[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: DinSoc Dinosaur Encycloped



Jeff: always a pleasure!

Yes, it is DEFINITELY worth it to have all of the names in one book!

Tiger Publications doesn't do books; we do newsletters. You
can't really do ONE book as a publishing company. You have to
do a bunch of books, and I'm busy with newsletters.
Now, what I MIGHT do, if the new encyclopedia is true to the
earliest press reports and is in a ring binder (and it probably
is NOT) is publish a version of Dinosaur Discoveries formatted
so that the new dinosaurs we profile could be slipped into the
ring binder.

I don't really see your "already available" argument at all.
Go buy any three dinosaur books at random. They are 80%+
duplicative. Does that mean that no one need EVER do another one?

Now, that gives me a thought.... If every dinosaur scientist
and publisher in the world decided that we were all going to
do things in a format where each dinosaur started on a new
page, all on the same size pages, then someone who wanted
to could buy each new dinosaur book and cut it up and
shuffle it together into one huge book. If you want to
know about Pseudosaurus, you'd have articles from a dozen
authors all in one place.

I"m going to have to quote this next bit from you to reply:

>There's also the issue of obsolete pages.

There is no such issue. If you buy the 1997 edition and it
has a page about T-rex, and in Oct 97 they find out that
T-rex had feathers and flew like a bird, in Dec 97 you'll get a
new T-rex page in the update. You then turn to T-rex, pop the
rings, toss the old page in the trash, and insert the new one,
close the rings, and we're done here. What issue?

>WHere do you put the new pages?

In the middle. When Klingosaurus kumerianus is discovered,
he fits in right between the original pages for Kitadanisaurus
and Koreanosaurus.

>Let's not forget the yearly index....

Oh, let's do. The genera are in alphabetical order and there
isn't anything else in the putative ring-binder dino encyclopedia,
so you don't really NEED an index.

Given the number of new books in the bookstores every year, SOMEONE
is shelling out a lot of money for them, so I suspect that regardless
of what percentage of dinofans buy books, ENOUGH of them buy books
that you'd make a tidy profit keeping the one and only dino encyclopedia
anyone would ever need up to date.

I would point out that the primary motivation in writing,
publishing, buying, and reading new dino books is that previous
dino books get obsolete, and new books have pretty new pictures.
If someone, somewhere, did a ring-binder encyclopedia and someone
(not necessarily the same someone) did regular updates for it,
THEN (and not until then) there wouldn't be much point in there
ever being another dinosaur book published. UNTIL then, there
is a crying need for a ring-binder encyclopedia.

I would imagine that if Publisher X ever does such a thing,
both Olshevsky and I (among others) will be publishing updates,
additional material, and new dinosaur sheets that "just happen"
to fit right in.