Thief of Time was written in 1994?

Discussion in 'GODS, DESERTS, IMPS, LETTERS AND WAR' started by drunkymonkey, Sep 9, 2006.

  1. drunkymonkey New Member

    That's what it says in the book. "Doubleday Edition Published in 1994." Is this true, or just a mis-print?
  2. Maljonic Administrator

    2001, printed it was think I.

    Edit: says 2002 on this page
  3. drunkymonkey New Member

    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...
  4. Tephlon Active Member

    My Corgi paperback says that the Doubleday edition was published in 2001.
  5. Maljonic Administrator

    Ah right, that's where I got the 2001 from.

    Says here too.
  6. Hsing Moderator

    Write to the author. You might come upon some kind of time loop.
  7. drunkymonkey New Member

    Strange. Well, it doesn't really matter. Just thought I'd picked up on something.
  8. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    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.
  9. QuothTheRaven New Member

    The copyright is from 2001.
  10. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Thief of Time was given copyright in 2001. Thus, the Doubleday edition is almost certainly a typo.
  11. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Drunky's book has been procrastinating overtime... Or maybe it comes from another trouserleg.
  12. chrisjordan New Member

    I have the same typo. Let's start a club.
  13. hhmm... will have to look at my one. **looks smug** i got a 1st edition hardback :p but it's an old library copy so not looking that great. will post it on when i've had a look
  14. TheJackal Member

    [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.
  15. RebelwithoutaPause New Member

    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.
  16. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Hmm, seems unlikely to me. Discworld fans may include nerdy pedants, but it's still nothing like the Trek fandom.
  17. chrisjordan New Member

    Let us never speak of them again.
  18. drunkymonkey New Member

    Well, maybe a little. But only on hushed voices.
  19. Lucy_Tockley New Member

    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.
  20. I've got a HarperCollins copy, it's 2001.

Share This Page