Stephen King > John Martin. That's fucking cold. Love it. :jesus:

I don't think it was an insult, seeing as King is a fantastic writer ... agree with the other post though, adverbs always stink of poor writing, and Martin seemed to add them in wherever he could, it seems! V strange.


And in the end...
Agreed. His novels will never be accepted on "literary merit" - so what? sometimes you just want escapism and an easy, good read. His work is a mixed bag, some terrible, but many are terrific - I think. He is skilled as a writer for that, don't think he will ever learn the art of editing though, don't even know if he allows his publishers to do it, given the size of some of his novels.
She didn't speak to me but immediately sat down next to a young bookstore clerk and began an intense conversation with him.
She didn't speak to me but immediately sat down next to a handsome young bookstore clerk and began an intense conversation with him.

Oh this boils my blood! the "Young," already implies handsome. Why the hell would Martin add "handsome," unless Buk was really trying to give us a clear picture of the guy. From what I've noticed, he only really says "handsome," or "beautiful," when he is making a very huge comparison between that and being ordinary. What a load of shit -- this shouldn't make me as mad as it does, but it does.
After a decade of hunting for it, I finally managed to grab a 2nd Printing, Revised hardcover edition of Women, 1978 which followed right after the Martinized first editions came out. My question is how many of this hardcover were printed? The first trade edition was limited to 354 copies, then is it safe to say this 2nd printing must have been certainly realased in the same amount?


Founding member
It looks like that was printed after the revised second edition paperback. The "revised" notice on the first paperback looks like it was added with a typewriter. In the hardcover you bought it's typeset.


My guess would be the paperback was the first revised edition, put out quickly (hence the typewriter revision notice). Then your hardcover here was the second printing of the revised edition. After they typeset the revision notice.

Either way, only the second printing has the "revised" notice, and the date (1979) on the title page is right on yours.

The trade (not numbered or lettered) first, with Martin's "editing" is the one that's more difficult to find. Of course, who knows how many of the hardcover trade firsts were actually sold. I suspect all of them. But still, yours is one of 400.
Last edited:
In order to compile all relevant information on the publication of Women, I made this printable document that can be included in the book. In case I got anything wrong, please correct me.


    140.5 KB · Views: 186
...should read “Revised as authors intent.” Don’t @#ck with artist intent. Alive, deceased, whatever. Don’t fu”# with the artists intent. Did I say “don’t FU#% with the artists intent.” The more I learn/read gets me more pissed.
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new posts.