Honestly, the costumes, and the acting. I grew up on the movie and read the book in college, and really, any book that is made into a movie becomes flattened and deadened because you can't have the same level of introspection and character development. Still the cheesy ROUS costumes and pre-pubescent Fred Savage popping his face in didn't help either.
As for Fezzik, in the movie, he's comic relief and in the book he's more important. We need and want to understand his motives in the book, in the movie, however, there wasn't time and let's be honest, Andre the Giant, though a little too perfect for the role, can't really handle a monologue the wat Cary Elwes and Mandy Patinkin can.
I would classify The Princess Bride as fantasy, but I know my bookstore has it listed under literature.
Literature. IIRC, the story is about an author rewriting a fictional fantasy and framing it in a story about a grandfather visiting a sick grandson.
I've classified it under fantasy/fairy tale. I don't think it should be classified with literature because it's nothing like most 'classic' literature I've read.
I would say fantasy. When I think of classifying something as literature, like firefly_1824 I think of the classics.
I might classify it as action/adventure/romance, but maybe that's because I don't read that many action/adventure books. I'm not sure if I would classify it as fantasy because there aren't that many classic 'fantasy' elements to it.
I am with you. The sword fight on the cliff is better than anything from any action adventure novel I have read!
I would say just the regular fiction section; however, I found the book under the Sci-Fi (/Fantasy) section of Barnes and Noble.
The author of The Princess Bride also wrote the screen play. I think he purposfully changed the ending in the movie to get people to enjoy it more. Irony isn't always accepted in movies as it is in books. The end of the movie fits with all the changes that were in the movie.
I thought it added a second layer of narrative. You saw heard the comments of "Morgensturn" on the story and then you heard Goldman's comments on the story and Morgensturn. It just added another point of view.
I would say that it is a Romance. Not the sappy romances, but the real literary romance about a hero on a quest.
Buttercup is simply a moron. She sits there doing nothing, and when she does do something its get someone killed.
I'd say romance, despite the fact that it has a good deal of comedic elements (change in social status, lovers prevented from being together etc.)
Yes, he's trying to say he's a sexist idiot who only has one opinion of women.
I agree with this analysis that you have made.
I don't think that Buttercup did anything that was truly heroic; all that she really ever did was cry and wait for Westley to come and save her. I view her as a very obnoxious character.
Major differences are the lack of background stories.
I'm with cardinalschica on this one.
I also think that he did it to bring out his writing style without offending his real family. It also added to making Florin sounding like a real country.
I think that the producers of the movie did this to make it more apealing to the general public. Authors do what they feel is right for a story line when they write a book; they aren't always concerned about how other people view it, at least not as much as producers. The movie having a happy ending made it more appealing to the general public, and avoided criticisim.
I thought his point was to add a ironic character to the story to make it more interesting.
Goldman is a screenwriter, so he has a certain understanding of what works and what doesn't on film. He knew that the irony and constant interjections etc. wouldn't exactly be funny on film. So Goldman chose to make his story more romantic.
um if the name was chnged to the pit of despair then it was definately in teh movie, plus you cant have the whole book be part of the movie or else it would eb like 500 hours long, well nto taht long but you gte the point
Honestly, I think he changed it because all the satire would have probably been completely lost on the majority of the audience.
He probably changed it so that it would be better understood, and more comical rather than satirical.
becuase it makes it a better movie, if ti was the whole book and nothing else it would be a horrible screen play. the point of writing a sreen play is to change it so that it will fit into the plot of a movie.
She fills the role of damsel in distress, but I think heroine has two different meanings. Westley actually posesses heroic characteristics: loyalty, incredible strength, bravery, and brains. Buttercup is slightly lacking in every heroic aspect. However, she is a main character of the book, filling the other definition of hero. Ironic hero have low, flexible morals and they lack effective action. She does fit this description. She's a heroine, although not in the typical sense.
I think that the book makes fun of it more than praising it. Westley and Buttercup both loved each other for physical elements, but not much further than that. It also seems like Goldman made them come across as too deeply in love: it made the concept more unbelievable. Buttercup wasn't fully for Westley as he was for her because after they exited the Fire Swamp, she just left him and didn't have the backbone to go through another adventure. Westley travled all over the world earning money and serving to return to Buttercup, but when he did, she just left thim.
He probably had a bad experience with women when he was growing up, and therefor has a bad atttitude about them ever since.
a damsal in distress becuase she is so stupid and ditsy, she also just adds to the vanity theme of the book.
In the book the Zoo of Death was basically a playground for Humperdink and his obsession with hunting. They kinda cut back on this obsession in the movie. As the Pit of Despair was not filled with animals, it would be inappropiate to call it a zoo.
Maybe not in America today, but in general. Not to say that he's anti-government: he just doesn't find good qualities in many politicians or leaders.
