Talk:The Princess Bride (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the story is... what?[edit]

This article about a book is strangely silent about what the story is. I suspect it might be a result of splitting an article into two, for the novel and the film, but if the primary use of the title "The Princess Bride" is going to be about the novel, it really should at least summarize the story. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little request to the article. Chipmunk01 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the main bulk of the article. Seems it more properly described the film than the book when a lot of the main description was written (nothing on 'The Zoo of Death', a key part of the book - which is telling). I also provided a plot summation of 'Buttercup's Baby', or at least the sample chapter, as well as some references (including a free online Google Books version of the 30th Anniversary Edition). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has undone your work, I think, because the current summary tells ONLY the plot of the film, leaving out everything related to the frame story about Goldman's supposed son and childhood and how they interact with the story, leaving out the Zoo of Death, etc., etc. The article on the book should not be interchangeable with the film, for any book with a film version. This is just wrong. Lawikitejana (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoo of Death is still in there. I seem to have missed when the "reading to his son" angle got dropped though. I'll dig through the history this week and see if I can spot when this got altered. Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of 9 July 2014, the only plot summarized here is the movie plot. Absolutely nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.203.28 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satire?[edit]

Among other points, you may want to consult the Errol Flynn and Swashbuckler articles as you consider the portrayal of "The Man in Black". But I wouldn't say that the story is principally a satire; I find it hard to classify, living as it does in a world between fantasy, satire, romantic comedy, and adventure.
Atlant 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually part of the point is that it isn't a satire. The Morganstern was supposedly a satire of Florinese high society, but Goldman just went and translated the fun bits. Yes it's tongu-in-cheek, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's satirical; if anything it rather fawns over the concepts of love and adventure. Chris Cunningham 11:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, it SATIRIZES the idea of love and adventure. The fact that it doesn't have a true happy ending and that while Westley and Buttercup claim to love each other so much but do so only for very surface reasons pokes fun at fairy tale conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.86.136 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed"?[edit]

I own the 25th anniversary edition. It has the bit about Carly and the first chapter of the sequel. How can this possibly need a citation? It's right there in the book if you want to check it. 213.249.135.41 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking stuff up is why you provide citations. How can you possibly think that it doesn't need one? Goldfritha 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anniversary edition links added. Sir Rhosis 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inigo Montoya[edit]

Hey, I have actually never read the book, but I saw the movie. I have a question about Inigo. He is a hispanic man, yes? In compleate ignorance of how Mr. Goldman spelt the name, I believe there are a few accients missing in the article, and I didn't want to correct them and be wrong, so I am asking a question on this instead. The name Inigo, is Basq, the group of individuals in Northern Spain (where I believe he is from), and is the Basq version of Ignatius. Now in Spanish and in Basq, the name has an ñ where the n is, and I was wondering if Inigo is from Spain, is his same spelled Inigo or Iñigo. Sorry if I come across as rude or arrogant, but I am infact both Cuban and Basq, and was merely trying to clarify something. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.232.14 (talk • contribs) 19:56, July 12, 2007

