posted
I haven't seen this around yet, but getting nitpicky and grammatically anal is fun So let's hear them: every itty bitty mistake you can find in SotG.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[sigh] You pick the one time when the author is actually frequenting the site regularly to start a silly mistake hunt. Are you trying to drive him away? Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You pick the one time when the author is actually frequenting the site regularly to start a silly mistake hunt. Are you trying to drive him away?
Hehe...never! Maybe he should just frequent the site more so I never make such a foolhardy mistake again. Besides, the errors would be more the publisher's fault than his. Think of this as a way to make the paperback edition perfect.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I noticed a naming mistake somewhere in the book. Like he had Mazer saying something instead of somebody else. I forget, wasn't a very big deal...
I've noticed these type of mistakes in some of his other books too though, like the Alvin Maker books. Probably like once or twice a book. Maybe I should mark them next time for topics just like this...
Posts: 204 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once thought i found a comma in the middle of the sentence in EG, but it was just a fruit fly that didn't have the sense to move when I'd closed the book earlier.
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are ALWAYS typos that creep through, despite the fact that the manuscript is checked and triple-checked.
First, I'm a very good typist and make relatively few mistakes.
Then Kristine reads everything and catches typos she happens to see (she's not looking for them, she's reading for content, but when she sees them ...)
Third, other chapter-by-chapter pre-readers, like Kathy Kidd and Erin Absher, catch typos.
Fourth, the editor catches some typos.
Fifth, the professional copy editor is supposed to catch every error. Here is a spot where new errors are sometimes introduced, since even the best copy editors sometimes make changes without realizing that another change should be made elsewhere in tandem with it. As a general rule, by the time my manuscripts reach the copy edit, there are legitimate errors needing correction about once every six pages. But copy editors are uneasy with my comma usage and with how clean my manuscripts are by the time they reach this stage, so they usually "correct" things that are exactly as i want them. I rarely (but occasionally) accept these extra changes.
Sixth, my assistant checks over the copy-editor's changes, and then ...
Seventh: I look at all the changes. I do NOT read the entire manuscript, however, so anything the copy-editor missed stays missed.
In between here, we have sent the finished manuscript to other pre-readers, who check for continuity errors or contradictions between one book in a series and the previous books. This doesn't happen with all my books, only with the ones in series. But these readers also catch errors, not only contradictions but typos. So sometimes there are a bunch of 7A, 7B. 7C readers in between 7 and 8.
Eighth: People at the publishing company reconcile the different versions and send a "final" copy-edited manuscript off to the typesetter.
Ninth: the typesetters start with an electronic copy of the manuscript, but somehow new errors are still introduced in this process, and some corrections are ignored or miscorrected.
Tenth: A copy of the page proofs is given to a professional proofreader, who checks it against a copy of the final copyedit used in-house. This is the spot where the proofreader has a chance to catch any errors that were missed by the copy-editor and my prereaders.
Eleventh: A copy of the page proofs or galleys is given to me, and my assistant reconciles it with the copy-edited manuscript AS WE HAVE IT, which means this is the point where we catch any spurious changes introduced without authorization by the publishing staff or the typesetter.
Twelfth: someone at the publishing house reconciles our set of page proof corrections with the in-house proofreader's corrections.
Thirteenth: Any changes suggested by the proofreader are transmitted to us and either approved or disapproved.
Fourteenth: either the changes we authorized (or rejected) are properly transmitted ... or they aren't.
That's basically the last check. I think that counts as "every reasonable effort" to get it right.
But errors inevitably creep through. There's a phenomenon in proofreading (I used to proofread for a living) that makes it so that if there's an error within a few lines after an error you catch, you're likely to miss it because your "error-catching anxiety" has been assuaged and it takes a moment to become fully alert again.
There's also the phenomenon of introducing errors in the process of correcting another error.
So sometimes an error is present because it was never seen by ANYONE, having been introduced by the person making a correction of a different error.
Thus, while it's annoying that there are errors (typos or contradictions or, rarely, grammatical errors), it happens.
However, be warned: If you look for "errors" according to the Chicago Manual of Style, you will find hundreds. Because, even though I know the rules backward and forward (I was a very GOOD copy editor) I do not follow the rules of comma placement and often violate rules of grammar in my oral-style writing. I try to write prose that is closer to the rhythms and usages of common speech rather than the rules of formal presentation.
So before you pounce on an "error," give a moment's thought to how the sentence reads, and whether following the "rule" would stiffen it and make it less smooth and flowing, less energetic, or less like natural speech.
And when you find errors in my postings, remember that this is "casual" writing and I don't bother with going back and correcting trivial errors, like the fact that I sometimes release the shift key before the letter i'm capitalizing is registered. This especially happens when I'm on the road using a non-fullstroke keyboard. I figure we're informal here, so I don't fix it.