I think it's definitely Goldman’s way of saying he doesn’t think much of politicians, particularly ones who are leaders only because they inherited it, rather then those who earn it. I think it’s more that than a commentary on the American government.
Goldman's portrayal of love is very shallow. An incredibly gorgeous, stupid, helpless woman, whose strong, handsome, clever love plucks her out of every stupid situation she puts herself into, despite the fact that most of the time, she is betraying him. It’s mostly physical attraction, rather than intellectual connection that makes Goldman’s “true love” happen. That kind of “love” is what shallow teenagers enter into, and then break up six weeks later. It’s both immature and temporary. While the two “lovers” go through a lot of difficulty to be together, neither of them exhibits any sign of deep connection.
Goldman certainly did not do that by accident. This portrayal of “love” is, along with most of the rest of the contents of the book, a cynical commentary on, in his opinion, the impossibility of actually having physical, emotional, and intellectual attraction and connection (or love) to and with someone.
To make a good film
It kind of ruins the book.
I myself could not even get into it i hate it how he tells us about his personal storys, but we do not even know if they realy are his personal stories. How dumb is that?
I tend to think that Goldman is trying to say something true about love.
Romantic love is surprising, mysterious, and above all, costly. Happily every after comes late, sometimes after wrong turns and mistakes, and it doesn't always stay very long. But I think, and I like to think Goldman would agree, true love is something worth coming back from the dead for.
It's a parody of love+adventure stories, I think.
Goldman pretends that the book is based on an actual, very wordy "classic", he invents his family in the "good parts only" book and generally makes fun of the story and himself.
Buttercup may be a silly twit but she acts pretty rationally much of the time. Her "betrayal" of Westley happens because she really thinks her beloved is dead. Prince Humperdinck ( what a naughty name, pronounced quickly and carelessly) offers her a choice - his hand or her death. She warns him that she will never love him but he doesn't care ( "Love? Who mentioned love?"). She doesn't want to die painfully (as the prince promises) so she agrees to marry him.
In the Fire Swamp the Prince threatens to kill Westley. Buttercup agrees to go on with the nuptials if he leaves Westley alone. This is a pretty worthy cause, I mean, they both remain alive to fight another day.
Buttercup has nightmares about marrying the prince. She waits faithfully till the last moment for Westley to rescue her.
I think that this fairy tale works out ok. The heroine makes sure she stays alive, she stops the bad prince from killing the hero. The hero goes through a couple of ordeals and shows up at the last moment to save the maiden from fate worse than death, even though he himself is rather disabled at that moment.
Are those shallow characters deeply in love? Who cares? They play out their parts, the fairy tale ends at the standard point, the only thing that is different is that the author doesn't put in the usual "and they lived happily ever after". They ride off into the night, the rest is left to imagination.
The thing about a fairy tale is that you're told how people feel. We're told Westly and Buttercup are in love, so they're in love. I agree with Clarity's answer, and although Goldman pokes plenty of fun at himself and fairy tales and what not, in the end the character's love for each other still saves the day. Buttercup's actions are based on whether she believes her love is still alive, and what she will have to do to make sure that they are able to be together in the long run. When she thinks all is lost, and Westly is not coming for her, she'd rather kill herself than stay married to Humperdinck.
Although she doesn't show much emotion in most parts, it's the result of her broken heart than of betrayal. She just doesn't care any more.
I've got to agree with Clarity, much of what Buttercup and Westley show is a devotion to one another. Westley dreams of his girl for years on the pirate ship, and eventually returns to her. Since pirating by its very nature allows contact with exotic ports and even more exotic women--both willing and unwilling, as the case may be--this shows some real steadfastness on Westley's part. A simply physical attraction he may not have returned for.
As for Buttercup, she might have been vain, but she also made many sacrifices for love. Yes, she was a passive woman, but keep in mind when the book was written.
While in 1973 (the publishing date) many liberal movements were in full swing, they had not yet reshaped the face of our society, and women were still engaged in such revolutionary ideas as coming out of the kitchen. It was only in 1963 that we finally had equal wages, and it was later still that we were not only allowed to legally carry credit cards, but that stores would willingly issue them to a woman. Women in positions of power and authority with full control of their own lives was not only uncommon, but still seen as vaguely unnatural.
If you read those cheapola Harlequin romance novels from the 1960s and 1970s, they show terribly forceful men (the kind that these days we might prosecute) and women who are always independent and feisty--just so long as they realize their place, which is right behind a man. These were peddled to mainstream America, not hippies, and give a rather interesting reflection of the attitudes of the time.
Princess Bride also reflects these attitudes in the weaker, passive heroine who is obsessed with looks (which, aside from the pride of being the most beautiful woman in the world was also VERY important to women who did not have our privileges, as their beauty was all the currency they had to buy a better life). However, like much of the older literature, though she was weaker than a man and often took a non-violent way out, she still showed strength in her willingness to sacrifice herself to save the people she loved.
