We go back down to the foyer, and we can read a book about the Brothers Grimm on the coffee table. So we got a bucket of water dumped on us, and naturally Nancy’s suitcase has been lost (just pack a carry-on, Nancy!), so we’ve had to borrow some traditional German clothes, and now we’re wandering around the castle dressed like a 19th-century Bavarian. Then we got into a fight with Ned, who’s developed some level of self-awareness and is starting to notice how often Nancy ditches him in these games. Apparently this is terrifying, and all the villagers are freaking out. Said monster “attacked”, by which I mean started a fire in a trash can and then left. Several German detectives are rolling over in their graves. Enter Nancy Drew, who’s going to bust this case open in one night. I apologize for not being more clear.Previously on Nancy Drew: The Captive Curse: A monster has been terrorizing Castle Finster for centuries, and people have been trying to capture it for about that long, but to no avail. It is a given that the revised text books always have a synopsis and that the original text books never do. What I was trying to do is point out that the different points other than the synopsis, cover art, and the revised text match that original text printing in Farah's Guide. This is what is stated for that printing: The 1972A-67 printing in Farah's 12th edition does not mention a synopsis. I was listing what my revised text book has, forgetting that it does not match the 1972A-67 printing in that one point as well, the synopsis. I should clarify that if the book had the original text like what is mentioned in Farah's Guide that it would not have the synopsis either. The above points match the 1972A-67 printing, except that the book should have the original text and second cover art. I finally figured out that this part of my post is what is causing the confusion. I also think it may be an error to say there is a book that exists with a synopsis and the original text. However, it seems we do have two sets of criteria that could be considered the 1st printing - the book with blank pages (and only blue endpapers?) and the book without blank pages (and only with white endpapers?). My observations don't really have anything to do with which endpapers are in the book. Suspecting two errors in regard to Farah's 12th information for the 1st revised printing of Hollow Oak, I think this may be an area that requires more investigation to determine the criteria for this printing. So, I think it was an error that it was deleted. This is the book you already had in your collection, I have one also, and I suspect they are common. Specifically, the 1972 book with revised text and revised art and *no* blank pages was listed as the introduction of the revised text and art in Farah's 10th, but unexplainably was deleted from Farah's 12th. The main point is that a 1972 printing of Hollow Oak that was listed in Farah's 10th, was deleted from the 12th edition. I guess I wasn't clear on the point I was trying to make, LOL. when I hit "preview", I was taken to the log in page, and lost it all. My "1st printing" (or so I thought) also has the black and white endpapers and no blank pages. I wonder if there was a mistake made when Farah attempted to add the "blue endpapers" book as a printing? I'm wondering if the book with blue endpapers is actually the anomaly or perhpas a mule, rather than the one with the black & white endpapers? To me, this seems to make more sense than what is apparently in the 12th edition. The printing shown after the intro, was printed in 1973 and lists to #50, Double Jinx on the back. There would not be a synopsis of the original text, would there? So is there a synopsis of the revised text but the old story is actually in the book? In Farah's 10th, there is one 1972 printing shown previous to the intro of the revised text & art, and it does not have the revised text *or* art. Such a printing doesn't show at all in my Farah's, and actually doesn't make sense since the synopsis is present. You also mentioned a printing of Hollow Oak with the original text, but the new art. What is baffling is that this book - which as you see was listed in Farah's 10th as the 1st printing of the revised text - *is not* listed at all in the 12th edition! Am I understanding that right? There seems to be something wrong here, but I'm not sure exactly what. You will notice this is *exactly* the criteria of the book you have in your collection (the one with the black & white endpapers) that you thought was the 1st printing, until you saw the one with the blue endpapers. Jennifer, This is very interesting! Here is the info from my Farah's Guide **10th** edition for the introduction of the revised text and revised cover art for Hollow Oak:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |