Multiple conflicting sequels?
PeterM
I used to own all of them, but they apparently got lost
somewhere along the line. I came across a beautiful
copy of The Fuzzy Papers for a quarter, so that's the
first two reclaimed. I've ordered the two different
third books, and Fuzzy Bones just now arrived and got
me to thinking. How many other similar cases are there,
where an unfinished series is finished/continued by
someone else but then it turns out the original author
did in fact have at least one more book done?
And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
and takes up right where Book A left off? The YA writer
Gary Paulsen did that with his Hatchet series, about a
kid marooned in the Canadian wilderness. He gets rescued
at the end of Hatchet, and goes back to the woods in
the sequel The River. But then Paulsen decided to write
a story where Brian didn't get rescued and had to survive
a brutal winter, and there are two sequels that come after
that. So there are two canons to the Hatchet series,
basically. Hatchet leads to both The River and Brian's
Winter, and the two are explicitly different worlds/timelines.
Paulsen could easily reconcile them if he wanted to, but
he never has.
But that's one author playing with his own work. Which is
interesting, but are there any cases like the Fuzzy sequels,
but deliberate, where a different author writes a sequel
that ignores other canonical works? It happens all the time
in fanfiction, obviously, but I'm curious about published works.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Happens all the time in comic books too.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Andrew Plotkin
>
> But that's one author playing with his own work. Which is
> interesting, but are there any cases like the Fuzzy sequels,
> but deliberate, where a different author writes a sequel
> that ignores other canonical works?
For a while, you could go into a bookstore and buy Stargate novels
that continued the storyline of the original movie. You could also buy
Stargate novels in the setting of the TV series. Both were consistent
with the movie (with some interpretation) but were on totally
different tracks about what happened after *or before* the movie.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Of course there are probably hundreds of stories about
what *really* happened to Holmes & Watson after Doyle stopped
writing new ones..
In SF the latest NULL-A book ignores events of Van Vogt's last
one, I think.
Michael Shea wrote an authorized "Cugel" novel _A Quest for Simbilis_
published in 1974. I'm not sure if Vance's next "Cugel" tale,
"The Seventeen Virgins", also published in 1974, was incompatible with
the end of QFS, but it certainly took no note of it.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Christopher Henrich
<dba5f219-696e-45c7...@17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been re-reading the Fuzzy books by H. Beam Piper.
> I used to own all of them, but they apparently got lost
> somewhere along the line. I came across a beautiful
> copy of The Fuzzy Papers for a quarter, so that's the
> first two reclaimed. I've ordered the two different
> third books, and Fuzzy Bones just now arrived and got
> me to thinking. How many other similar cases are there,
> where an unfinished series is finished/continued by
> someone else but then it turns out the original author
> did in fact have at least one more book done?
>
> And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
> was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
> one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
> to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
> and takes up right where Book A left off?
From long ago, ISTR a statement in one of Marion Zimmer Bradley's
Darkover books that she had not kept them consistent in all details of
the history of Darkover.
>
> But that's one author playing with his own work. Which is
> interesting, but are there any cases like the Fuzzy sequels,
> but deliberate, where a different author writes a sequel
> that ignores other canonical works? It happens all the time
> in fanfiction, obviously, but I'm curious about published works.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Sean O'Hara
>
> I've been re-reading the Fuzzy books by H. Beam Piper.
> I used to own all of them, but they apparently got lost
> somewhere along the line. I came across a beautiful
> copy of The Fuzzy Papers for a quarter, so that's the
> first two reclaimed. I've ordered the two different
> third books, and Fuzzy Bones just now arrived and got
> me to thinking. How many other similar cases are there,
> where an unfinished series is finished/continued by
> someone else but then it turns out the original author
> did in fact have at least one more book done?
>
> And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
> was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
> one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
> to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
> and takes up right where Book A left off?
It's not a book, but the Living Dead films have a practically non-
Euclidian continuity.
1968 - Romero makes Night of the Living Dead. Afterwards he and producer
John Russo divvy up the rights -- Romero gets the continuity, Russo gets
"the Living Dead."
1977 - Return of the Living Dead, a novel by John Russo set several
years after the original film.
1978 - Romero makes a sequel, called Dawn of the Dead in the US, but
titled Zombi in Europe.
