Kooshmeister
New member
Well, thickness, really, but whatever.
I would've posted this in a more general thread about the book, but I couldn't find it (and I went about six pages back). And even if I did, I didn't wanna be accused of thread necromancy, so here is a new thread.
Anyway, when I got the reprints of the three novelizations in '08 (thanks, mom!), I noticed that Raiders was the slimmest. No biggie, though, really. But would you believe a second copy I got earlier this month is even slimmer?
See, what happened is I wanted a second copy. Don't ask why, when the one I'd gotten in '08 was just fine. Sometimes I want more than one copy of a book I enjoy. I'm strange, heh. So I ordered one from Barnes & Noble online because of course the one over at Crabtree didn't have any Indiana Jones books in it anymore, and in fact hadn't for years, not since the post-Crystal Skull Indy craze died down (I swear it seems this poor franchise has no staying power in stores without a movie actually in theaters).
When the book arrived and I opened the package, I was surprised to find it was even thinner than my other copy of it. I checked my other copy and found it was about 170+ pages long, give or take. Flipping through this second one, I discovered that the pages are numbered exactly the same. And yet this does not change the fact the second, presumably more recently printed copy is far more slender than the one my mom got for me back in '08.
What gives? Is smaller print used? Are extraneous pages advertising something missing? Less glue in the binding? A more compact binding overall? It's very bizarre, because other than the thickness, it is identical to the other copy: same front and back cover with no changes I can see. Even the spines are identical; the size of the lettering is the same, resulting in the title running slightly off and onto the front cover a little bit due to having far less room than before. Smaller print seems like the most likely explanation, but I can't detect any difference in the size of the text in either copy offhand. It's just weird.
I would've posted this in a more general thread about the book, but I couldn't find it (and I went about six pages back). And even if I did, I didn't wanna be accused of thread necromancy, so here is a new thread.
Anyway, when I got the reprints of the three novelizations in '08 (thanks, mom!), I noticed that Raiders was the slimmest. No biggie, though, really. But would you believe a second copy I got earlier this month is even slimmer?
See, what happened is I wanted a second copy. Don't ask why, when the one I'd gotten in '08 was just fine. Sometimes I want more than one copy of a book I enjoy. I'm strange, heh. So I ordered one from Barnes & Noble online because of course the one over at Crabtree didn't have any Indiana Jones books in it anymore, and in fact hadn't for years, not since the post-Crystal Skull Indy craze died down (I swear it seems this poor franchise has no staying power in stores without a movie actually in theaters).
When the book arrived and I opened the package, I was surprised to find it was even thinner than my other copy of it. I checked my other copy and found it was about 170+ pages long, give or take. Flipping through this second one, I discovered that the pages are numbered exactly the same. And yet this does not change the fact the second, presumably more recently printed copy is far more slender than the one my mom got for me back in '08.
What gives? Is smaller print used? Are extraneous pages advertising something missing? Less glue in the binding? A more compact binding overall? It's very bizarre, because other than the thickness, it is identical to the other copy: same front and back cover with no changes I can see. Even the spines are identical; the size of the lettering is the same, resulting in the title running slightly off and onto the front cover a little bit due to having far less room than before. Smaller print seems like the most likely explanation, but I can't detect any difference in the size of the text in either copy offhand. It's just weird.
Last edited: