Drotte-Roche mixup

James Wynn · 31 May 2011, 18:31 · from 2011-May.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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:31:39 -0000
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: <4DADA032.1000900 at gmail.com>

Well, in "Exodus of the Long Sun", in chapter 14, "The Best Thieves in 
the Whorl", page 313 (HB version),
Siyuf is having a discussion with Mint. Marble is not there.

A paragraph says:
"Siyuf looked back to Maytera Marble. 'You wish to tell me of the 
Charter of your city before this man have interrupt you. I find this of 
interest.' "

In "Epiphany of the Long Sun", this typo is repeated.
There is another typo in the book that does the same thing but I don't 
need to look it up. It is surely there.
Consequently, it is quite reasonable to assume that the Roche/Drotte 
mix-up could also be a typo. Perhaps once a book has been copyrighted, 
it is deemed to expensive for Tor to update it. Perhaps Wolfe has a 
personal philosophy about these things. "Once published, the tree lays 
where it falls."

Unfortunately, these means that we cannot hope that later editions will 
ever help us by separating Wolfe's errors from his intentions.

J.

On 4/18/2011 4:17 PM, James Wynn wrote:
> 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.
>
> J

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