBC Books is affording Moorcock, and how they're compensating him for all
> the rights that aren't his to sell that he's passing up by writing this
> and not an original work.

Hmm.... depends what Michael Moorcock's annual income is, I suppose.... ;) I
recall on rec.arts.drwho that Nigel Robinson once explained he offered Douglas
Adams twice the going rate to novelise his episodes

Michael Moorcock answers some "Dr Who" book questions:

1) I've been watching Dr Who since it began. Haven't liked all the doctors and
after Peter Davison stopped watching regularly until the new BBC Wales series.
2) Since the Tom Baker series, a lot of my ideas crept into the stories and so
in many ways I'll be writing a story which already echoes my own work.
3)I do have to submit it to editors so they can make sure it fits into the canon
and this, of course, is understandable. By saying it wasn't a tie-in I did, of
course, mean that it would be an original novel, not one which was linked to
previous stories.

I share an enthusiasm for the current Dr Who broadcasts with quite a few friends
who are 'literary' novelists and I sense in some of the Gallifrey remarks a
suspicion of the 'outsider' which you used to get when someone with a reputation
as a non-sf writer would decide to write an sf novel. All I can answer to this
is 'wait and see'. I'm certainly not a non-watcher! Neither am I someone who
ascribes a kind of religiosity to an enthusiasm. This phenomenon crops up a lot,
these days associated with sf/fantasy, LOTR, H.Potter, Twilight and so on. I
hate these presumptions of exclusivity either in my own corner of the literary
world or elsewhere. Mike Kustow, once director of the Royal Shakespeare Co,
described this as 'the anxious ownership syndrome', when faced with his first
confrontation with sf fandom in Brighton 1968. He'd found the same sort of
expression with Shakespeare fans when someone from 'outside' showed an interest.
I've been asked to write Dr Who scripts or stories almost since the series
began, because I was known to enjoy Dr Who. Only recently did the time feel
right to me to do one. I'm going to enjoy that, too.

http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?p=182593#post182593

2009/11/14 <mike.montfort@...>

>
>
> Sadly I cannot bottom post from this device so apologies to those who care.
>
>
> The phrase "not a tie in" intrigues me most.
>
>
> Not a tie-in simply means not a novelisation of an existing episode, I
fear.

Stuart


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:24:47 -0500, Dante wrote:

> I wonder if Neil Gaiman might be persuaded to write a Who book.  After
> the news about Moorcock, it's certainly looking possible.

Just a month ago, I was trying to explain to someone that Gaiman would
-never- write a Doctor Who novel.  "BBC Books can't -possibly- pay Gaiman
what he can command for an original novel.  He can't negotiate movie or
television rights, because they're not his to sell.  Financially, it
doesn't make -any- sense, and unless he told his agent to go take a flying
leap, that he was doing this for love, not money, it's not going to
happen.  Gaiman won't write a Doctor Who novel."  No one gets rich writing
tie-ins.  They usually don't earn out.

I -still- think every word of that is true.  But I have to wonder at the
deal BBC Books offered Moorcock.  Because I can't help but wonder just how
BBC Books is affording Moorcock, and how they're compensating him for all
the rights that aren't his to sell that he's passing up by writing this
and not an original work.

Allyn
--
"Made of awesome and Guinness and bright shiny pennies..."
    http://www.allyngibson.net/

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Sadly I cannot bottom post from this device so apologies to those who care.

The phrase "not a tie in" intrigues me most. Will we get the Dr poping in on
MM's multiverse?  Hang out with Jerry?  Watch Stormbringer drink souls perhaps? 
Maybe he can stand in for the Eternal Companion in a strange role reversal. 
Jhary A Gallifrey.....  Or not.   Still its exciting.

MCM


Sent from my Verizon Storm

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, paulebbs@... wrote:
>
> Popular rather than best?


Tennant and Tom?  They're the most popular Dr Whos, certainly, and that's not by
accident.