And, of course, Buttercup and Westley also became caricatures of themselves, as did the other characters (Humperdink, Inigo, Fezzik, etc.) due to the comedic nature of the book and the types of tales it was making fun of. He has a fairy tale dead to rights, even if the lady and the tiger ending was a pain in the buttocks.
I thought it was kind of funny.
I think one of the main differences is that they do not give the background of Fezzik and Inigo in the story. I also think that another major differences is that they change the Zoo of Death to the pit of despair, and therefor cut out Inigo and Fezzik's trip through the Zoo of Death.
Irony, without hesitation. It almost parodies other genres by applying them to such ridiculous situations. Not to mention it's chock full of satire, dramatic irony, and situational irony. The humor and casual writing style points straight to irony.
I couldn't even get through three pages. It was pitiful. Don't waste your time.
The zoo of death was a non-plot enhancing detail that only served to demonstrate how crazy Humperdink was. Removing the zoo, and replacing it with a simple “pit of despair” was just a way to cut back.
The ending. It was so sappy fairytale. And the lack of irony. Without the satire, it's just a story. With the satire, it's actually about something: love, revenge, devotion, life, death, pain.
The movie comes pretty close to the book; the main characters are all the same and just as likeable/unlikeable. For the most part, the dialogue follows. The main difference is irony. The book is so satirical and the movie is strictly fairy tale. I thought that took a lot away from the story. It lost a lot of ironic humor and meaning. The book's point was that nothing in life, not even true love, is totally fair and pure. The movie has no point at all. The book makes fun of true love: the movie praises it.
I like the book more. Not because the movie is bad, just because it isn't as good. I miss Goldman's commentary and I really missed the irony.
Maybe he wasn't satisfied with the way parts of the book turned out.
No. Spaniards are not considered a race, by people who classify that sort of thing.
I disliked him more in the book, i think that they gave him a bad image in the movie. His character was evil, and very !@#$%. Thats all i have to say.
I beileve that Goldman changed the name becuase Goldman did not want to go into the details of how messed up Humperdink was about hunting. So this cut down time in the film.
I think a Fairytale, but why ask me?
Nope, and don't plan on doing it either.
Maybe he is just one of those people who need to let their feelings go, but they only do it in weird ways.
I'm still having trouble seeing Buttercup's love as devotion. She did leave him in the Fire Swamp, and at the end gave yp when she nearly killed herself. She's a little fickle and seems to lack confidence in Westley.
Misselaineous- "That kind of “love” is what shallow teenagers enter into, and then break up six weeks later."
it's true! They're just like Romeo and Juliet, a couple of horny teenagers!
I agree that it's a commentary on "love" (in quotations for a reason), Goldman's whole tone is so tongue-in-cheek, it has to be a satire. I've just never really thought about it before...
Well, i saw the movie before i read the book, and it has been a classic movie for me growing up, so it most definitely holds a place up there. The book was amazing though, most definitely.
I liked the book better than the movie, because I liked how it went more in depth, as well I also liked how they had the subplot of the man named William Goldman. I think that added an interesting character that they left out in the movie. I think the movie does a pretty good job about portraying the book, however I think the movie is much more comical than the book, and doesn't go as deeply into the background of the characters as the book does.
From my perch here at the top of the fence I have to say that I loved both equally. :)
Confidence aside, she lacks the maturity and intelligence to be faithful to Westley's memory.
The most likely answer is to cut down on the time of the movie. If they left in all the stuff about the Zoo of Death it would probably add an extra hour to the movie. Therefor, they had to change the name or it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.
Is true love supposed to be practical? I think she's too short on passion and devotion to be truely in love.
Mostly, he's laughing at them. The entire book is a satire, making fun of mainly love. He's laughing at the world's shallow love. It seems like Goldman thinks true doesn't exist; that it's just a mirage humanity believes in. It's very ironic: everyone calls Buttercup and Westley's relationship "true love," but that's not what it is at all. It's jealousy, physical attraction, and hormones: but not true love. Goldman is laughing at all those readers who think love is a real force, formed between two people and strong enough to evade death. Goldman is saying love is impossible.
That's very sad, but true. Irony is the king of humor.
Irony. It just doesn't work on screen, so they cut it out. The book, on the other hand, was exploding with irony. It satirizes love: the movie elevates it.
He's basically saying love sucks, there is no reason for it, there is no reason for people to act like loons. They act like that because they are loons. This book is about Goldman needing a release for his anger at never getting a date to prom. But really, this is a book written to confuse the readers, Goldman wants you to think and make an opinion off it.
I think that the book makes fun of it. Everything about this book makes fun of your average everything ends happily-ever-after book. Golman writes as S. Morgenstern that this book has everything. It does, but everything it has is made a mockery of. I think that the main point is that there is no true love, Buttercup's love for Wesley didn't save him. I think Wesley said true love was what he was alive for so that he could come back and strangle Buttercup for being an idiot and not having any faith in him.
