Little Book Series 3

[Marmaduke Grigsby]

Did anyone else have trouble placing a pre-order for Borderlands 7? I tried from my pc and my phone, both logged in to my account and not logged in, and I got this error message every time:

"Sorry, it seems that there are no available payment methods for your state. Please contact us if you require assistance or wish to make alternate arrangements."

I called Tom Monteleone and he is taking care of it for me, but I was just wondering if anyone else had this problem or if it was only me.

p.s. A little bird told me the McCammon story in this anthology is amazing. :-)

[Martin]

Side note, Borderlands listed Borderlands 7.

Thanks for the heads up. Took a look at it. Interesting group of contributors. I have only ever purchased Borderlands 5 and will probably skip this one as well.

[bsaenz24]

Side note, Borderlands listed Borderlands 7.

[jeffingoff]

Cool. Have you heard any word on the next slipcase?

No. I haven't seen anything.

[Martin]

just paid for my McCammon Little Book preorder.

Cool. Have you heard any word on the next slipcase?

[jeffingoff]

just paid for my McCammon Little Book preorder.

[Dan Hocker]

Thanks, Martin, and, yeah, value (perceived, resale, etc.) was never part of the equation for me r.e. my disappointment in the limitation increase in the middle of what I conceive as (and is being marketed by the publisher as) a uniform set.

Along with the uniformity of size, design, layout, page count, author/contributor signature, boards (well, until the recent change to cloth), etc. — all the things that by all appearances make it the set it’s advertised to be...along with all these things it would just be nice if one the most basic, essential hallmarks of a limited book — the limitation itself — was as uniform, that’s all. To look at it another way, I wouldn’t expect, and would be disappointed, if the size dimensions of a book in the the set was suddenly a third larger, when the expectation from the outset of buying into the set was that they’d be uniform throughout the set. As a (perhaps slightly OCD’ish) customer, I see little difference between that and increasing the size of the limitation by a third. It’s either a set, something defined by its uniformity, or it’s not...if it’s not, then it shouldn’t be sold as such.

Now within this third set, we have (so far) two additional, fractured subsets of associative limitation, and for me that just seems off-base...a better solution, it seems to me, is keeping the 500 limitation and preserving the set identity and uniformity, and printing an unsigned trade edition that is clearly indicated on the copyright page as a Second Edition for those who also wish to read it. But Tom didn’t ask me. ;-)

Based off of my experience here at CD, an unsigned trade edition was probably out of the question for Borderlands. He'd almost certainly have to price it at the same price that the limited edition is to make any money off of it, and how many people would realistically buy into a unsigned trade that's the same price as the signed edition? Probably not that many. On top of that, it may not have even been an option based on his contract with the author, or the author's contracts elsewhere.

At the end of the day (in my mind) what makes the Little Books Series unique and interesting is the nature of their contents and their size / shape. Print run has nothing to do with it, it's such an arbitrary number in the grand scheme of things anyways. If upping the run on this one book enables Tom to keep doing the series, and getting author's like McCammon get people excited about the series I'm all for it.

[RonClinton]

Thanks, Martin, and, yeah, value (perceived, resale, etc.) was never part of the equation for me r.e. my disappointment in the limitation increase in the middle of what I conceive as (and is being marketed by the publisher as) a uniform set.

Along with the uniformity of size, design, layout, page count, author/contributor signature, boards (well, until the recent change to cloth), etc. — all the things that by all appearances make it the set it’s advertised to be...along with all these things it would just be nice if one the most basic, essential hallmarks of a limited book — the limitation itself — was as uniform, that’s all. To look at it another way, I wouldn’t expect, and would be disappointed, if the size dimensions of a book in the the set was suddenly a third larger, when the expectation from the outset of buying into the set was that they’d be uniform throughout the set. As a (perhaps slightly OCD’ish) customer, I see little difference between that and increasing the size of the limitation by a third. It’s either a set, something defined by its uniformity, or it’s not...if it’s not, then it shouldn’t be sold as such.

