The fake chemical compound Isaac Asimov invented to punk science writers
io9.com
io9.com
When I read The Princess Bride, I was so taken in with the story about the hunt for the book, the subsequent disappointment with the realty of Morgenstern's work, and I never doubted that the book I was holding was in fact "The Good Parts" edition. I had in mind a vague idea of trying to track down the original for myself because the boring parts as described sounded nevertheless somewhat interesting to me, but given the author's difficulties in finding a copy for himself I didn't give myself much hope.
It was years before I found out the truth of The Princess Bride, and the truth tickled me to no end because I had never even suspected!
In fact, the entire "autobiographical" conceit of the finding and editing of the book is a farce, a carefully constructed fiction. William Goldman wrote every word himself, and in fact his life details don't match those that he presents of himself, including the divorce and even having a son. I assume you have seen the movie? Everyone has seen the movie. The movie is also written by Goldman, who is a master screenwriter, so it's one of those rare movies that is every good as the book it's based on, just shorter (as movies must be). So if you enjoyed the movie (and you did, right?) then you'll also love the book. And if you hadn't read all this, you might come away from reading the book thinking that in fact none of the good stuff was even penned by William Goldman at all, but instead just cribbed together from a heavily abridged book by "S. Morgenstern", a man who never actually existed outside the imagination of William Goldman.
Ask me what the book gains from being presented in this off the wall fiction-disguised-as-truth approach and I'm not sure if I could answer, except to say that it makes the whole reading of the book in some way better. Like the movie, how if it wasn't a story told by a grandfather to his sick videogame obsessed grandson, would lack some of its special appeal. Except in the movie version you never see the grandfather/grandson parts as anything but a story-outside-a-story, in contrast to the way the book is presented, which lets the reader come to his own conclusions.
It sounds very intriguing, the way it is presented. It must be great to read it thinking there actually was another book, but I think I'll enjoy it nonetheless!
Speaking of which, the Severed Heads' "Dead Eyes Opened" (1) is another effective example of authentic-sounding historical text.
(1) http://severedheads.bandcamp.com/album/dead-eyes-opened-94
I first parsed it as having something to do with cyberpunk.
Good story though. Asimov is my hero.
The definition that most closely matches the usage here is, "Chiefly in African-American use: to humiliate; to beat up, bully, etc., esp. for the purpose of showing dominance; to make (a person) appear weak or foolish."
I think that 'to punk' now means something closer to 'to play a prank on' but the OED hasn't caught up. For example, that was the meaning in the TV series "Punk'd" (an MTV hidden-camera reality show from circa 2003).
* As described here: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon...
All that and amazing sideburns - in the literary world, second only to Henrik Ibsen