Talk:And Be a Villain

Notes on the infobox

The infobox has been modified to conform with the novels project style guidelines, which indicate that the infobox should describe "only the media types in which the novel was originally available. For example, eighteenth-century novels were never published in 'hardback and paperback' nor in audiobook so it is inappropriate to list those print subtypes." Since the Nero Wolfe books (1934–1975) were originally available in hardcover, and only later published in other formats, the infoboxes for these Rex Stout novels and novella collections are being amended to read "Print (Hardcover)" -- with "Media type" describing only the first-edition printing.

The ISBN field will be completed, but read "NA" by request of the novels project. Subsequent releases of the book are listed with their ISBNs in a section of the article headed "Release details."

The genre in the infobox is being listed as Detective fiction, a classification that includes both the novels and the novella collections. Novels and novella collections are clearly differentiated from each other in the articles' lead paragraphs, and in categories that appear at the bottom of the articles. -- WFinch 03:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

As the original information regarding the titular Shakespeare quote was incorrect, can whoever it was that reverted my edit please desist. Thank you. --Heslopian (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you glanced at the History page for this article, you know that I removed your edit. I have no desire to get into an argument here. I did, however, ask a civil question: I requested information regarding how your edit contributed materially to the article. If your response -- that "the titular Shakespeare quote was incorrect" -- was intended as a rationale, I'm sorry to say that it fails. It appears that you believe that the quote is from line 114, not 109 as originally given. One has to be careful citing line numbers in Shakespeare's plays -- much depends on the editor's choices. Although I originally cited 109, I now note that my Harbage gives 108. Online references to the plays are particularly susceptible to minor numbering discrepancies such as this. (More to the point, there is no apodictic source.)

So, I repeat my original query: How does your edit contribute materially to the article? It is, after all, about a Nero Wolfe novel, and that topic does not seem to require a discussion of the quote's context. It may help some readers to have the quote's source.

BTW, it's a popular quote in popular fiction, for some reason. It's used in The Sopranos, when Patsy Parisi is quoted bemoaning the whacking of his twin brother Spoons. And I seem to recall that it also appears in Chandler's The High Window. TurnerHodges (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire for an argument either, so I'm sorry if my above message appeared somehow confrontational. However, recurrent as this quote may be in popular fiction, the fact is a lot of people still consider it quite obscure, and so I just thought that some readers might be interested in it's exact origin. Regarding the line number, I think it depends entirely on weather your edition of the play has been abridged or not. Mine hasn't been, so I assumed that 114 was correct. --Heslopian (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I disagree, but not enough to object strenuously. I've restored your edit, slightly amended.

Certainly abridgment changes line numbers (but my copy of the plays, which runs to 1481 pages,.is unabridged). There are many discrepancies between different quartos and folios, and most of them are of much greater import than line numbers. For example, Juliet's "By any other name would smell as sweet" reads, in the good quarto of 1599, "By any other word would smell as sweet." (The bad quarto of 1597 uses "name," not "word.") So what does the editor do? What was it that Shakespeare actually wrote? Who knows? Harbage writes, "No two editions of a Shakespearean play, conscientiously constructed from the original materials, will ever be exactly alike. Because the editorial process involves, inevitably, the exercise of individual judgment, words will vary occasionally, and punctuation will vary throughout."

Perhaps that's how Mandel became Mandelbaum. TurnerHodges (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit; you raise an interesting point, how many times have Shakespeare’s original texts been edited and revised over the years? --Heslopian (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"remarking on Stout's title being changed"

I don't object to Tamfang's 12/16/09 edit as a matter of style. A participle, followed closely by a gerund, when both are of the -ing variety, feels clumsy. (Notwithstanding my own usage, earlier on this page, of "bemoaning the whacking".) I'm just not sure how it's ungrammatical. The participle is neither fused nor unattached, and the use of the gerund is surely correct in a strict sense. TurnerHodges (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is "fused" if I understand the use of that term. The matter remarked on is not Stout's title but its being changed; the pedant would insist on Stout's title's being changed. Another reason for my rewriting is that with the change it's no longer Stout's title. —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi-Spot and Starlite

Speaking of changes, I have a 1948 Viking edition of this book (bought for a dime at a thrift store) and the soft drink in question is not Hi-Spot but rather Starlite, The Drink You Dream Of. Does anyone know which was the original name, why it was changed, and if a book wherein the beverage is called Starlite has any collector value?70.233.146.216 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

See the second footnote on the article's main page. Here's a little more background:

The back matter of the Bantam reissue edition (1995) of The Second Confesion includes what seems to be a photocopy of a letter from Viking Press dated June 15 1949 (compare with ABAV's pub date). It's signed by Marshall Best, one of Stout's editors at Viking. The first sentence reads, "Our lawyer has given THE SECOND CONFESSION a clean bill of health -- for whatever that is worth in the light of High-Spot!" ("High-Spot" is spelled thus but the "gh" has been exed out.)

