Okay, that ticked me off. What a tease. If I had waited for the snail mail “reunion scene” I would have been pissed.
I can’t believe I got suckered into that Reunion Scene thing as well. What a waste!
Meanwhile, one of my favorite movie scenes EVER is where Inigo Montoya confronts the Six Fingered Man in the hallway, says his famous line, and the six fingered man…turn and runs away. I fall on the floor howling w/ laughter every time!
I do think Buttercup was a little forgiving of Wesley, quite frankly. NOt so much for the killings he committed as a pirate, but because of this exchange:
Man in black: And what is that worth… the promise of a woman… You’re very funny highness.
and then
Man in black: You admit to me you do not love your fiance?
Buttercup: He knows I do not love him.
Man in black: …Are not capable of love is what you mean.
Buttercup: I have loved more deeply than a killer like yourself could ever dream!
Man in black: [raising his hand at Buttercup] That was a warning, highness! The next time my hand flies on its own; where I come from there are penalties when a women lies.
Now, it pains me to say it, but what we have here is a man willing to abuse the woman he professes to love. Not only is he sexist (“the promise of a woman”), but he threatens to backhand her face for talking heatedly about her true love! He’s hardly a knight in shining armor here.
But that’s never stopped me from watching the movie about a bazillion times.
Well, it’s more than what I got when I snail mailed the publisher back when I first read the book when I was about 10 years old. See, I had an old edition of the book from the library, and the publishing company had changed, so I just got my letter returned to me. For years I thought that Goldman had never written anything for the reunion scene at all (not even a fanciful excuse).
Beadalin
Did you read the book? As I stated in my post above, in the book, he does hit her. That was much worse.
Lamia
I sympathize. That must really have sucked!
Yes, I did read the book, but it was when I was 12 or 13, so my memories of it are somewhat less clear. Mostly I remember wanting to read all the things that William Goldman “cut out”, and wishing I hadn’t read past the happy ending and into the real ending. Really, the book and the movie are two very different species of the same basic story, and since the OP was focused on the movie, I decided to stick with the movie.
Anyway, back when I read it (about 13 years ago), I also asked for the reunion scene via snail mail. What a gyp.
I guess I’m weird – although the movie is wonderful (one of my favorite movie adaptations) I prefer the book because of the fictitious back story that Goldman wraps the fairy tale in. I read the “good parts” version (leaving out the back story) to my son when he was 7 or 8. He loved it – and it was much more appropriate for a child that way… but it wasn’t nearly as good a book without the extra stuff. The back story adds depth to the story, IMO, and some extra humor, as well. Taken as a whole it is a really textured book. And, I loved the reunion scene thing! His writing a second book (The Silent Gondalier) under the Morgenstern name, the reunion scene, the recent reprint in which he brings his fictitious back story up to the present… These are all examples of Goldman maintaining his joke and I find it charming.
As for Westley hitting Buttercup, and being so cruel to her – well, I took that as him trying to maintain the fiction of the Dread Pirate Roberts, so that he could hurry her to his ship where they’d both be safe. Westley understood Buttercup’s faults – specifically her slight dimness – and knew they didn’t have time for lengthy explanations and a mushy reunion if they were to escape Humperdinck. So he played the nasty Pirate in an attempt to intimidate her into submission. Of course, he underestimated her. At least, that has always been my take on those scenes.
Well, I didn’t mean to upset anyone by posting that link. I thought it was funny.
You do understand it’s a joke, right? There is no S. Morgenstern. There is no “original Florinese book.” William Goldman wrote the book. He made it up himself. He didn’t “cut out” anything. That’s a joke.
As for the “Reunion Scene,” it’s more of the same joke. There is no Mrs. Morgenstern. There is no Morgenstern estate. There are no lawyers named Kermit Shog and Mandrake Shog. There is no lawsuit that has been put on hold because NASA wants Florin’s Cadminium.
I did hint that it was a joke. I said, “it’s not what you think…”
I sent off for the “Reunion Scene” years ago by snail mail. I thought it was hilarious. Goldman keeps adding to it, when I got it there was none of the Mandrake Shog and NASA stuff.