(I tried to google first to answer my own question, but, though I found the phrase, I did not see an explanation of precisely what was meant by it.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I work as a typesetter. I concur that with OSC that there are many steps in which errors may be found and corrected, and also introduced. I worked on textbooks (math, science, and computer science) as opposed to fiction in my first job in this field and now I work on documentation for a software company, so my experiences and perceptions regarding the various steps are likely different from OSC's. I did learn very early on though that it is not the typesetters job to correct "mistakes" that he sees that are not passed on to him to fix. It was obvious enough that different proofreaders would correct each others corrections on subsequent proofreading passes, as I usually had to update the files between proofreading passes to reflect the changes. As a consequence of this I cannot read something without noticing certain mistakes, even if I am just reading for entertainment. I have learned to ignore any mistakes that I notice though since I can't do anything about them. I have also noticed the phenomenon that OSC mentioned where when two mistakes appear close together, oftentimes the second gets missed. No matter how often I check and recheck a post before submitting it to a fourm I will often see another mistake in my post when I read the thread an hour or more later.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, it's a good thing we have forced people to take so much time and effort to explain typos. I really see another side to it all!
(FYI - nitpicky and anal is only fun if both partners have communicated and agreed to it beforehand and begin their new lifestyle with the utmost respect for each other wants and needs.)
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a weird and wonderful idea: Consensual nitpicking!
Oh, wait. Chimps and baboons do it all the time. It's called "grooming," and best of all, they get to eat the lice and nits they pick out of each other's fur. Protein, comfort, AND that glow of success at having found something wriggling on the skin ...
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What a weird and wonderful idea: Consensual nitpicking!
Oh, wait. Chimps and baboons do it all the time. It's called "grooming," and best of all, they get to eat the lice and nits they pick out of each other's fur. Protein, comfort, AND that glow of success at having found something wriggling on the skin ...
Keeping the spice in marriage requires ingenuity and determination, dammit.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actully sent this in the Q's to OSC part of the website but might as well say it here. Ferreira the computer man for the Hegemony. In Shadow Puppets he was a traitor and on the side of Achilles. He was the one who reported Peter to be embezzling funds. On page 189 in Shadow puppets. Now in Shadow of the Giant he is a good guy once again. He is now once on the side of Peter again. Yeah you get my question.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some massive spoilers for SOTG and SP coming up.
I am in the middle of re-reading Shadow Puppets right now. I am to the point where Bean and Petra go to watch Volescu perform the fake genetic test that “identifies” the embryos with Antons Key turned on.
On page 141 in the paper back edition of the book it says, “Then Bean and Petra watched as the six remaining embryos were frozen.”
But then in SOTG, when Bean and Petra locate all the stolen embryos, now babies, there are a few more than six.
Petra keeps Andrew, Petra II, Julian II, Ramon and Bella. Bean keeps Ender (who Petra birthed), Bella and another child. I can’t fine or remember the name of the third child Bean takes with him into space.
And then there is the child Randi had.
That leaves two unaccounted embryos; three if one of the original six was implanted in Petra. Which I think was the case because in Achilles internet post “wanted: a good womb” he says he has five embryos.
I could be mistaken. Did anyone else notice this? The only reason I caught it was because I am re-reading the previous books.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are six babies that were definitely not killed. Then, I think the premise is that the other three which were supposed to be destroyed weren't. So that's where the extras come from.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What a weird and wonderful idea: Consensual nitpicking!
Oh, wait. Chimps and baboons do it all the time. It's called "grooming," and best of all, they get to eat the lice and nits they pick out of each other's fur. Protein, comfort, AND that glow of success at having found something wriggling on the skin ...
and with that, OSC went from just being my favorite author to being my favorite person ever. *does polite golf clap, hands OSC certificate*
Posts: 93 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought about that possibility too. That would mean that the fertility doctor Bean and Petra took with them was also deceiving them. And I would think that Bean and Petra would have been a little surprised at finding a greater number of babies than the number of embryos they thought were stolen.
But that would be my guess too. That the three embryos they thought were discarded were actually saved. And then Achilles knew Bean and Petra thought only six were frozen, five after Petra’s implantation, so he only said five when bargaining with them.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Ferreia thing didn't make any sense, but maybe he only pretended to turn to protect himself from Achilles. If that's the case, he would just care more about his life than about Peter's, which wouldn't make him as evil as he would be otherwise.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Ferreia was a bad guy. I figure that his seemingly bad act in SP can be explained in one of two ways: a) Achilles threatened him or his family, just like the spy he had in ColMin. b) Achilles somehow deceived him so that he really did believe that Peter was embezzling funds. The former is probably more likely. Ironically, Peter was embezzling Ender's pension all along, but that not such a big deal since that's just stealing from family, not tax payers and whoever else funds the Hegemony. Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So let's hear them: every itty bitty mistake you can find in SotG.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