I don't nesacarilly think America in general, I think he was trying to point out the flaws in so many government systems.
I think because I saw the movie first that it is one of my favorite movies. When I read the book I loved it too though, so I like them both equally.
See, I disagree with this. If the authors introduction of "True Love and High Adventure" was meant as a preview, then it would not have made sense if Buttercup did not end up with Westly.
As a child watching the movie, I was entralled by the tale of two people who were completely and totally in love that every obstacle that came to them, they were able to overcome. Growing up (esp. in those akward years as a high-schooler) I always would wonder when watching the movie if I was ever going to find somebody like that who would love me to that extent. Even though it's just a fiction story, I believe the love in these kinds of books (fairytales of one sort or another) is meant to inspire the love in all of us.
Additionally as what I believe to be a 'classic' of the modern-day generation and definately one of the better romantic fairytale stories (in league with stories like Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc), it would not make sense for the Prince (the 'bad' or 'evil' side) to come out victorious in the end. Good always triumphs over bad and to diverge from this would have made the book more serious than a romantic fairytale (which is what the author is trying to aim for).
I found it very smart (abeit a little confusing that I had to do some research online to find out exactly what was going on). I agree with puella_stulta, it did add a additional narrative voice and was kind of fun that the author was so into this story that he made this whole fake facade to go along with it.
No, the reason is obvious if you read Buttercup's Baby.
I read two pages of it and gave up in disgust.
I think he was just giving his opinion of goverments as a whole, especially monarchy.
Damsel in distress without a doubt. Her only good moment is when she stands up to the guards at the gate. Besides that part she comes across as somewhat of a dumb blonde who is always in need of Westley's help.
They offer support because the entire book is filled with just that, true love and high adventure.
Well, if you really wanted to make that statement accurate, it would be, "TWUE WOVE and Adventure"... but that's neither here nor there. :)
Even though Buttercup is a twit, i still think it was good for the story line for her to get back together with Westley. If you think about it, if they didn't get back together the whole book would have suffered and been pointless.
I know what you mean, it isn't very satisfying because Buttercup didn't seem to mature or change throughout the book. Usually we get catharsis through the change of a character, the realization that is reached after suffering has been undergone, and i think that lacks here, but that's what makes it such a good book. In reality very few people have the moments of realization that give them the perfect solution to their problems, and some people are always apoiled selfish and annoying, but people still love them. And for me that's [part of what true love is. Loving someone even though you realize how imperfect they are.
It's funny. I never thought about it. I first read PB in 8th grade, maybe (early 80s anyway).
Now, I think the bit about "true love" was true but also about the search for the mythic. I don't really believe that Buttercup was unfaithful, just practical.
I wanted them to get back together but that's because I like a happy ending. My only problem with it was even with a mask if this man was her true love Buttercup should have been able to recognise him, i know it's had been five years but still the whole point of love is for it to see through everything surely from his mannerism and voice she should have realised. So my question is was Westly Buttercups true love or was he just convenient at the time.
I know what you mean--Buttercup was irritatingly immature. But to steal a line from Roger Rabbit: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." I think that Buttercup is Westley's foil. He could not be so perfect if she were not so imperfect. He deserved better, but then most men would agree that being desired by the most beautiful woman in the world is not a bad thing.
They really love each other... and because it's fiction, that's enough. This book is a parody of fairy tales!! It doesn't matter if they love each other for the right reasons-- no one in fairy tales ever cares about things like we do. Besides... Buttercup HAS to be a ninny, or she wouldn't be a fairy tale princess!!! And the princess never marries the bad guy. Humperdink was def the bad guy...
Peachy, after reading your opinion of the book, the obvious answer is yes. If the paper is a "what if" kind of a thing, no problem, just explain the hero's quest elements (that makes English teachers happy), the joy of reading (always important) and its relevance to the modern reader.
I retired from teaching two years ago and we were constantly questioning the relevance of our texts to the young readers. I would not suggest that you argue for a replacement of current texts, but just as a supplement. . . the "other list" open for teachers and students to draw from.
You can argue that his sentence structure was good (it was) and that the plot, in flipping between story and narrator had a unique ability to hold interest. Don't forget the movie tie-in. Teachers tend to like a book that leads to a movie as a culminating experience wherein the students can do a paper on the deviations from the text and if it is better, worse, or simply different.
I liked the book too. Let me know if I can help. I just finished reading this book last week. Rather hated to see it end.
I don't think it is a good book to have on a school curriculum as there was no real moral to the story. It may have been written well and in an unusual manner but shouldn't young people be learning about real life and not fairy tales which is pretty much what it is.