1979 - Lucio Fulci makes his own zombie film, which is distributed by
the same company behind the European release of DotD. To cash in on the
success of Dawn, they title Fulci's film Zombi 2. (Confusingly, it's
sometimes titled Zombi.)
1985 - Romero makes a third film in what he now calls the Dead Trilogy.
1985 - Return of the Living Dead, produced by Russo but unrelated to his
novel. In this continuity, NotLD was a documentary about a chemical
weapons accident in rural Pennsylvania, but the government forced Romero
to alter the film to make it appear fictional. When those chemical
weapons are unleashed again, a new zombipocalypse breaks out.
1988 - Zombi 3 and Return of the Living Dead 2 come out.
1989 - Book of the Dead, an anthology of short stories set in the world
of NotLD. Includes stories by notables like Stephen King and Ramsey
Campbell.
1990 - Tom Savini remakes Night of the Living Dead.
1992 - Book of the Dead 2, a second anthology of zombie stories in the
NotLD universe.
1993 - Return of the Living Dead 3
1999 - Russo releases Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary, which
features newly filmed scenes that give the story Christian overtones.
2001 - Russo produces Children of the Living Dead, which is a sequel to
the 30th Anniversary cut but not the original.
2004 - Zach Snyder directs a remake of Dawn of the Dead, which despite
being a remake of a sequel is not itself a sequel to anything.
2004 - Shaun of the Dead, which while not an official sequel, is implied
to be in continuity with the original Night.
2005 - George Romero's official sequel, Land of the Dead.
2005 - Return of the Living Dead 4 and 5.
2005 - Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, in which someone somehow obtained
rights to do a sequel to Day of the Dead separate from the continuity of
Land of the Dead.
2006 - Night of the Living Dead 3D, yet another remake of the original.
2006 - The long awaited third zombie anthology.
2007 - Diary of the Dead, another sequel from Romero.
2008 - Day of the Dead, the remake of the sequel of the sequel, which is
not a sequel to the remake of the sequel.
2010 - Survival of the Dead, another sequel from Romero, which
miraculously hasn't been remade yet.
2011 - Night of the Living Dead: Origins 3D, which is a sequel to the
third remake of the original film.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
The House Divided <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004DZNUBE>
Lovecraft's House of Horror <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004CYF8PC>
Dimensional Traveler
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
William December Starr
PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> said:
> And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel was a
> deliberate choice?
Ken MacLeod deliberately bifurcated his "Fall Revolution" series.
His Wikipedia entry says:
Fall Revolution series
1. The Star Fraction (1995; US paperback ISBN 0-7653-0156-3)
-- Prometheus Award winner, 1996; Clarke Award nominee,
1996 ^[6]
2. The Stone Canal (1996; US paperback ISBN 0-8125-6864-8) --
Prometheus Award winner, 1998; BSFA nominee, 1996 ^[6]
3. The Cassini Division (1998; US paperback ISBN
0-312-87044-2) -- BSFA nominee, 1998;^[7] Clarke, and
Nebula Awards nominee, 1999 ^[8]
4. The Sky Road (1999; US paperback ISBN 0-8125-7759-0) BSFA
Award winner, 1999;^[8] Hugo Award nominee, 2001 ^[9] -
represents an 'alternate future' to the second two books,
as its events diverge sharply due to a choice made
differently by one of the protagonists in the middle of The
Stone Canal^[10]
Likewise, Allen Drury split his "Advise and Consent" series. His
Wikipedia entry says:
Drury followed Advise and Consent with several sequels. A Shade
of Difference is set a year after Advise and Consent. Drury
then turned his attention to the next presidential election
after those events with Capable of Honor and Preserve and
Protect. He then wrote two alternate sequels to these (the
difference being which politician survived an assassination
attack at a joint appearance), Come Nineveh, Come Tyre and The
Promise of Joy.
ObSF:
In 1970, Drury published The Throne of Saturn, a science
fiction novel about the first attempt at sending a manned
mission to Mars. He dedicated the work "To the US Astronauts
and those who help them fly." Political characters in the book
are archetypal rather than comfortably human. The book carries
a strong anti-leftist/anti-communist flavor. The book has a lot
to say about interference in the space program by leftist
Americans.
