Talk:The Rediscovery of Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk (separate article now created)[edit]

"Scanners Live in Vain" is the story which really needs a separate article of its own, but I don't think I could properly place it in the context of the history of science fiction literature... AnonMoos 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date[edit]

There appears to be some confusion about this. I am looking at my UK copy of TROM which I bought in 1988 (ISBN 0-575-04165-X). It is copyright Genevieve Linebarger 1975, and is apparently a UK edition of the US collection The Best of Cordwainer Smith. It contains most but not all of the stories in the 1993 edition described in the article. Could somebody familiar with CS's publication history clarify this? --Ef80 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a book published under that title before 1993. The article as it stands definitely refers to the collection published in hardback by NESFA Press, not to the one first published in paperback by Ballantine. If there's some alternative title overlap/confusion, that could be mentioned in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that there actually was an American collection of Instrumentality stories called The Best of Cordwainer Smith published in 1975? As you see, the title is currently redlinked. --Ef80 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've owned it for many years (probably not since 1975, though), and have it on my left leg now: SBN 345-24581-4-195, which probably translates to ISBN 0-345-24581-4... AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There's no real need to have separate Wikipedia articles on non-definitive CS collections, unless their title coincides with the title of a story of interest, or the name of an important concept in the CS future history. AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about how to add something to the article about this. It only warrants a sentence or two. --Ef80 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]