Don't get me wrong I thought it was a good read but I like the film a lot more and I think anybody who doesn't like reading would soon get bored with it. I may be wrong on this subject but I prefered reading books like The Outsiders and My Brother In The Land. I think if I was given this to write a essay on I would have been lost as to what to write.
I think sometimes we (teachers and parents) get so caught up in "the curriculum" that we forget that one of our main jobs is to encourage a lifelong love of learning (and reading). This book may not change lives or elicit in depth character analysis, but it's highly enjoyable and very well written.
I also think students should be exposed to as many types of writing styles and genres as possible.
Of course, my high school lit teacher taught us Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner by playing the Iron Maiden song of the same name. To this day, it remains one of my favorite epic poems.
Of course it's not real-- neither was Morgenstern.
It's never been published. He's claimed that he's had problems getting the book published because of problems with the Morgenstern's estate.
It's probably a ploy, much like the ploy with the "reunion" scene.
It was supposedly edited out of the book because of "problems with the Morgenstern's estate", but if you wanted a copy you were supposed to write to the publisher and request one. If you did that, they sent you a letter citing more problems with the Morgenstern's estate.
But I really liked it....
Compare and contrast: the book and the movie, and a question about Fezzik's story.
In your own opinion, what qualities between the book and the movie make the movie more of a fantasy and less believable? Also, what do you think the influence the telling of Fezzik's story in the book that the movie did not contain?
What genre is The Princess Bride?
If you removed the irony, under what genre would you classify The Princess Bride?
The Character William Goldman
What was the author's point in making a character named William Goldman? I found it very confusing.
Irony vs. Fairytale
Goldman mocked literary critics, royalty, and everything in between in the book. But the movie had no irony: it was all fairy tale. The best example might be the change in endings. The movie was a little sappy, but the book was ironic.
Why the change? Why isn't the movie as satirical as the book?
Is Buttercup a heroine, or simply a damsel in distress?
Movie vs. Book
What are the major differences between the book and the movie?
William Goldman wrote both the book and the screenplay. Why do you think he changed the movie as much as he did?
What do you think about Goldman's portrayal of women?
All the women were coniving, heartless, foolish people in the book. Is Goldman trying to say something?
Zoo of Death/ Pit of Despair
Why were all the events in the book surrounding the Zoo of Death not in the movie and why was the name changed from the Zoo of Death to the Pit of Despair.
Does this book make fun of true love or praise it? I thought Goldman was saying true love was impossible. After all, Buttercup's love was anything but true.
Has anyone written to the publishers and recieved anything about the Reunion Scene?
Did anyone like Buttercup's Baby? Was it good? or bad?
In the book Goldman makes all of the nobles come across as stupid and greedy. He also "cuts out" parts of Florinese crown line saying it's boring. Do you think that he was doing these things to compare the government in the book to the government in America today?
I have to say in a way i did not want Buttercup to get back together with Westly, but i also did not want her marrying the Prince either. What did you think?
If you thought differently than what i thought please tell me your reasonings behind this.
Do you dislike Humperdink more in the movie or book? Or if you want to have a difference of opinion, which one did you like him more in, th movie, or book?
Favorite part of Princess Bride.
What is your favorite part/quote from The Princess Bride?
which did you enjoy?
This is a pretty basic question:
Which did you enjoy more, the book or the movie?
Do you think that the movie does a good job of portraying the book?
Was Goldman being racist?
Do you think Goldman was being racist whan he made sarcastic comments about Spaniards?
Is Goldman laughing with his readers...or laughing at them?
"True love and High adventure"
In the Introduction, Goldman writes, " ....True love and high adventure... ." Do these words offer support in the book or do they refuse them in the book?
What do you think about the book being in your school curriculum?
Right now i am doing a paper on if i believe that the book The Princess Bride needs to be in my school curriculum or not.
I want to know shelfarians feel about this subject.
Alrighty... So, I just read the Princess Bride for the first time (though I have adored the movie for years) and the copy I read had the first chapter of Buttercup's Baby.
I want to know if that did actually get published as a book and if so, would it be listed under William Goldman or S. Morganstern.
A true one ! Got to have it !
as always the book is better than the movie. We all love the movie, right? the book is laugh out loud funny!!!
This book made me laugh and think about what constitutes a classic. Goldman points out what is important in fiction. We read to be entertained, and this book (as well as the movie based up it) is highly entertaining.
What happens when the most beautiful girl in the world marries the handsomest prince of all time and he turns out to be...well...a lot less than the man of her dreams?
As a boy, William Goldman claims, he loved to hear his father read the "S. Morgenstern classic, The Princess Bride. But as a grown-up he discovered that the boring parts were left out of good old Dad's recitation, and only the "good parts" reached his ears.
Now Goldman does Dad one better. He's reconstructed the "Good Parts Version" to delight wise kids and wide-eyed grownups everywhere.