I wonder if Neil Gaiman might be persuaded to write a Who book.  After the news
about Moorcock, it's certainly looking possible.







>
>
>
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Dante C
> Sender: Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com
> To: Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com
> ReplyTo: Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [JP] Re: Michael Moorcock to write Dr Who novel
> Sent: 14 Nov 2009 17:16
>
>
>
> --- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, Jonn Elledge <unrealpolitik@> wrote:
> >
> > By next christmas, Tennant will be very much a past Doctor himself, of
course.
> >
> > Jonn
> >
>
>
> Indeed.  If you were to launch a new series of "Dr Who" books featuring past
Dr Whos, you'd want to start with the most popular ones.  Which means Tom or
Tennant.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jade_Pagoda/
> For admin issues, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/metajp/
> For information, http://www.bondegezou.demon.co.uk/jp/faq.htmYahoo! Groups
Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>

On Nov 14, 2009, at 7:54 AM, graemeburk wrote:

> I must say, I'm a little stunned there has been no discussion about
> this thus far. I would have thought this would have been the news we
> were all waiting for.

I think we're all stunned speechless.

--
Wesley Osam
wesley@...
http://www.superdoomedplanet.com

Popular rather than best?

Interesting. Moorcock would do an awesome Troughton or McCoy.




------Original Message------
From: Dante C
Sender: Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com
To: Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com
ReplyTo: Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [JP] Re: Michael Moorcock to write Dr Who novel
Sent: 14 Nov 2009 17:16



--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, Jonn Elledge <unrealpolitik@...> wrote:
>
> By next christmas, Tennant will be very much a past Doctor himself, of course.
>
> Jonn
>


Indeed.  If you were to launch a new series of "Dr Who" books featuring past Dr
Whos, you'd want to start with the most popular ones.  Which means Tom or
Tennant.



------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jade_Pagoda/
For admin issues, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/metajp/
For information, http://www.bondegezou.demon.co.uk/jp/faq.htmYahoo! Groups Links






Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, Jonn Elledge <unrealpolitik@...> wrote:
>
> By next christmas, Tennant will be very much a past Doctor himself, of course.
>
> Jonn
>


Indeed.  If you were to launch a new series of "Dr Who" books featuring past Dr
Whos, you'd want to start with the most popular ones.  Which means Tom or
Tennant.

By next christmas, Tennant will be very much a past Doctor himself, of course.

Jonn





On 14/11/2009, Dante C <danteconvis@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "graemeburk" <ggburk@...> wrote:
>>
>> I must say, I'm a little stunned there has been no discussion about this
>> thus far. I would have thought this would have been the news we were all
>> waiting for.
>>
>> I enjoy a lot of the new series novels and a few have been great (Only
>> Human, Pirate Loop, The Eyeless, Sick Building) but I've often wondered
>> given the success of the series why they were relying on (mostly) the same
>> usual suspects that wrote for the range since the mid-nineties rather than
>> getting the top talent in science fiction and fantasy (even the top talent
>> in the young adult marketplace). The novels are good sellers. They could
>> afford a higher tier of author.
>>
>> I think it's great they're making this kind of a risk and pushing out the
>> boat. It's a clear signal that, in a season featuring scripts by Richard
>> Curtis and a rumoured one by Neil Gaiman, the attitude toward the novels
>> is that the game should be raised as well.
>>
>> I hope it's a sign of a change to the approach to the novels. A couple of
>> prestige books by notable authors doing Who in the mix with the usual fare
>> would be very cool. Maybe a Who novel by Stephen Baxter? Eoin Cofler? I
>> think this is great news indeed.
>>
>> Graeme
>
> The new series range has been running for five years now, and though it's
> been very successful in terms of sales, it needs a good shake up.  A while
> back, Lance suggested relaunching a new range of books with a high profile
> author... and this might be what's happening.  If the divide between classic
> and new Who is to be cut away, so that the show and its merchandise is
> branded simply as "Dr Who", all of it using the same logo, then the past
> Doctor books for older fans might finally be happening.  I think Moorcock is
> writing for the Tennant Dr Who, which makes sense given that his book is to
> be released next Christmas, so the BBC clearly have expectations of this
> selling in very big numbers.
>
> I wonder how much Moorcock will get from the deal.
>
>
>
>


