Drotte-Roche mixup

Lee Berman · 20 Apr 2011, 14:38 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:38:35 -0400
Subject: (urth) Drotte-Roche mixup
Message-ID: <SNT123-W48E618A7DF66E6105F652CCF930 at phx.gbl>

>James Wynn: "Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the Roche/Drotte mix-up 
>could be a typo..

I wouldn't go so far as to say it couldn't be a typo. But one reason I lean toward Antonio's
view and why Drotte-Roche might need a somewhat higher level of typo evaluation than the Maytera 
Marble example is the obvious- Severian is (self-) purported to have a perfect memory. I would 
expect an author to find ways to support and/or undercut the "perfect memory" assertion in the 
first few chapters. So it could be purposeful. 

Horn makes no such claim and Wolfe has openly identified the "Marble" mistake as a typo.  If Drotte-
Roche was also a typo, why has he not made the same identification? It has received so much more
attention.

Perhaps a third possibility exists..that it was originally a typo but it was not corrected, being
seen as a happy accident that served Wolfe's purposes nicely. (Does an observed but purposefully 
uncorrected typo cease to be a typo?)

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