That's what it says in the book. "Doubleday Edition Published in 1994." Is this true, or just a mis-print?
Yeah, but that's the Corgi edition. I'm talking about the Doubleday one, and supposedly it's from 1994. Perhaps it was written, and then Pratchett decided to rewrite it or something...
I'm not sure where my edition is, but it's hardback, and I only started buying hardbacks after I was nearly nineteen and had a job, which was in the year 2000. And my first hardback was T5E, so ToT must have been from the following year. Therefore, I assume 2001 is the correct date.
hhmm... will have to look at my one. **looks smug** i got a 1st edition hardback but it's an old library copy so not looking that great. will post it on when i've had a look
[quote:b405254207="drunkymonkey"]That's what it says in the book. "Doubleday Edition Published in 1994." Is this true, or just a mis-print?[/quote:b405254207] Yes, I spotted that same mistake a few years ago when it came out. Funny how that could happen. Also has anyone noticed how the publishers seem to have no idea how many Discworld books there have been. Sometimes they include the "children's books" based on Discworld in the total, sometimes not.
Anyone considered the possibility its a purposeful mistake? They purposefull put mistakes into Start Trek Next Gen so the Trekkies could find them, maybe pTerry has done the same. What with the subject matter being time and all it seems to me the kind of Joke pTerry might put in there.
Hmm, seems unlikely to me. Discworld fans may include nerdy pedants, but it's still nothing like the Trek fandom.
My Library's says 2001. I believe it's Harper Collins, because all my other American editions are. Harper torch actually, but that's an imprint. If it is a purposeful mistake, that's pretty entertaining.