-- wds
Robert Carnegie
> It's not a book, but the Living Dead films have a practically non-
A UK television advert invented a (so far) fictional* possible later
sequel:
"Your girlfriend could never really understand Zombikini 2".
Don't you sort of want them to put that at the top of the poster?
* Who knows, if _The Lesbian Vampire Killers_ (unrelated, I think, but
true) had done better, then -
Nigel
>
> But that's one author playing with his own work. Which is
> interesting, but are there any cases like the Fuzzy sequels,
> but deliberate, where a different author writes a sequel
> that ignores other canonical works? It happens all the time
> in fanfiction, obviously, but I'm curious about published works.
There's the Hithiker's Guide radio series. The third season follows
the continuity of the books, which means that it's not consistant with
the second season.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Greg Goss
>And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
>was a deliberate choice?
Not quite what you're asking for, but the book 2010 was a sequel to
the MOVIE 2001, not the previous book.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Jerry Brown
When Rob Grant and Doug Naylor stopped writing together they both did
separate conflicting sequels to the last Red Dwarf novel they wrote
together.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
William F. Adams
Well there is Onechanbara --- Bikini Zombie Slayers a video game
series which has spawned a movie or two.
William
Paul Ciszek
In article <33e29163-8896-485f...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>A UK television advert invented a (so far) fictional* possible later
>sequel:
>
>"Your girlfriend could never really understand Zombikini 2".
>
>Don't you sort of want them to put that at the top of the poster?
>
>* Who knows, if _The Lesbian Vampire Killers_ (unrelated, I think, but
>true) had done better, then -
Cast Allyson Hannigan and Amber Benson, and I'd go see that.
--
Please reply to: | "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on
pciszek at panix dot com | the charmingly naive notion that people will not
Autoreply is disabled | do unspeakable things for money." -Dana Carpender
Howard Brazee
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Happens all the time in comic books too.
And Star Trek.
Sometimes there are attempts to retro-fit conflicting stories into
compatibility, with mixed success.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Louann Miller
> Not quite what you're asking for, but the book 2010 was a sequel to
> the MOVIE 2001, not the previous book.
>
And the book "The Lost World" (Crichton) was a sequel to the movie of
"Jurassic Park," notably in not killing the Jeff Goldblum guy.
Lynn McGuire
BTW, John Scalzi has rewriting _Little_Fuzzy_ as _Fuzzy_Nation_.
http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Nation-John-Scalzi/dp/0765328542/
And with the permission of the author's family.
Lynn
Sean O'Hara
>
> PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
> >was a deliberate choice?
>
> Not quite what you're asking for, but the book 2010 was a sequel to
> the MOVIE 2001, not the previous book.
And in 3001 there are references to the events of the previous books
taking place later than 2001 and 2010.
Michael Stemper
>In article <dba5f219-696e-45c7...@17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
>>was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
>>one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
>>to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
>In SF the latest NULL-A book ignores events of Van Vogt's last
>one, I think.
Are you implying that somebody other than van Vogt wrote a Null-A
book? (That's what I get from the phrase "Van Vogt's last one".)
Ignoring _Null-A Three_ is generally a good idea, really. As a
matter of fact, I'd forgotten about its existence for at least
a decade.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2
James Nicoll
Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <8qes64...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted
>Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>In article
><dba5f219-696e-45c7...@17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
>>>was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
>>>one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
>>>to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
>
>>In SF the latest NULL-A book ignores events of Van Vogt's last
>>one, I think.
>
>Are you implying that somebody other than van Vogt wrote a Null-A
>book? (That's what I get from the phrase "Van Vogt's last one".)
>Ignoring _Null-A Three_ is generally a good idea, really. As a
>matter of fact, I'd forgotten about its existence for at least
>a decade.
Both John C. Wright and Kevin Anderson have done sequels to Van Vogt
books, I think. Let me check....
Anderson did a sequel to SLAN and Wright did the sequel to NULL-A.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ihv0k6$bp5$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <8qes64...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted
>>Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>>In article
>><dba5f219-696e-45c7...@17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
>>>>was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
>>>>one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
>>>>to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
>>
>>>In SF the latest NULL-A book ignores events of Van Vogt's last
>>>one, I think.
>>
>>Are you implying that somebody other than van Vogt wrote a Null-A
>>book? (That's what I get from the phrase "Van Vogt's last one".)
>>Ignoring _Null-A Three_ is generally a good idea, really. As a
>>matter of fact, I'd forgotten about its existence for at least
>>a decade.
>
>Both John C. Wright and Kevin Anderson have done sequels to Van Vogt
>books, I think. Let me check....
>
>Anderson did a sequel to SLAN and Wright did the sequel to NULL-A.
>--
Yeah, although the question admits an "Are you implying somebody
filmed a sequel to 'Highlander'" interpretation..
I have to admit I have read neither NA3 nor the Wright one (yet..),
but the last Van Vogt Null-A *story* I read was pretty good. It
was also not SF, but a short police procedural.
James Nicoll
the same way as a genuine Van Vogt and so a success, I thought.
Michael Stemper
>In article <ihv111$8rn$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <ihv0k6$bp5$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>In SF the latest NULL-A book ignores events of Van Vogt's last
>>>>one, I think.
>>>
>>>Are you implying that somebody other than van Vogt wrote a Null-A
>>>book? (That's what I get from the phrase "Van Vogt's last one".)
>>>Ignoring _Null-A Three_ is generally a good idea, really. As a
>>>matter of fact, I'd forgotten about its existence for at least
>>>a decade.
>>
>>Both John C. Wright and Kevin Anderson have done sequels to Van Vogt
>>books, I think. Let me check....
>>
>>Anderson did a sequel to SLAN and Wright did the sequel to NULL-A.
>
>Yeah, although the question admits an "Are you implying somebody
>filmed a sequel to 'Highlander'" interpretation..
'twas not my intent.
>I have to admit I have read neither NA3 nor the Wright one (yet..),
I can't speak to the Wright, but will stress "Do not read _Null-A
Three_."
>but the last Van Vogt Null-A *story* I read was pretty good. It
>was also not SF, but a short police procedural.
"Story" as in "less than novel length"? I didn't know that there
was one of those. I'm having trouble seeing how something could
be in the Null-A setting without being SF. And failing.
I obviously need a cortico-thalamic pause.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Twenty-four hours in a day; twenty-four beers in a case. Coincidence?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
OK, it's not in the Null-A setting, it's sort of trying to apply
the idea of "Non-Aristotelian" thinking to police work:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?PENDULUMFF1978
"The Non-Aristotelian Detective"
Jack Bohn
>Here, PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But that's one author playing with his own work. Which is
>> interesting, but are there any cases like the Fuzzy sequels,
>> but deliberate, where a different author writes a sequel
>> that ignores other canonical works?
>
>For a while, you could go into a bookstore and buy Stargate novels
>that continued the storyline of the original movie. You could also buy
>Stargate novels in the setting of the TV series. Both were consistent
>with the movie (with some interpretation) but were on totally
>different tracks about what happened after *or before* the movie.
Movie-to-TV-series trip was also taken by Logan's Run. I'm thinking
the Dome *wasn't* destroyed in the first episode of the series,
leaving a Sandman with the mission to bring back the two fugitives. It
has an added wrinkle of the movie being adapted from a novel with
sequels of its own. I'm thinking the Dome probably was destroyed in
the first book and Logan was doing further wandering in the world
outside. (I seem to remember a computer in Mount Rushmore, if not a
man in Lincoln's nose.)
That in turn brings to mind the Planet of the Apes movie changes from
the book, its sequel movies, and TWO TV series. Best to treat them as
different versions of the setting, like different treatments of the
story of King Arthur, or Batman.
Ah! That's what I was trying to think of: Varley's _Steel Beach_,
enough of a conflicting prequel to his Eight Worlds stories that IIRC
he wrote a preface allowing it to be in another universe if the reader
feels the necessity.
--
-Jack
Jerry Brown
wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
>>Here, PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But that's one author playing with his own work. Which is
>>> interesting, but are there any cases like the Fuzzy sequels,
>>> but deliberate, where a different author writes a sequel
>>> that ignores other canonical works?
>>
>>For a while, you could go into a bookstore and buy Stargate novels
>>that continued the storyline of the original movie. You could also buy
>>Stargate novels in the setting of the TV series. Both were consistent
>>with the movie (with some interpretation) but were on totally
>>different tracks about what happened after *or before* the movie.
>
>Movie-to-TV-series trip was also taken by Logan's Run. I'm thinking
>the Dome *wasn't* destroyed in the first episode of the series,
>leaving a Sandman with the mission to bring back the two fugitives. It
>has an added wrinkle of the movie being adapted from a novel with
>sequels of its own. I'm thinking the Dome probably was destroyed in
>the first book and Logan was doing further wandering in the world
>outside. (I seem to remember a computer in Mount Rushmore, if not a
>man in Lincoln's nose.)
The die-at-21 society was worldwide in the original novel. There was a
dome, but it was a dilapidated and abandoned undersea living complex
that Logan and Jessica visit at one stage of their quest.
Sanctuary was <rot-13>n fcnpr fgngvba</rot-13>.
Edward A. Falk
comes to mind. It's clear that Clarke had very little to do with this
book, and Benford clearly did not even read "Against the Fall of Night".
To start with, in the original book, the Earth is a desolate wasteland,
with only two surviving cities on it, while in the sequel, the Earth is
a teeming jungle. Also, in the original, the Moon had been destroyed
millennia ago, while in the sequel, the heroes actually travel to the moon.
Some of the later books in Edgar Rice Burroughs "Princess of Mars"
series were obviously written by a ghost writer who had not carefully
read the originals. There are many continuity errors.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Mike Schilling
"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:8qgho3...@mid.individual.net...
Eldred Crang was a Null-A detective.
Brenda Clough
And, for some values of 'conflicting' the Gor books would do you. I
forget the name of the capital city of Gor, but in some volumes, if you
go east from the city you get to the ocean. In others, you go east and
there are mountains. However, the worldbuilding is so all-around
incoherent that it's hard to take offense at this one technicality.
Brenda
--
My latest novel SPEAK TO OUR DESIRES is available exclusively from Book
View Cafe.
http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Brenda-Clough/Novels/Speak-to-Our-Desires-Chapter-01
David DeLaney
>where an unfinished series is finished/continued by
>someone else but then it turns out the original author
>did in fact have at least one more book done?
The Dying Earth series took a right turn into Michael Shea's version of its
cosmology for _A Quest for Simbilis_, in 1974, in between _The Dying Earth_
(1950) / _The Eyes of the Overworld_ (1966) and _Cugel's Saga_ (1983) /
_Rhialto the Marvellous_ (1984).
I don't remember whether Cugel was himself in AQfS at all, though. ...okay,
yes, the Amazon reviews specify that it's entirely Cugel's further adventures.
And since this book takes him down into what's essentially _Nifft the Lean_'s
demonic underworlds, there's some inconsistency there.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
William December Starr
Jack Bohn <jack...@bright.net> said:
> Movie-to-TV-series trip was also taken by Logan's Run. I'm
> thinking the Dome *wasn't* destroyed in the first episode of the
> series, leaving a Sandman with the mission to bring back the two
> fugitives. It has an added wrinkle of the movie being adapted from
> a novel with sequels of its own. I'm thinking the Dome probably
> was destroyed in the first book and Logan was doing further
> wandering in the world outside. (I seem to remember a computer in
> Mount Rushmore, if not a man in Lincoln's nose.)
It was the Crazy Horse Memorial[1]. I remember because that was the
first time I'd heard of it. (Unless I'm making up completely false
memories about a book I read three or four decades ago, of course.)
*1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial>
I don't remember whether there were any people there.
-- wds
Michael Hellwig
> PeterM <peterme...@gmail.com> said:
>> And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel was a
>> deliberate choice?
>
> Ken MacLeod deliberately bifurcated his "Fall Revolution" series.
