Drotte-Roche mixup (was: Introduction and Breath)

António Marques · 17 Apr 2011, 00:55 · from 2011-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:55:36 +0100
Subject: (urth) Drotte-Roche mixup (was: Introduction and Breath)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinwFyoLHPjRvT4-T5Zc_V_AWS6+hw at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinwFyoLHPjRvT4-T5Zc_V_AWS6+hw at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DAA3A88.40508 at gmail.com>

Tony Ellis wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I've always felt that this looks far more like a faux-pas on the part
>> of Wolfe than anything to do with Severian's memory.
>
> and Ant?nio Pedro Marques:
>> Obviously one can't complain about feelings, but I just can't
>> understand how you may feel that way. Only if you feel it's too
>> cartoonish to be true, but this isn't at all the only instance of such
>> humour by GW.
>
> A few reasons why I feel this way:
> Firstly, because substituting one name for another is an easy mistake
> for a writer to make, and a hard one for an editor to spot. Mistakes
> get published all the time.

This is the part I find unbelievable. A mistake such as this doesn't 
happen on such a passage from such an author. First, it'd be much of a 
coincidence; second, it's the kind of stuff I'm positive he cares more 
about in his proof-readings; third, it's too conspicuous, I got it 
outright, dense as I am, and absolutely not on the lookout for such 
stuff at the time; fourth, it's right in the beginning of the book(s), 
with all the spotlights on it.

(And from the moment I don't find this believable, there has to be a 
motive for the mixup, whatever it is.)

> Secondly, because substituting one word for an associated one is a
> common error not of memory, but of language. We all do it (...)

That's a good point. But for one it doesn't completely hold. Such memory 
errors - in 'such' I include the proximity of paragraphs - *are* 
possible. But more importantly, it may well be a simple language error, 
yet it makes the point: even if his memory *is* perfect, even if he's 
not out to fool us, there are still ways in which the narrative may 
deceive us.

If it's a GW error, well, it looks just like the best of what he usually 
does.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net