[Duraccione]

Time ago i bought this book by Michael Moorcock, "Michael Kane, the warrior of Mars" (italian translation), and now I'm about to read it: but by reading the front page I've seen it's some kind of trilogy ("Warriors of Mars/The city of the beast", "Blades of Mars/Lord of the spiders", "Barbarians of Mars/Masters of the pit") and that originally there was no joint title for the whole series ("Warrior of Mars" should be a find by the italian editor).
In order to work out this curiosity, I made a search through the internet and just discovered that all three books were published in the same year - 1965 - but I was not able to understand if they were published singularly (a volume each) or all together in the same tome.
My question is: how do I have to consider this volume, as a single work or as three books in one? Could you help me?
Thank you in advance. :)

[Julian]

You did check out this site, didn't you? -

http://www.novymir.com.au/terminalcafe/kane.html

I'd say this is pulp fiction, which probably should be considered as a rather feeble attempt as a trilogy a la Burroughs. Hasty and derivative writing, which the publisher wanted to exploit as three books. I.e. it was probably written all at once, but marketed as three volumes.

Have to admit, though, I don't really see the point of the question. Am I missing something?

[Hobbit]

Thanks for the link, Julian.

What Duraccione seems to be asking (in her second language, btw) is whether the books should be considered as seperate standalone books or facets of the same book.

They were written very quickly - about a week each, with Moorcock allegedly living on alcohol and cigarettes and little sleep until they were written. They were written partly for fun, as Moorcock is a big fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs, but mainly to make enough money to buy food. As with many of his books, they were written in short installments, which have now tended to be published as omnibus editions.

The UK edition is now an omnibus edition. I would tend to see them as one book now, Duraccione, to be honest. They involve the same characters in slightly different adventures, though they can be read separately. Rather like separate episodes of the same TV series!

They are not connected to the Multiverse books, as far as I remember.

Hobbit

[Duraccione]

Originally posted by Julian
You did check out this site, didn't you?
No. :D

it was probably written all at once, but marketed as three volumes.
Well, you confirm my suppositions...

Have to admit, though, I don't really see the point of the question. Am I missing something?
The fault probabily is mine: I need that info in order to classify this book, as said I couldn't understand if it is to be stored as a single work or as three distinct books. I think I'll do three then.
Thank your for your help. :)

[Julian]

Hobbit,

That would seem to be be right, all round. Still don't quite see the reason for the the three books/single work question, though.

Anyways, hope all this helps, Duraccione?

(Sorry, Duraccione, this was posted just before your reply!) And, as far as I'm concerned (and Hobbit too, I'd surmise), classify the trilogy as one book...)

[Duraccione]

Originally posted by Hobbit
What Duraccione seems to be asking (in her second language, btw) is whether the books should be considered as seperate standalone books or facets of the same book.

They were written very quickly - about a week each, with Moorcock allegedly living on alcohol and cigarettes and little sleep until they were written. They were written partly for fun, as Moorcock is a big fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs, but mainly to make enough money to buy food. As with many of his books, they were written in short installments, which have now tended to be published as omnibus editions.

The UK edition is now an omnibus edition. I would tend to see them as one book now, Duraccione, to be honest. They involve the same characters in slightly different adventures, though they can be read separately. Rather like separate episodes of the same TV series!

They are not connected to the Multiverse books, as far as I remember.

Hobbit

If they were written in such a short time as you say (and I'm sure you're saying it true ;) ) then I have to retrace my steps and consider it as a single book...which indeed seems now more reasonable: the whole volume is about 350 pages, a bit more than the usual number of pages in a book; instead, if split, the three books would be about 120 pages each, and it's very few...
Thank you, Hobbit, like always you're very nice and well informed! :)

(in her second language, btw)
Ehm...you should say "HIS"... ;)

[Hobbit]

LOL - thank you, Duraccione.... and apologies for the change of gender!:eek:

It was late.....

It's been a while since I read them, though I did read them as an omnibus. As Julian said, not his best work by a long way... but they are fun, if you like pulp style SF.

Hobbit