--
__
Jonn Elledge

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "graemeburk" <ggburk@...> wrote:
>
> I must say, I'm a little stunned there has been no discussion about this thus
far. I would have thought this would have been the news we were all waiting for.
>
> I enjoy a lot of the new series novels and a few have been great (Only Human,
Pirate Loop, The Eyeless, Sick Building) but I've often wondered given the
success of the series why they were relying on (mostly) the same usual suspects
that wrote for the range since the mid-nineties rather than getting the top
talent in science fiction and fantasy (even the top talent in the young adult
marketplace). The novels are good sellers. They could afford a higher tier of
author.
>
> I think it's great they're making this kind of a risk and pushing out the
boat. It's a clear signal that, in a season featuring scripts by Richard Curtis
and a rumoured one by Neil Gaiman, the attitude toward the novels is that the
game should be raised as well.
>
> I hope it's a sign of a change to the approach to the novels. A couple of
prestige books by notable authors doing Who in the mix with the usual fare would
be very cool. Maybe a Who novel by Stephen Baxter? Eoin Cofler? I think this is
great news indeed.
>
> Graeme

The new series range has been running for five years now, and though it's been
very successful in terms of sales, it needs a good shake up.  A while back,
Lance suggested relaunching a new range of books with a high profile author...
and this might be what's happening.  If the divide between classic and new Who
is to be cut away, so that the show and its merchandise is branded simply as "Dr
Who", all of it using the same logo, then the past Doctor books for older fans
might finally be happening.  I think Moorcock is writing for the Tennant Dr Who,
which makes sense given that his book is to be released next Christmas, so the
BBC clearly have expectations of this selling in very big numbers.

I wonder how much Moorcock will get from the deal.

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "Dante C" <danteconvis@...> wrote:
>
> Blimey.  From the man himself:
>
> http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=12620
>

I must say, I'm a little stunned there has been no discussion about this thus
far. I would have thought this would have been the news we were all waiting for.

I enjoy a lot of the new series novels and a few have been great (Only Human,
Pirate Loop, The Eyeless, Sick Building) but I've often wondered given the
success of the series why they were relying on (mostly) the same usual suspects
that wrote for the range since the mid-nineties rather than getting the top
talent in science fiction and fantasy (even the top talent in the young adult
marketplace). The novels are good sellers. They could afford a higher tier of
author.

I think it's great they're making this kind of a risk and pushing out the boat.
It's a clear signal that, in a season featuring scripts by Richard Curtis and a
rumoured one by Neil Gaiman, the attitude toward the novels is that the game
should be raised as well.

I hope it's a sign of a change to the approach to the novels. A couple of
prestige books by notable authors doing Who in the mix with the usual fare would
be very cool. Maybe a Who novel by Stephen Baxter? Eoin Cofler? I think this is
great news indeed.

Graeme

Blimey.  From the man himself:

http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=12620

Can we expect Roger Dean to do the cover art?

PS Doctor Sentence. The chap I'm thinking of was called Doctor Sentence, IIRC.

--- In Jade_Pagoda@yahoogroups.com, "simona4ward" <sa4ward@...> wrote:
>
> Hello people of the ancient and foreboding Pagoda. I remember a looooong time
ago a member here had some comments on some of the use of Russian in Emotional
Chemistry and they seemed to know what they were talking about. Unfortunately I
can't recall who it was, but if they're still around, I have an author friend
who's looking for a couple of English-Russian translations that are outside of
my meagre 'expertise'. Pretty please :-)
>
> Obviously I appreciate that the person might not be a member here any more or,
like me maybe, doesn't frequent the place. But I promised my friend I'd inquire.
>
> Or failing that, any other Russian speakers here?
>
> Cheers all
>
> SAF
>