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!
