caveman wrote:For 24 years I've told this story to every nitwit who ever raised the question and it never did any good.
My experience with the 1984 edition is this: true card experts thought it was fantastic and was well worth the thirty year wait. Card hacks couldn't get past the fact that Vernon's annotations were brief and spent their time staring at the blank parts concocting conspiracy theories. Presumably, that's why they are hacks.
Jamy Ian Swiss wrote:In an opening publishers note, Mr. Caveney explains his own involvement with the books history, offering along the way the surprising factproven in these pagesthat not only had all of Vernons annotations appeared in our 1984 edition, but that furthermore, additional material from Persi [Diaconis]s more recent conversations with the Professor had also been included in the original edition.
[...]the ambitious design of the book itself, which, in a sincere attempt to provide a useful tool for the student, partly served to visually overwhelm Vernons contributions with a great deal of white space (in the margins in which Vernons comments were sprinkled)
Richard Kaufman wrote:For years I had also heard those rumors, and I was convinced they were true because of my sources.
Dustin Stinett wrote:[...] Persi Diaconis; one of the guys everyoneincluding mebelieved was behind the alleged redaction.
This nitwit considers himself honoured to be in such good company.
I also concede to being, as you defined it, a hack. However, I believe your definition also applies to the great majority of the people who purchase your books.
Thank you for clarifying this issue. This could have been clarified 20 years ago, but better now than never.