Growing up, I loved the Guinness Book. I read several editions cover to cover, probably ten times. About 15 years ago, I noticed that the book changed - it was hardcover, all jazzed up, and much less substantial than the Bible-sized monster of the 1980s.
I just looked it up on Amazon, and it lists a mass-market paperback version with 640 pages. Does anyone have it, or can anyone confirm that it’s like the old editions? I miss the old book 
Joe
The newer versions I’ve seen are much more kid-friendly than they used to be. There are a lot more pretty color pictures and more emphasis on “cool” records, as opposed to some of the more serious records of editions past. This is just my observation based on the fact that the sprog loves them and frequently brings them home from the library.
The last edition I have is from 1990, when it was still good - more like a proper reference work. We have one in the office from 2000 and it’s more like the Guinness Book of Dumbed Down Shite.
Doesn’t everything have more pretty color pictures than it used to? It certainly seems as though college textbooks do. Not that that’s a bad thing, necessarily, but they’ve also gotten significantly more expensive, and I wonder how much of what you’re paying for is style rather than substance.
In regards to the Guiness Book, from the biased perspective of my own childhood it seemed like the major audience was already kids, back when it was a black and white mass market paperback. So [grumpy old person] what’s the point of making it more kid-friendly? It was kid-friendly enough already, and it taught my generation that a book didn’t have to be shiny and colorful to be cool and interesting. This is what’s wrong with America today; this is why people keep wanting to clutter up the Dope with images and avatars; rant rant rant… [/grumpy old person]
Yep. I think I have the same one, it was a Christmas present. Makes me wish I knew where my edition from 1980 is.
Yeah they have gutted virtually everything interesting from the old book:the human body records (who didn’t love the pic of the world’s fattest twins?), anything involving science, even such basic questions as the world’s tallest building and longest river. The worst is they don’t mention spurious claimants to a record and why they weren’t considered correct, like they did for tallest human or oldest person. Those were very enlightening for little kids on how facts are verified.
Actually they were issued in hardback throughout the 70s and 80s, it’s just that paperbacks (which always includinded the full text) were far more common.
Well, balls.:(
Joe
I think the dumbing down started with the cheesy Guinness show that aired on Fox back in the '90s. I too remember the brick-like mass market paperbacks they used to put out. I had three editions myself that I bought at the school book fairs.
But the show, while it did feature a few “legitimate” records, like world’s longest nails and so forth, also featured a lot of asinine stunts that passed for records like ear-flipping candy into the mouth, or someone bugging their eyes out, or ingesting earthworms.
It was at that point, it seemed, that they starting putting the big, glossy, “jazzed-up” books that had more style than substance and featured a lot of the aforementioned asinine stunts.
The absence of body records was explained as not wanting to encourage anyone to endanger their health trying to break any.
Hey, I remember them.
I think they also rated a mention in the “most flat tyres per mile” category. 
They mainly include super recent records, too. Long standing records have kind of gone away.
I remember a different photo of those twins, facing forward on motorcycles or scooters. And it was weird that once The Simpsons featured a picture or other portrayal of them. So apparently a bunch of us remembered that picture from the Guinness Book.
In the photo I remember, they also had checkered pants.
Boy, this is disturbing. I always hated the stunt records, found them totally uninteresting. I liked the scientific, engineering, and geographic records. If they’ve been removed then the book is worthless.
I think it’s weird that we all (including someone on The Simpsons writing staff) remember that photo. There was also one of the tallest man in the world standing next to the shortest. I spent hours looking through that book.
The other picture that sticks out in my mind is of the women with the elongated necks and big rings.
I was given my first edition of the GBoWR in 1972–it was the 1971-72 paperback edition, and I wore it out reading it. So I picked up every edition for the next 10-12 years. I loved some of the more “adult” records, rather than just kiddie stuff (most prolific serial murderer, for instance).
Sometime in the 80s, or maybe early 90s, I noticed a grave error about motorcycles. I don’t remember exactly, but the specs they had for a particular type of bike on one page didn’t match the next page (to be more precise, they had a picture with a caption on one page, then the full text of the same bike on the next page). I think it had to do with speed–I thought it was very sloppy, and never forgave Guinness for it. Then they went to more and more kiddie friendly pablum.
I think the beginning of the end was when the surviving McWhirter twin got out of being involved, for whatever reason. (Actually, wiki says he retired from the Guinness book in 1985.)
Your description is very apt. The older editions were informative and fascinating reference works. I picked one up in a bookshop a while ago and it seemed to have morphed into Believe It or Not/Celebrity Records for Dummies (with flashy pictures). I’d never buy a copy now.
How have the mighty fallen.
Don’t forget the world’s longest finger nails. On a guy, noless!
Prompted by this thread, I dug out my 1998 edition, which is still a paperback brick. When did they make the switch to the current inferior version?
