To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.



This page includes a picture of the reissue of this book. I wasn't aware that it was reissued, but what year was it reissued? Considering that the original release had Kermit on the cover and the reissue cover doens't, I wouldn't be surprised if it was reissued in 2004 or later, perhaps due to copyright issues with Disney. --Minor muppetz 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kermit is on both. Also, I'm not sure it *is* a re-issue cover. I think that was Scott's educated guess. The copy I have, with the second cover, is dated 1997, and published by MacMillan, not Simon and Schuster. So the other cover, and this is just *my* educated guess, is either an early mock-up, or was the cover used in the UK. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've seen both covers in US stores. So, in the unlikely event that one was a UK import, it's more probable that it's a reissue. —Scott (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've only seen the white cover, always in libraries, as far back as 1997. So if there is a re-issue, is it at all possible that the black one is the change? And I think we should clarify "re-issue," as it confused Michael, or else leave it alone and just say "alternate." The books has never been updated, and unless there's a later date on the black cover, I doubt it was a "2004" re-issue. By the same token, Scott, where'd you get Simon and Schuster from? That's also what made me wonder, since the four library copies I've seen, and every website I could find from a cursory search, lists MacMillan (a division of Simon and Schuster, I know, but was it ever published under the S&S name?) The problem lies, I think, with the distinction of one cover as "original" and the other as "re-issue," when it seems we have little hard evidence to prove which one came first. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I just checked both alibris and abebooks; every single used copy shows the white cover and states first edition, publisher MacMillan. The only exception was a listing without an image for a UK edition published by Virgin, 1997, first edition. I checked and; they both show the black cover and list the publisher as Virgin; also has non-picture entries for MacMillan. Thus Andrew's guess appears to have been essentially correct. It is simply two different publishers, one of which is British, both of which were (apparently) available in the US. There is no reissue however. -- Wendy (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where Greg got the Simon and Shuster information, and he's not here anymore to ask. Andrew, can you be sure the book hasn't been updated if you haven't seen the one with the black cover? There's a black cover sitting on the shelf at my local B&N which I could check, but I don't have anything to compare it to. I haven't seen a white cover version in years. —Scott (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you see Wendy's response, Scott? I think that settles it. If you still have doubts, you're more likely to be able to check than I. It seems incredibly unlikely to me now, though. Absolutely no websites or databases or anything indicates the existence of a second edition. Plus, the original caption claim was that the white cover was the "re-issue" and that's provably not so. I don't know, it just seems to me like the issue is settled now. If you want to do further investigation, though, feel free. As you admitted, the "re-issue" was a guess on your part. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like we're both right. If the black cover was published in the UK and distributed in the US, then essentially it's a reissue for the US (with no new content, just a "new to the US" cover). Wording to accommodate both points of view would be most fitting. —Scott (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily so. The date is October 1997 for both. It was just a simultaneous release with a different cover. As long as "re-issue" is avoided entirely, I think that works. Honestly, I think Wendy's changes work just fine for me. I'd just as soon drop the whole thing now. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The page looks fine to me. —Scott (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.