Doctor Who: the Pirate Planet by James Goss and Douglas Adams (2021, Trade Paperback)
Pop Life Movies Music and More (3398)
98.7% positive feedback
Price:
$11.75
Free shipping
Est. delivery Tue, Jun 3 - Mon, Jun 9Estimated delivery Tue, Jun 3 - Mon, Jun 9
Returns:
14 days returns. Buyer pays for return shipping. If you use an eBay shipping label, it will be deducted from your refund amount.
Condition:
Like NewLike New
Very Good Book has a visible flaw or flaws, but will still be in very nice condition. There might be slight curving or wear on spine. A minor crease or stain. Our paperbacks are carefully evaluated before sale and we try to grade them as honestly as possible.
Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.
Refresh your browser window to try again.
About this product
Product Identifiers
PublisherPenguin Books, The Limited
ISBN-101785945300
ISBN-139781785945304
eBay Product ID (ePID)4038739927
Product Key Features
Book TitleDoctor Who: the Pirate Planet
Number of Pages416 Pages
LanguageEnglish
TopicScience Fiction / General
Publication Year2021
GenreFiction
AuthorJames Goss, Douglas Adams
FormatTrade Paperback
Dimensions
Item Height1 in
Item Weight4.8 Oz
Item Length7 in
Item Width4 in
Additional Product Features
Intended AudienceTrade
Dewey Edition23
Dewey Decimal823.92
SynopsisThe hugely powerful Key to Time has been split into six segments, all of which have been disguised and hidden throughout time and space. Now the even more powerful White Guardian wants the Doctor to find the pieces. With the first segment successfully retrieved, the Doctor, Romana and K-9 trace the second segment of the Key to the planet Calufrax. But when they arrive at exactly the right point in space, they find themselves on exactly the wrong planet - Zanak. Ruled by the mysterious 'Captain', Zanak is a happy and prosperous planet. Mostly. If the mines run out of valuable minerals and gems then the Captain merely announces a New Golden Age and they fill up again. It's an economic miracle - so obviously something's very wrong.