> His Wikipedia entry says:
>
> Fall Revolution series
>
> 1. The Star Fraction (1995; US paperback ISBN 0-7653-0156-3)
> -- Prometheus Award winner, 1996; Clarke Award nominee,
> 1996 ^[6]
> 2. The Stone Canal (1996; US paperback ISBN 0-8125-6864-8) --
> Prometheus Award winner, 1998; BSFA nominee, 1996 ^[6]
> 3. The Cassini Division (1998; US paperback ISBN
> 0-312-87044-2) -- BSFA nominee, 1998;^[7] Clarke, and
> Nebula Awards nominee, 1999 ^[8]
> 4. The Sky Road (1999; US paperback ISBN 0-8125-7759-0) BSFA
> Award winner, 1999;^[8] Hugo Award nominee, 2001 ^[9] -
> represents an 'alternate future' to the second two books,
> as its events diverge sharply due to a choice made
> differently by one of the protagonists in the middle of The
> Stone Canal^[10]
>
which confused me no end because the order I read them in was 3, 4, 1, 2
only afterwards did I actually understand how they fit together ..
funnily enough, the only ones I actually _like_ (instead of just finding
them "interesting") are 2 and 4. MacLeod as a whole is always a lottery
for me. Loved the whole Engines of Light trilogy, loved Learning the
World as well as The Execution Channel. Didn't like Newtons Wake all
that much, nor The Night Sessions. Kinda liked but didn't love The
Restoration Game.
Weird.
Rich Horton
Nicoll) wrote:
>The Anderson was an Anderson but the Wright was annoying in much
>the same way as a genuine Van Vogt and so a success, I thought.
Yes -- my review exactly. Indeed, I'll quote from my SF Site review
(which is at <URL:http://www.sfsite.com/06a/nc297.htm>:
Did it work? Well, no. And, in a way, it's not Wright's fault. As far
as I can tell, he has succeeded magnificently at what he tried to do.
He has continued (and, pretty much, completed) the Null-A series in a
way quite consistent with Van Vogt's style. (And for that matter,
again as far as I can tell, he has nicely finessed the problems with
the much-disparaged third book of the series, Null-A Three, written
very late in Van Vogt's life.) I think it's fair to say that people
who enjoy A.E. Van Vogt will not be disappointed by this continuation.
But likewise, I suppose inevitably, people who don't get Van Vogt will
not "get" this book either.
Rich Horton
<peterme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
>was a deliberate choice?
Another case of the same writer doing conflicting sequels is Ken
MacLeod in his first four novels. From the FAQ (which in this case I
helped write):
The first series of books were first published in the UK in the
following order: THE STAR FRACTION, THE STONE CANAL, THE CASSINI
DIVISION, THE SKY ROAD.
By internal chronology, the ordering is loosely:
THE STONE CANAL, set starting in the 1970s, and also in the far
future.
THE STAR FRACTION, set in the 2040s in the UK
THE CASSINI DIVISION, set some time after the future part of THE STONE
CANAL
THE SKY ROAD is an alternate future, which Rich Horton describes
thusly: "The earlier parts ... of THE STONE CANAL and all of THE STAR
FRACTION are set in a common past to both THE SKY ROAD and to THE
CASSINI DIVISION, but one of the events in THE STONE CANAL goes a
different way in THE SKY ROAD." Therefore, it is not consistent with
THE CASSINI DIVISION. It is also set in two time periods, 2059 and
several centuries in the future.
Quadibloc
> And are there any cases where a conflicting sequel
> was a deliberate choice? That is, Book A already has
> one official sequel, Book B, but someone gets permission
> to write another sequel, Book C, which ignores Book B
> and takes up right where Book A left off?
One deliberate case, but by the original author, and not in science
fiction, were the two novels "Come Nineveh, Come Tyre" and "The
Promise of Joy", which were two alternate concluding novels to the
series by Alan Drury begun with "Advise and Consent".
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Some of the later books in Edgar Rice Burroughs "Princess of Mars"
> series were obviously written by a ghost writer who had not carefully
> read the originals. There are many continuity errors.
There was the _one_ book at the end of the series that was adapted
from a Big Little Book in which Martian rats had three legs... but
other than that, this is news to me.
John Savard
Mike Schilling
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:0fea823c-1c6e-466d...@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
In case anyone's interested, at the end of the preceding book one member of
the presidential ticket of a major party is assassinated, though it's not
made clear which one. In Come Nineveh, Come Tyre", it was the conservative
presidential candidate. The liberal VP-nominee is promoted, then elected,
and proceeds to give the country away to the Russians within a year. In
"The Promise of Joy", the liberal is killed, and since the Russians don't
dare attack a US governed by a conservative, they attack the Chinese
instead, for a happy ending.