Inigo is from Spain, I think a town may be mentioned in the book (since it has a lot more detail about his father the swordmaker). The book, however, has no tilde over the "n" in his name, so adding them to the article is out of place. Someone made the replacement to the movie credits, and I changed it back after consulting both the movie's credits and the book. --GargoyleMT 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, keeping the misspelling verbatim as it appears in the book and movie credits is okay so long as the article clearly mentions it is a misspelling (and a very painful one to see from a Spanish-speaker perspective, believe me), due to English-speakers' inability or lack of care to represent the appropriate diacritics of Spanish orthography. Many of Luis Buñuel's films produced in France credit him as Luis Bunuel (sic) in very big letters, an obvious misspelling due to the unavailability of letter ñ in French typographies. If Wikipedia ever credits those films to "Luis Bunuel" it should clearly follow the misspelling at least with a (sic) warning. Same for the misspelling of the Spanish name Íñigo Montoya from the part of a careless English-speaking writer/publisher. 213.37.6.23 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name as it appears in the book is not a "misspelling", it's a name. Names can be spelled any way. Goldman chose to spell the character's name Inigo, not Iñigo. Just because a name doesn't conform to what is common, popular, or standard in a culture doesn't make it misspelled. Perhaps a note that "Inigo" is a non-standard spelling would be appropriate, but it is not appropriate to say it's misspelled. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, L.A. Story has a character named "SanDeE*". This is not misspelled, even though it's a non-standard spelling. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has Goldman stated somewhere that the 'Inigo' spelling is an active choice of a non-standard spelling and not a common misspelling of a common name in a foreign language due to limitations on the keyboard of his typewriter to represent signs of such foreign language?. In the SanDeE* case is clearly evident, but it's not so clear with Inigo. 89.7.28.82 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: In older medieval and early modern Spanish name documents, the diacritic over the 'n'is sometimes present, sometimes missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.168.131 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florin and Guilder[edit]

Any reason why he uses the names of old currencies for the warring countries? Arthurian Legend 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For fun? 128.250.6.246 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion Scene[edit]

The link to the reunion scene takes you to a dead page... is this intentional as to keep up the satire? Or is it a mistake... something to look into? Boydannie (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link, thanks for pointing it out. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but yeah, it had to be removed if it served no purpose, I guess... Boydannie (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another link will get you the scene. I've identified which one. - Sparky (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One gets this email:

Dear Reader,
Thank you for sending in and no, this is not the reunion scene, because of a certain roadblock named Kermit Shog.
As soon as bound books were ready, I got a call from my lawyer, Charley--(you may not remember, but Charley's the one I called from California to go down in the blizzard and buy _The Princess Bride_ from the used-book dealer). Anyway, he usually begins with Talmudic humor, wisdom jokes, only this time he just says "Bill, I think you better get down here," and before I'm even allowed to say a 'why?' he adds, "Right away if you can."
Panicked, I zoom down, wondering who could have died, did I flunk my tax audit, what? His secretary lets me into his office and Charley says, "This is Mr. Shog, Bill."
And there he is, sitting in the corner, hands on his briefcase, looking exactly like an oily version of Peter Lorre. I really expected him to say, "Give me the Falcon, you must, or I'll be forced to keeel you."
"Mr. Shog is a lawyer," Charley goes on. And this next was said underlined: _"He represents the Morgenstern estate."_
Who knew? Who could have dreamed such a thing existed, an estate of a man dead at least a million years that no one ever heard of over here anyway? "Perhaps you will give me the Falcon now," Mr. Shog said. That's not true. What he said was, "Perhaps you will like a few words with your client alone now," and Charley nodded and out he went and once he was gone I said, "Charley, my God, I never figured--" and he said, "Did Harcourt?" and I said, "Not that they ever mentioned" and he said, "Ooch," the grunting sound lawyers make when they know they've backed a loser. "What does he want?" I said. "A meeting with Mr. Jovanovich," Charley answered.
Now, William Jovanovich is a pretty busy fella, but it's amazing when you're confronted with a potential multibillion-dollar lawsuit how fast you can wedge in a meeting. We trooped over.
All the Harcourt Brass was there, I'm there, Charley; Mr. Shog, who would sweat in an igloo he's so swarthy, is streaming. Harcourt's lawyer started things: "We're terribly terribly sorry, Mr. Shog. It's an unforgivable oversight, and please accept our sincerest apologies." Mr. Shog said, "That's a beginning, since all you did was defame and ridicule the greatest modern master of Florinese prose who also happened to be for many years a friend of my family." Then the business head of Harcourt said, "All right, how much do you want?"
Biiiig mistake. _"Money?"_ Mr. Shog cried. "You think this is petty blackmail that brings us together? _Resurrection_ is the issue, sir. Morgenstern must be undefiled. You will publish the original version." And now a look at me. "In the _unabridged_ form."
I said, "I'm done with it, I swear. True, there's just the reunion scene business we printed up, but there's not liable to be a rush on that, so it's all past as far as I'm concerned." But Mr. Shog wasn't done with me: "_You,_ who _dared_ to _defame_ a master's characters are now going to put your words in their mouths? Nossir. No, I say." "It's just a little thing," I tried; "a couple pages only."
Then Mr. Jovanovich started talking softly. "Bill, I think we might skip sending out the reunion scene just now, don't you think?" I made a nod. Then he turned to Mr. Shog. "We'll print the unabridged. You're a man who is interested in immortality for his client, and there aren't as many of you around in publishing as there used to be. You're a gentleman, sir." "Thank you," from Mr. Shog; "I like to think I am, at least on occasion." For the first time, he smiled. We all smiled. Very buddy-buddy now. Then, an addendum from Mr. Shog: "Oh, yes. Your first printing of the unabridged will be 100,000 copies."
So far, there are thirteen lawsuits, only eleven involving me directly. Charley promises nothing will come to court and that eventually Harcourt will publish the unabridged. But legal maneuvering takes time. The copyright on Morgenstern runs out in early '78, and all of you who wrote in are having your names put alphabetically on computer, so whichever happens first, the settlement or the year, you'll get your copy.
The last I was told, Kermit Shog was willing to come down on his first printing provided Harcourt agreed to publish the sequel to _The Princess Bride,_ which hasn't been translated into English yet, much less published here. The title of the sequel is: _Buttercup's Baby: S. Morgenstern's Glorious Examination of Courage Matched Against the Death of the Heart._
I'd never heard of it, naturally, but there's a Ph.D. candidate in Florinese Lit up at Columbia who's going through it now. I'm kind of interested in what he has to say.
--William Goldman
P.S. I'm really sorry about this, but you know the story that ends, "disregard previous wire, letter follows?" Well, you've got to disregard the business about the Morgenstern copyright running out in '78. That was a definite boo-boo but Mr. Shog, being Florinese, has trouble, naturally, with our numbering system. The copyright runs out in '87, not '78.
Worse, he died. Mr. Shog I mean. (Don't ask how could you tell. It was easy. One morning he just stopped sweating, so there it was.) What makes it worse is that the whole affair is now in the hands of his kid, named--wait for it--Mandrake Shog. Mandrake moves with all the verve and speed of a lizard flaked out on a riverbank.
The only good thing that's happened in this whole mess is I finally got a shot at reading _Buttercup's Baby._ Up at Columbia they feel it's definitely superior to _The Princess Bride_ in satirical content. Personally, I don't have the emotional attachment to it, but it's a helluva story, no question.
Give it a look-see when you have a chance.
--August, 1978
P.P.S. This is getting humiliating. Have you been reading in the papers about the trade problems America is having with Japan? Well, maddening as this may be, since it reflects on the reunion scene, we're also having trade problems with Florin, which, it turns out, is our leading supplier of Cadminium, which, it also turns out, NASA is panting for.
Cadminium? never heard of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonDeDanser (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So all Florinese-American litigation, which includes the thirteen law suits, has officially been put on hold.
What this means is that the reunion scene, for now, is caught between our need for Cadminium and diplomatic relations between the two countries.
But at least the movie got made. Mandrake Shog was shown it, and word reached me he even smiled once or twice. Hope springs eternal.
--May, 1987
Use of this excerpt from _The Princess Bride_ by William Goldman may be made only for purposes of promoting the book, with no changes, editing or additions whatsoever and must be accompanied by the following copyright notice: Copyright © 1973, 1998, 2003 by William Goldman. All Rights Reserved. - Sparky (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This article has a grand total of two citations. Considering the claims it makes, this is surely unacceptable.Thedarkfourth (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


XKCD[edit]

http://xkcd.com/549/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.48.66 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical list of every author, composer, and cartoonist who ever made up a backstory for their work?[edit]