What's it about? Fencing. Fighting. True Love. Strong Hate. Harsh Revenge. A Few Giants. Lots of Bad Men. Lots of Good Men. Five or Six Beautiful Women. Beasties Monstrous and Gentle. Some Swell Escapes and Captures. Death, Lies, Truth, Miracles, and a Little Sex.
I read this slowly, to my delight, over one bitter Wisconsin winter. The Princess Bride warmed my chilly moments as I curled up cozily with William Goldman.
I agree. The books is a million times better than the movie. Totally enjoyed every minute of this book.
the book IS a million times better than the movie.
i still read it almost once a month!!
i want to real stories
This is a first, but I liked the movie better than the book.
never judge a book by its movie.
very nice story!!!
This is such a wonderful book! It is just as funny as the movie! An absolute delight!
I had never actually laughed out loud reading a book until I read this one. Still, the movie holds a more special place in my heart. 'Who am I' you ask? No one of consequence.
i would like to read this book
The book is a delightful joke and a delightful fantasy tale. Much like Don Quixote book I and II - it both mocks the genre while participating in the genre. I guess if one is not use to this type of exaggerated/mocking humor one could get deceived. Perhaps my New York and Jewish background helped me to recognize that the book was never a real 'translation' of anything but a wondrous example of fabrication.
It is also a loving example of a parental figure trying to convey the delight he has in something that is sophisticated and convey this joy to a child. It is not so much a 'dumbing down' as an act of speaking in the child's language. Sort of like the Classic Warner Brothers Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck cartoons - or Rocky & Bulwinkle - taking some sophisticated views and perspectives at presenting them in the colorful imaginative language of a child.
The comments by Goldman as the author of the book noting all sorts of fun oddities as being 'the first' or 'the best' or whatever and placing the events of the book in a supposed 'historical' context & comparison - all those asides were enormously funny!
For example the very first line of 'The Book' itself: "The year that Buttercup was born, [actually even at this moment the reader should have a clue that something is odd - someone is pulling your proverbial leg - who names a character 'Buttercup'? It is too cute and too pretentious to be taken seriously - but that is the point of the name...sorry..an aside by me, in the same vein as Goldman/Morgenstern I'll stop kibitzing and let you get back to the book...], the most beautiful woman in the world was a .... [ and on it goes for a few pages tell us about the downfall of this once most beautiful woman in all the world. Picking up with...]
"The year Buttercup turned ten, the most beautiful woman lived in Bengal...."
[Then again launching into a mini-tale of her loss of the title...sort of a behind the scenes look at the life of Miss Universe long after she won the crown...]
That kind of writing should have been a hint that you are not reading any ordinary fairy tale or fantasy tale - the playful mockery drips off the page like way too much chicken schmaltz spattering in a hot skillet.
But it is the playful mockery and all those wonderful asides that make the book such fun and so full of wit! Not gags, not jokes, but Wit!
The book is a great and a "triumph in the genre of abridgments" - a genre that never existed...unless you happen to get a hold of and read the Reader's Digest version of the Necronomicon.....
The movie is great because it manages to convey the mocking nature and perspective of the book while mainly presenting it all as an straightforward presentation of the fairy tale genre.
Frankly, there were not enough nazi dentists in the book for my taste... but, that aside, it's a great read and very different from the film though they're each brilliant in their own way. Nice to see that the line Fezzik's mother says in the book- "Life is pain- anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something"- is so good it has to be given to the Man in Black in the film as she doesn't feature...
the story is really excellent same as the movie
the story is really excellent same as the movie
I've heard the novel isn't as good as the movie.
I found the book as good as the movie, I have both. Some of the funnier aspects of the book are missing in the movie, especially the word play amongst the thugs. I too laughed through it and ended up reading it several times. The movie also simplifies the lover relationship between Princess Buttercup and her lover. I liked imagining the settings as well as seeing them brought to life in the movie.
wow, the negative reviewers are really missing the point of this story. it's a parody of the fantasy genre, but also chockfull of humor. perhaps having it listed as a fantasy is too limited of a genre. It's rather densely populated with absurd characters and situations. I've had friends who didn't realize the running farce that it i just an edited version of an old book. I love it and have read it over and over
"the negative reviewers are really missing the point of this story."
--Or maybe we do get the point, but think it was very poorly executed. :)
The movie is to die for.
THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST BOOK/MOVIE COMBINATION EVER IN HISTORY!!!! lol. I am 27 and this is still my favorite movie....hahaha. "My name is Dominigo Montoya. You killed my father. Preprare to Die!!!" hahahaha
what exactly is the book about
hahahahaha NONONONO not funny at all if u seriousley have a life u wouldnt be quoting stupid books that have no value of reading what so ever loser
thank you so much for your enthusiastic comment. i'm sure everyone appreciates it. ( if you can't tell, i'm being sarcastic. if you are going to post negative comments about a book, you shouldn't do it in a childish and immature way. people really won't take you seriously. )
has anybody ever read (or found) the original unabridged version? i can't find it anywhere and i really want to read it. this version was good but i want the original text.
