This kind of fiction presented as dry fact is absolutely the best. In my younger and more gullible years, I recall semi-believing in Congo, with the fake assertions that the story is as true as possible, but where no details are recorded, Crichton engaged in creative license. But at least with Congo I suspected a literary device.
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 eighth grade I used adamantium (fictional indestructible alloy that covers Wolverine's bones/claws) in a report on metals for science class. I knew Wolverine and the comics were fictional but I assumed adamantium was real. I remember that I tried researching it (very very early Internet days, I mostly used the library) but couldn't find anything on the subject. For some reason, I decided to keep my comments on adamantium in my paper regardless and without citation. My Science teacher circled the word and wrote "EXCELLENT!!!" next to it so I didn't figure out my folly until years later. I think he assumed I was joking?
Reminds me of my sixth grade teacher discussing FTL travel with me. I commented about how you would be "thrown backwards" (as in, with speed, like when a car accelerates). He interpreted that as me observing the 'time travel' properties of FTL, which made me sound a lot smarter than I actually was.
I felt the exact way when I read "The Andromeda Strain". For me, it was the exhaustive statistics and bibliography that sealed the deal. Still one of my favorite Crichton works.
It's been years, but we'll see what I can remember (and attempt to write out on my iPhone, no less). There's a whole preface to the book where the author recounts his efforts in tracking down this old book that his grandfather used to come over and read to him. He tries for years so he can get a copy for his son, who he only sees on special occasions because of the divorce. In the preface, the author describes finally finding the book, at great expense, and sending it to his son, and his being terribly bored and underwhelmed by it. This dissapoints him, because he remembers it as the greatest story ever told. Then when he cracks it open, it is nothing like he remembers. The book, he says, is full of fifteen page essays about what everyone wore in court, or what they would eat at a banquet. But the book he remembers is a swashbuckling tale, with true love and all that. So he works out a deal with his publisher to cut out all the boring stuff and re-release "the good parts" version of The Princess Bride, the parts his grandfather used to read to him, and that, he says, is the version you, the reader, are about to read. Throughout the book there are Author's notes like "323 pages about the politics of trade imbalances removed here". So the reader is left thinking, wow, what a gem of a book this guy happened to find, buried in all that nonsense!
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.
Thank you very much for your detailed post. I see now what you meant, and yes, I have seen and love the movie. I will pick the book up and give it a read, which I wouldn't have done if you hadn't replied with this (actually, I didn't even know there was a book)!
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!
I once read an account of an extended animal test of a toxic chemical compound on a number of monkeys. While most died, one demonstrated amazing resistance to the toxin and I remember being shocked when the result was simply noted as anomalous and the animal put to death without further investigation. It was only after I had read the whole thing did I finally realise the whole account was fictional. I can't find it now but that really opened my eyes to the suggestive power of authentic-sounding text.
Speaking of which, the Severed Heads' "Dead Eyes Opened" (1) is another effective example of authentic-sounding historical text.
I was taken in by Crichton's chatterbot AIs in "The Terminal Man" for a while, until I got online and actually did research into what the current state of the art (i.e., decades after the novel was written) in that field actually looks like. As it turns out, no, it's not possible to push a real chatterbot into a psychotic break; they aren't nearly complex enough.
I looked up 'punk' as a verb in the Oxford English Dictionary, and found that there several ways that it has been used as a verb over time.
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).
I've been surfing various Electronica radio stations through iTunes trying to find one that makes for good background music without occasionally sounding like there's an orgy going on in my office. I usually stick with a station for an hour or so before there's a barrage of curses or suggestive moaning. My current try is a station called Red Mercury, but I had no idea if or what it referred to, so it's awesome to see your post serendipitously. Is this like a reverse Baader-Meinhof phenomenon* where I saw a cool phrase and THEN suddenly found out the meaning accidentally? Or does Baader-Meinhof cover this case as well?
Some of what he wrote makes me think of quantum effects (as badly as I understand them, anyway) and homeopathy (which seems like it doesn't even try to reach the level of a pseudo science).
Check his wikipedia entry: "Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books ... His works have been published in all ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System ... a master of hard science fiction ... also wrote mysteries and fantasy, as well as much non-fiction. Most of his popular science books..."
All that and amazing sideburns - in the literary world, second only to Henrik Ibsen
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!