Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Written > Re: Katharine K...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 3 of 4 Topic 21339 of 21782
Post > Topic >>

Re: Katharine Kerr's Darkspell: original or revised?

by Rhiannon Miller <rhi@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 8, 2008 at 06:26 PM

In article
<Xns9A9866039480genewardsmithsbcglob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Gene<gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>  Rhiannon Miller <rhi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>  news:nemoThu050808021804@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>   I read Raymond Feist's Magician first
>>   in the revised version and wondered what all the fuss
>> was about until I read the original version

>  Geez, what did he do to ruin it?

He added 20,000 extra words, apparently, which his editor
had insisted be cut from the original.  I think the editor
was right: the extra verbiage made it longwinded and dull:
not a bad book, but certainly nothing special.  I gather
it's hard to find the original version these days; I got
mine second-hand from eBay.

Rhiannon

-- 
I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 31 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
 




 4 Posts in Topic:
Katharine Kerr's Darkspell: original or revised?
Rhiannon Miller <rhi@[  2008-05-08 13:22:18 
Re: Katharine Kerr's Darkspell: original or revised?
Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-08 17:02:30 
Re: Katharine Kerr's Darkspell: original or revised?
Rhiannon Miller <rhi@[  2008-05-08 18:26:03 
Re: Katharine Kerr's Darkspell: original or revised?
Elaine Thompson <Elain  2008-05-08 15:01:37 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Sun Jul 6 2:51:29 CDT 2008.