It would certainly be an interesting read, especially chapter three. Unfortunately, Morgenstern is a fictional person. Goldman included the idea of him and the mentions of Florin (also fictional) to add another layer to his already engrossing story. He did write at least one other book under that pseudonym though, entitled The Silent Gondoliers.
i had a copy of the original a number of years ago and lost it in storage with everything else. i might have a lead on finding another original, though.
really? wow. i was definitely fooled.
I have an original copy of this book, with an interesting section in the middle where you can write a letter to the publisher and ask for a copy of the "reunion scene" between Westley and Buttercup (right before the fire swamp). We actually did send in a letter and received a very humorous response. I can't find the image of the version we have on shelfari.
Got for my birthday,along with Thunderstruck by Eric Larson and can't wait to read
I just love, love, LOVE the movie, but haven't read the book. Maybe I should...
i came to the book via the movie and now miracle max indelibly springs to my head as billy crystal as i read. movies can never be more the a precis of a good book, and as you read this one, you will realize a well written book is an order of magnitude better in terms of richness and depth compared to a movie. well a movie would have to be 12 hours long to manage that.
I read the book and then saw the movie but you could do it either way. I think the movie makes it a little clearer than the book. Both are awesome though.
My best friend is obsessed with the movie...and i HATE it. He swears by the book and so he got it for me for my birthday. So far, i've got to admit, it's pretty entertaining. Its just kind of a fun release from some of the other tense books i'm currently reading.
Which is easier to understand and enjoy the movie or the book. Also what are the differences and similarties about the book and the movie. And what do you recomend better the book or the movie? And is it a good fun book that will entertain you with adventure, suspense, love , swordfights , etc. I know I defintely love the movie because I quote it sometimes.
I think that the book can be a bit hard to follow at times unless you've seen the movie. I really enjoy both and I can appreciate the comment made by flops m because the characters come alive through the book because of the characters you know from the movie. Of course, I feel the depth of the characters is better captured and portrayed in the book as is usually the case. I read the book is 3 days because it kept me captivated and entertained, so, I think you will really enjoy it if you fancy the movie enough to quote it!
I like the book better, but I tend to prefer books. However, the movie doesn't ruin the book for you, the way some movies often do. Some of the scenes to me were better when read, like in the end when the 6th fingered man finally gets what's coming to him, and the sword fights. It's been a while since I watched the movie or read the book, but definitely read it.
Like a previous comment, I would almost recommend skipping the extra "flashbacks". They are the hardest part to get through. I think this is a rare case that the book and the movie stand alone. I can see why the movie is made the way it is, and I really enjoy the movie, but the book is good fun as well. This is one of my few exceptions where the movie isn't better than the book, just different.
A long trek of love...
I read this book when it came out back in the 1970's. I read it in high school classes and literally laughed out loud. Personally, I like it more than the movie which tends to be almost insultingly obvious. This is one of my all time favorites. I recommend it without reservations.
I read this book when it came out back in the 1970's. I read it in high school classes and literally laughed out loud. Personally, I like it more than the movie which tends to be almost insultingly obvious. This is one of my all time favorites. I recommend it without reservations.
Has any reread this book? And is it easier to understand reading a second tiime? Or it is one or the other the book or the movie easier to understand. Please if possible lets take a few polls please 1. People who liked the book,people who liked the book, liked both, disliked both or one or the other. 2. Which one was easier to understand and ,more enjoyable the book or the movie. I just want to try this for recommendations for people that might want to read the book . And a few opinions whether or not its worth reading . Because it sounds like it might be a book worth trying to read again.
i can't speak on the book, i own it but yet to get to it. But the movie was terrific. One of those films I was forced to watch by an ex-girlfriend but loved it and have bought it for myself. and no there should be no problem keeping up with the film.
When my daughter and I read this book together, we laughed and laughed out loud as we read it. I believe it has more humor than the movie. I loved the book even more than the movie and I loved the movie. The author has quite a sense of humor. I think all ages would enjoy it. This is my opinion.
in response to molly b
i think the book and movie are wonderful...........
the book is much more understanable and enjoyable the second time.
its DEFINITLY worth reading, and this has to be the one book i say that the book and movie are created equal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is one of the few books that I can read over and over and over. It has some in common with the movie, but it has a lot of differences. I think it is more humorous. Give it a try again and keep in mind its meant to be funny. Also watch the movie, its a great movie and Cary Elwes is SO hot... Its a movie I watch every time Im in a bad mood or sick. Both are fabulous in different ways.