Oh yes, I understand that it was a joke. Well, when I first wrote to the publishing company when I was a kid I was expecting to get a real “Reunion Scene” back, but I was only 10. When my letter was returned to me I figured Goldman had been playing a rather more obnoxious joke than he really was. It wasn’t until about ten years later that I learned that the joke was meant to be part of the larger Morgenstern joke, and I just hadn’t gotten the “excuse letter” sent to me because the publishing company had changed.
Yes, I knew it was a joke, too, but I still wanted the reunion scene, darn it! 
When I first read the book I sent away for the letter. Six months later I got it. I thought it was so funny. I had to read the book over, because of it. The letter fits right in with all of Goldman’s comments about the Florinese professors and his comments about the original version of the book. I agree with Jess, the back story gives the book that extra humor. I think that is what elevates it above the movie. I love the movie, as well, of course. I just enjoy the book a bit more. (Although, when reading the Miracle Max sections, I can’t imagine anyone other than Billy Crystal and Carol Kane as the characters.)
Jess, I would bet that the people at Amazon who say they read the original Morgenstern version are continuing the gag. Just to confuse more readers.
pat
Oh, pricciar, I try and tell myself that you’re right… it would make me feel better to think these people were in on the gag. You ought to go and read the reviews though. Many of the ‘protest’ reviews are very poorly spelled and puncuated. I just can’t help but think that anyone intelligent enough to join in on Goldman’s joke should also be intelligent enough to use at least marginally standard spelling and puncuation in a book review! Elitist of me, I know, but there it is!
BTW, I first read the book at around 13 or 14 and it fooled me for at least a day or two. This was well before the internet and the days of easy research at one’s fingertips. At first read, I was slightly thrown by “Florin,” which I recognised as a monetary unit. Of course, that didn’t necessarily mean that there couldn’t also be a country of that name that I’d never heard of. So, I cracked open the easy research tool of choice at that time (the home encyclopedia) and looked up “Morgenstern, F.” Nothing. Next, I tried both “Florin” and “Guilder,” and found that both were types of money, and neither was listed as a country… Hmmm. On my next trip to the library, I did some more in-depth research and came up with nada. Ping! The lightbulb came on – I got the joke! I went straight home, reread the book and enjoyed it even more at second read. I’ve read it at least a dozen times since and have enjoyed it every single time. I just love to be on the inside of a gag! And, of course, it’s a damned good book!
Everyone also knows that the whole intro to the novel, the part that sounds autobiographical wherein a character named “William Goldman” rants about his sad, dreary life, and his evil, frigid wife, and his fat, obnoxious son is also fiction. The real William Goldman has two daughters, no sons. His ex-wife’s name was Ilene, not…um…Helen(?), etc.
In other words, William Goldman is writing about another world where S. Morganstern was real and a character named “William Goldman” who shares some of the real William Goldman’s history retreats to a book he loved as a child as a way of escaping from the tedium of his life. It’s a weird scene, and, while I never believed in “S. Morganstern”, for years I thought that “William Goldman”(the character) was actually William Goldman (the author).
As for Westley slapping Buttercup…I can’t condone it, but in the context of the story, all Westley knows is that he suffered for…what?..three?..five?..years to get back to Buttercup. He risked his life, sold himself into slavery, moved heaven and hell to get back to her, scaled the Cliffs of Insanity, fought a duel with a Wizard-level swordsman, wrestled with a giant, went up against a Sicillian (when death was on the line!) all because he believed that he was the only man she’d ever love. And when he gets her, he finds that she’s engaged? And then she tells him (granted she doesn’t know who he is) that she’s loved someone far more than he ever will? While she’s engaged to another man? His slap makes sense in the context of the story. In addition, she shoves him off a hill, so if we’re talking abuse, I’d say the scales were even after that.
Fenris (and I believe that Buttercup’s Baby was also intended as a joke, like the “reunion scene”.)
**
That should read:
Does everyone also know…
which is considerably less obnoxious than the way the above posting came out.
Fenris
(I’d kill for the edit ability)
Hey…can’t it just be that the Dread Pirate Rogers dosen’t take prisoners because he dosen’t catch people.
Oh…btw…tygr… telling people that the DPR takes no prisoners would NOT get people to surrender more quickly…in fact, if I knew that if I was caught, i’d die, then i would never surrender “Never give up…never surrender”
(sorry…i just had to do that)
:::Makes a run for it:::