It's kind of a long list; maybe trim it down to a couple of the true legendary greats, such as Cervantes and P.D.Q. Bach?--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements in the external links section?[edit]

The bottom three entries -- downloadable game, card game, and Inigo portraits -- in the external links section look more like for-profit sites selling Princess Bride-related paraphernalia. I plan to delete them unless someone has a reason why I shouldn't. --MARQUIS111 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to keep the card game and downloadable game links, as they are mentioned in the main article. Delete the Inigo portrait link.Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Section[edit]

Could we get a section called "Reception"? (You guys know what should be in it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.135.95 (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S. Morgenstern is NOT ficticious![edit]

I'm appalled that this article, as currently written, gives credit to Goldman only. Goldman did a great job parsing out all the best parts...I myself when I had the unabridged version when I was a teanager could NOT make it through, after reading Goldman's version some 3 times (and 5 years full before the movie came out).

S. Morgenstern lived, and wrote this book. This article is giving horribly false information to the masses and needs to be changed!

- April Pierson-Drake april@aprilp.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.2.150 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur that the original work did exist. I recall seeing my mother read the original 1000+ page work. I will do my best to find an original copy for reference.--Goofycaca (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Charles[reply]

Who is the real Miracle Max?[edit]

Miracle Max was also a nickname of Dr. Max Jacobson. I wonder if the choice of the character's name was inspired by the real person (though the real person administered "miracle injections" rather than "miracle pills"). Hadaso (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Princess Bride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The Princess Bride → The Princess Bride (novel) – In contrasting the sheer popularity of the film against the long-term significance of the namesake novel, I believe we have move this article per WP:NOPRIMARY. I propose replacing the primary name with a disambiguation page (and not a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) as a way to discourage incorrect internal wikilinks. I surveyed a few of the current ones, and its clear many editors link to the novel article when they mean the film. -- Netoholic @ 12:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move to The Princess Bride (novel) as per WP:NOPRIMARY, oppose creation of a disambig page for just two pages. I think it's reasonable to have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT given that it's unlikely to cause confusion. Smith(talk)
    It's at least 3 links: novel, film, and The Princess Bride (soundtrack). If we make it a DAB page, we have bots that will notify people if they link to it rather that to the correct article. --Netoholic @ 13:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic: On that note, since there are 3 pages which this term can refer, I have created The Princess Bride (disambiguation). I see the present necessity for this, even though all of the topic are related to each other and one currently holds the ambiguous title, to be akin to Earthworm Jim (disambiguation): Sure, all of the titles are related, but they each have their own articles and technically have the same title. So, even if the disambiguation page doesn't get moved to the ambiguous title in this case, IMO, the disambiguation page should still exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no primary per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - no clear primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The book isn't nearly as well known as the film. Neither should hold the primary title. Songwaters (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. This is one of those cases where I'm not sure why it hadn't already been moved. ONR (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but there is a clear primary topic per page views, and it's the film. So also support The Princess Bride (film) → The Princess Bride, since the film is what the vast majority is seeking when they search with "the princess bride". --В²C ☎ 18:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding Citations and Links to the "Context" Section[edit]

Hello! I'm new here and noticed that the "Context" section could use more citations, although I agree with it's overall content. I plan to add some citations and links to the Wikipedia pages for the appropriate literary techniques (hopefully in the next couple of days). This may require a bit of editing of the verbiage of the section, too, to make sure it matches and is supported by the citations. But like I said, I think the previous editor's explanation of the frame story is fairly clear. Prehending (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrieking eels are not in the novel[edit]

In the novel, the just-kidnapped Buttercup jumps into the Florin Channel, not a lake, where there are sharks, not shrieking eels. The movie has the shrieking eels. I'm not sure I know how to properly edit or cite this, but feel this would warrant a correction. Obesefrogs (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Princess_Bride_(novel)&oldid=1205659187"