Drotte-Roche mixup

António Pedro Marques · 18 Apr 2011, 22:49 · 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?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:49:10 +0100
Subject: (urth) Drotte-Roche mixup
In-Reply-To: <4DACAA4D.6050003 at gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=tewDTahn_u1img1+SB6HBWkFBuw at mail.gmail.com>
	<4DACAA4D.6050003 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DACBFE6.2050903 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote (18-04-2011 22:17):
> When I get home, I intend to see if the Marble/Mint mix-up in the "The Book
> of Long Sun" was replicated in the "Epiphany of the Long Sun" re-release.
> Wolfe seemed quite annoyed by mistakes like that when he was asked. If it is
> there, I will accept it as possible that an editorial mistake like that
> could be considered Set In Stone and reproduced in all subsequent volumes.
>
> If it was fixed in subsequent volumes, then I will have ask why the
> Drotte/Roche error was never fixed in all the re-releases in that last 31
> years.

The Marble/Mint mixup `*does* look like a mistake. Though at that point 
anything goes...

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