To me, that suggests that there was a problem with the name of the soft drink. But I would expect the problem to concern Starlite, not Hi-Spot. So I revisited the back matter for the Bantam reissue (1994)of ABAV and found a list of thirty (there may have been more) items that a lawyerly review of the galleys recommended, probably the 1948 version of risk management. There is no reference there to Starlite but there is this query: "Is there any beverage or any advertised product with a name like Hi Spot?"

I doubt if there's any special value attached to such an edition by virtue of the Starlite name -- again, see the second footnote -- but I'm no expert on book values. My personal guess is that the Beatles' Yesterday and Today album with the original cover photo is probably worth more than a Starlite edition of ABAV. TurnerHodges (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was Hi-Spot that caused a problem, not Starlite, and that the lawyerly review missed something concerning Hi-Spot. Thus, the "for whatever that is worth" in regard to the lawyer's clean bill of health on The Second Confession. Following is a list of the Hi-Spot vs. Starlite usage from various editions of ABAV:

• 1948 Viking FE – Hi-Spot;
• 1948 Viking BCE – Starlite;
• 1949 Wm. Collins, Crime Club (Great Britain) – Starlite;
• 1950 Bantam Paperback – Hi-Spot;
• 1950 Viking BCE/Full House Omnibus – Starlite;
• 1974 Viking FE/Zeck Trilogy – Hi-Spot;
• 1975 Severn House (Great Britain) – Starlite;
• 1994 Bantam Paperback – Hi-Spot

Amy Duncan (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is all so delicious I had to create a new section for it.

About a year ago ago I Googled around and found that Canada Dry had trademarked Hi-Spot — in 1936. So that was the problem. Canada Dry must have taken umbrage to its lemon-lime soda being confused with one that caused someone to "utter a shrill cry, claw at the air, have convulsions, and die" — and on live radio, yet. But then Canada Dry must have changed its mind. I wonder how much that cost Viking, and I wonder who broke the news to Stout.

If you try a Google image search for "Hi-Spot" and "Canada Dry" you'll see bottle designs and advertising all over the place.

As to whether the book club edition is worth anything, it's sure worth more than ten cents. I don't know whether the Bantam editions of ABAV are as rampant with typos as other Nero Wolfe books, but the text in the book club editions is identical to the book as originally published … except in this one particular instance of Hi-Spot vs. Starlite. — WFinch (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is delicious. I'm sure that learning one of their products had been libeled thus must have given the product manager apoplexy. I haven't done the spadework (as yet, anyway) but WFinch's research suggests to me that there may have been a country-specific issue. Might Canada Dry have marketed Hi-Spot in the UK only?

ABAV seems remarkably free of OCR typos for a Bantam reissue -- e.g., no references to a knife fight in Alabama. TurnerHodges (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

TurnerHodges (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 I hope the Viking lawyers got new day jobs for overlooking Hi-Spot because the drink was vigorously promoted in the USA by Canada Dry and the company was quite protective of its name.

Case in point, and now moving from the delicious to the hilarious:  In the early 1970s, after failing to get the Trademarks Board to take action against American Home Products for naming a laundry detergent "Hi Spot," Canada Dry appealed the decision in court; Canada Dry claimed that  consumers would be "confused" by the same-named products because the beverage and the detergent were both sold in supermarkets.  The court ruled against Canada Dry on the grounds that "housewives" weren't so stupid as to be unable to distinguish between soda pop and laundry detergent.  Has to be read to be believed:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1972675468F2d207_1636.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

Mirawithani (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh no — "It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!" — WFinch (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Priceless -- perhaps the Canada Dry suit wasn't as silly as it seemed. The SNL skit was too late, but there was a very brief scene along the same lines in an episode I remembered from "The Honeymooners" that could have been used if Canada Dry needed supporting evidence.

(Norton walks into the Kramden apartment and helps himself to some white stuff in a container near where Alice is ironing.)

Norton:  Let me tell you something, I wish Trixie could make icing that tastes like this.

Alice:  Icing?  Ed, that's starch!

Norton:  Starch?  I still wish Trixie could make icing that tastes like this.

Mirawithani (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrites of plot summaries

I confess to being mystified at the need to completely rewrite the existing plot summaries of the Nero Wolfe stories. In the most recent editing by a user with only an IP address, considerable content has been removed, and the edit summary reads, "Compressing the summary a bit." In that process, the subject of the above exchange regarding Hi-Spot and Starlite — a topic of some interest to readers — is gone. Why is this extreme editing needed? — WFinch (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)