Now within this third set, we have (so far) two additional, fractured subsets of associative limitation, and for me that just seems off-base...a better solution, it seems to me, is keeping the 500 limitation and preserving the set identity and uniformity, and printing an unsigned trade edition that is clearly indicated on the copyright page as a Second Edition for those who also wish to read it. But Tom didn’t ask me. ;-)

[Martin]

I will state again I completely agree with Mr. Clinton. He never mentioned the monetary value of the books or set. As a collector the elements he mentions of "consistency and uniformity within the set" matter to me. I do not buy books based on a perceived or anticipated re-sale value. I buy books I want to read and have on my shelf. I like this series. Will this make me stop buying them? Probably not but it does impact my feelings about the series.

[Dan Hocker]

Agree with this. It doesn't affect my set and I don't plan on selling individual books from the set.

And it really won't effect the value of the whole set anyways. As with most "sets" the books are worth more individually than they are as a set.

[jeffingoff]

My "collector" mentality wasn't triggered by this decision by BP, but I'm not totally unsympathetic to people who feel otherwise. Reactions will undoubtedly vary when these kinds of decisions are made.

Agree with this. It doesn't affect my set and I don't plan on selling individual books from the set.

[Marmaduke Grigsby]

I don't personally see the problem with the run increase.

I don't either, really. In fact, I was pleased to see the robust demand for my favorite author. The modest limitation increase doesn't change the fact that I will be getting #475 of a signed limited edition. The stories will be just as fun to read either way. My "collector" mentality wasn't triggered by this decision by BP, but I'm not totally unsympathetic to people who feel otherwise. Reactions will undoubtedly vary when these kinds of decisions are made.

[Dan Hocker]

I don't personally see the problem with the run increase. It doesn't really effect the people who are collecting the series as a whole and allows more people to read a story by an author they love, and honestly the difference between 500 and 750 really won't have a noticeable effect on the "perceived value" of the book on the secondary market. Now had he jumped the run up to 2,000, that'd be a different story.

[Martin]

Yes. Whatever the issue Tom is trying to address, it would have been far better in my opinion to wait until the Series 3 set is done and increase the limitation across the board for the Series 4 set. If a publisher is going to present these books as incremental sets (1, 2, and 3 thus far), complete with slipcases, then there is an expectation (for me, at least) that there be consistency within the sets' limitation, that they share a certain cache of desirability and uniformity. Gauge better what the market demand will be and set it at that with the first volume...more risk, yes, but more customer reward in the long run, rather than increase or decrease dependent on the particular author. To be up and down in limitation within a set is disappointing. I've been collecting too long to be either surprised or annoyed any longer by publishers' actions -- I know I always have the ability to tap out -- yet it's still disappointing just the same...but <shrug> it is what it is.

I completely agree with your sentiments.

[RonClinton]

Every book in Series II has a stated limitation of 500. So far in Series III the same limitation applies with the following exceptions:

As Martin has stated, I think this is the result of the Hill kerfuffle. I think Tom's trying to solve a problem. I guess some might feel that he's also causing new ones.

Yes. Whatever the issue Tom is trying to address, it would have been far better in my opinion to wait until the Series 3 set is done and increase the limitation across the board for the Series 4 set. If a publisher is going to present these books as incremental sets (1, 2, and 3 thus far), complete with slipcases, then there is an expectation (for me, at least) that there be consistency within the sets' limitation, that they share a certain cache of desirability and uniformity. Gauge better what the market demand will be and set it at that with the first volume...more risk, yes, but more customer reward in the long run, rather than increase or decrease dependent on the particular author. To be up and down in limitation within a set is disappointing. I've been collecting too long to be either surprised or annoyed any longer by publishers' actions -- I know I always have the ability to tap out -- yet it's still disappointing just the same...but <shrug> it is what it is.