ARGH!!! I loved this book up until I found out there is no S Morgenstern that William Golman worte the whole thing himself and just pretended to Abridge it.
to me thats what makes it even better. He created a whole world within a world. He brought it to life and made it convincing. And he plays a great trick on just about every reader! That just endears the book to me even more.
WHAT?! REALLY?! Strange............ This book is cool, but it's kinda confusing at the end. My favorite part is when Inigo Montoya says, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." What was yours?
That's not true...look it up. It's a political satire...original is horrible, abriged very good
I thought that added to its charm, personally. :) I strongly suspected it from the start, and felt satisfied when I learned the truth.
Lets talk timetables on this. Which came first, the book or the movie. Ive heard the movie actually came before the "abridged" book that Goldman wrote. Anyone else hear this rumor? Anyone know if it is true? Anyone else hear any interesting theories on the book/movie?
The book. And just in case you're confused Goldman wrote the entirety of the book, not Morgenstern, he's as fictional as Fezzick. The movie came after the book's release, quite a while after in fact. The book was released in 1973, the movie in 1987. Hope this helps!
I'm pretty certain that the book came first. There are a number of places in the book which explain things which the movie glossed over. The movie did Buttercup a disservice by rushing over her mourning period, in my opinion. Personally, I love the movie and the book. This is definitely my absolutely favourite book.
should i read this book?
It's a good story but it is pretty much exactly the same as the movie, which I've seen a million times. Therefore, I'm kind of bored reading it. I never say this but I would recommend the movie over the book.
I think it was pretty good, but I am looking forward to the sequel, Buttercup's Baby. However, I do agree that it is pretty much the same as the movie. But the book did come first, and you do have to admit it is exceptionally creative and anyone who has not seen the movie would love the book. Personally, I do think the book is better, but the movie is very good. The differences between them is mainly better descriptions, and occasional interuptions by the "abridger". I have never heard the rumor of the book based on the movie, but I still think the book came first, mainly because there is more details then the actual movie. It is a great book allaround.
I have been Looking all over for buttercups baby and cant find it i need help please
it doesn't exist.
Read the Wikipedia article on The Princess Bride. It is after all Wikipedia, so I wouldn't take it to the bank, but it's probably accurate...
Buttercups Baby does exist. It is in the back of my edition of Princess Bride. Maybe it only comes in certain issues? Not sure but it is more of a short story than a book.
It is not a real book. and roxxd, the story in the back of the book is supposed to be the "first chapter". But it's not a real book. It's really just the end of the first book.
i liked the other version more
I re-read the book when I found out that the sentimental parts about the "abridger's" life and his struggle were fictional too, it just made everything a whole lot funnier than the first time.
The abridger's life annoyed the hell out of me.
not read the book yet, but i love the movie...just watched it again recently. full of wit, humour... ofcourse adventure.
they didn't really get all of the humor of the book into the movie. remember when you read the book you need to start with the preface and the forward, don't skip anything or you won't get all of the jokes.
So, is there really a sequel, Buttercup's Baby? And is it really cowritten by Stephen King? Or is he just pulling our leg? So confused, but would so love to read the sequel.
What age group is this for?
I watched the movie when I was in grade 6 ... it is a fantasyish world I think if you know that any age would be fine.
I was probable between 4-6 when I saw the movie and loved it. I'm now nearly 30 and read the book for the first time and loved it. It's much funnier as an adult. My daughter is now 6 and I'll probable read it to her-cutting out a few parts.
So I'd say any age.
14 and up I'd say, because that's when you can appreciate it more.
The movie was my favourite, it is still in my top 10 but the book I didn't find as funny, probably because I watched the movie first..
my god I love this book!!! It's so amazing and so wickedly funny. I haven't watched the movie yet but everyone's telling me to so I think I will someday. Still, I'm reluctant to watch it since most of the book-turned movies I've watched are REALLY bad. Hopefully I won't be disappointed in this one!
The movie itself follows the story very well because William Goldman himself was invovled in making it. There are details in the book that are left out because of time obviously. But the movie does a great job of telling the story too. Plus there are a few added bits of humor that would have been hard to describe in the book (ex: the marriage scene).
The movie is REALLY REALLY good, I promise. I haven't read the book yet, but I know everything that happens because when I was 3 I watched it like, 5 times every day. But I watched it a few months ago, and I still think the movie is absolutly wonderful!
The movie is awesome. Full of all the sillyness of the book.
This is really kind of late, but I'd like to say that not only was William Goldman involved in making the movie, but he wrote the screenplay! So, yeah, the movie-to-book transition is realllly easy. :D
shall i read this book?
I'm really confused... I just finished this book and I was told that S. Morgenstern isn't a real person, but then William Goldman would have written the book and he was lying to us in certain points of the book when he said his father read it to him, and he was cutting out this and that, et cetera. Why would he want to do that? And also, what about Buttercup's Baby? Is that a real book yet?