papersky: "Oh," grumped Jo, grumpily.

Jo Walton (

papersky) wrote,
@ 2008-07-11 01:47:00

"Oh," grumped Jo, grumpily.
There's going to be an exciting new trade paperback edition of Farthing, and I'm going to correct all the mistakes.

(Of course I'm not going to correct the robin/wren thing. That's not a mistake, that's alternate history. Alternate numismatics...)

I know about Venus, and I know about the insufficiently copyedited Earl/Duke thing. There are also a couple of other things I'm going to clarify up where I am actually right but there's a Tiffany problem.

If anyone has noticed any other mistakes, or any typos, in Farthing, please post them here with page numbers so they can be fixed, by me, with good cheer and a smiling heart.

(Actually, once I start reading it I'll probably enjoy it. Or so I keep telling myself as I procrastinate. And it's great that they're doing a new edition. Really it is, because it's earned out now. I just have to slog through it. Upwards and onwards!)

(Post a new comment)

	zwol 2008-07-11 05:55 am UTC (link)
	I shall ask the obvious question: what's a Tiffany problem? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	auriaephiala 2008-07-11 06:14 am UTC (link)
	The fact that "Tiffany" appears to readers to be a very modern name, even though it dates back to medieval times? And presumably other perfectly accurate details of life in Britain in the 1930s/40s that don't appear correct to modern readers? (There was a Regency "Tiffany" BTW in Heyer's The Nonesuch. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	auriaephiala 2008-07-11 06:12 am UTC (link)
	it's earned out now Wow! Congratulations! So glad it's doing well. (Reply to this)

	athenais 2008-07-11 06:24 am UTC (link)
	Jo, that's marvelous that Farthing has earned out, and I hope you do enjoy correcting the mistakes. (Reply to this)

	oursin 2008-07-11 07:23 am UTC (link)
	I think it was in Farthing? - yellow lines marking not-parking areas. In our universe, didn't come in until around the early 70s, I think, presumably because by then there were far more cars around and parking was a much bigger problem. I'll try and look this up later on when I have more time. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	oursin 2008-07-11 07:51 pm UTC (link)
	Yes - beginning of chapter 22 p 218 'He pulled up smartly on the double yellow line in front of the new Scotland Yard building'. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	papersky 2008-07-11 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	Fixed, thank you. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	steepholm 2008-07-11 08:47 am UTC (link)
	"Earned out": the two most beautiful words in the writer's lexicon. Congratulations! (Reply to this)

	drplokta 2008-07-11 08:55 am UTC (link)
	Afraid I don't have page numbers, but: There's no such thing as a "college Blue" -- Blues are awarded for representing your university in a sporting event. The reference to duct tape is implausible at best. (Reply to this) (Thread)

duct tape.

betonica
2008-07-11 01:03 pm UTC (link)

I have some vague memory of a probably untrue story about some medical person developing duct tape during WWII as a waterproof way to cover bandages. I think it was put out by one or another manufacturer of duct tape in a perhaps-joking note about their claim for rights to the name "duck tape." Or something. Anyway:

From wikipedia: "...duct tape was originally developed during World War II in 1942 as a waterresistant sealing tape for ammunition cases." I don't know if the actual name "duct tape" was in wide use, but the concept was there.

"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" got criticized for the use of the word bifocals (something like "I've got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals" said by Paul Newman's character) but Ben Franklin apparently invented bifocals, so it wasn't an anacronism. Some things are anacronisms, and some (like Tiffany) just appear that way. I don't know which way I'd go with things like that, were I trying to write something period - alternate history or not. I think using some of those words/items adds spice and challenge to the reader.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	papersky 2008-07-12 11:51 am UTC (link)
	I've fixed the college Blue, but I couldn't find the duct tape. Do you remember roughly where it was? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	drplokta 2008-07-12 12:17 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks to the electronic version that Tor made available for download, I can tell you that it's about 2/3 of the way through, about 10 paragraphs into chapter 21. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	papersky 2008-07-12 12:55 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you, got it. Yeah, that was my memories of Winchester market at the time of the unicon there. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sartorias 2008-07-11 09:12 am UTC (link)
	Excellent news. (Reply to this)

	kate_nepveu 2008-07-11 11:37 am UTC (link)
	Earning out and new edition! Awesome! (Reply to this)

	apis_mellifera 2008-07-11 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	I'm so glad to hear that it's earned out. :) (Reply to this)

	ron_newman 2008-07-11 12:53 pm UTC (link)
	For those of us who read Farthing years ago and didn't notice the errors -- what were the Earl/Duke thing and Venus? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bunsen_h 2008-07-11 05:38 pm UTC (link)
	The Venus thing came up in a Fourmilab review -- Carmichael sees Venus in the eastern sky at dusk, instead of in the western sky. The reviewer was otherwise quite impressed by the astronomical accuracy of the book. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	papersky 2008-07-12 11:52 am UTC (link)
	Never be accurate about astronomy or guns, there are too many people who care. It's better to be vague and let them make their own minds up what you meant, like for instance the rest of the astronomy... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	papersky 2008-07-11 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	I changed the Earl of Hampshire to the Duke of Hampshire and was inconsistent about it so he sometimes is still called Earl in the text. It's very hard to find. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	heleninwales 2008-07-11 01:00 pm UTC (link)
	Congratulations on Farthing earning out. (Reply to this)

	ckd 2008-07-11 01:46 pm UTC (link)
	Earning out: hooray! New edition, so that it can continue earning (and in trade, so it should stay in print): double hooray! (Reply to this)

	redrose3125 2008-07-11 03:13 pm UTC (link)
	Congrats on earning out! (btw, I purchased Farthing after reading the pdf from Tor, and will be purchasing the next two books, so the free pdf got you 3 sales!) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	greatsword 2008-07-11 05:04 pm UTC (link)
	Same here, so make that at least six. I got about five thousand words in before I stopped by the bookstore to get the trade edition. I was much too busy enjoying the book to notice any mistakes. Congrats on earning out, and thanks for a fun and thought provoking book. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	papersky 2008-07-12 11:52 am UTC (link)
	Ha'Penny is out in paperback now! And I'm very glad that worked. That was the plan, with giving it away. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fledgist 2008-07-11 04:57 pm UTC (link)
	What about the knights in the House of Lords thing? That's not alternate history. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	papersky 2008-07-11 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	There are no knights in the House of Lords in any of my books. Knights and baronets are different things, but they are both called "Sir". I'm sorry this is confusing, but. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	fledgist 2008-07-11 07:14 pm UTC (link)
	Baronetcies, while hereditary, do not confer the right to a seat in the House of Lords, Jo. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nwhyte 2008-07-11 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	Yep, that's right. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tachs 2008-07-11 09:04 pm UTC (link)
	I remember this one jumping out at me when I read Farthing.As you say, although Baronets inherit their title they are not Peers & were never entitled to a seat in the Lords (Reply to this) (Parent)

akirlu
2008-07-11 06:42 pm UTC (link)

Congratulations on earning out! That's marvelous. It's very exciting that you have the chance to do cleanup for the reissue.

I do have a short list of things that I hung up on, things that kicked me out of the story, and essentially kept it from being a full-on masterpiece for me (because the setting and the narrative voices are just absolutely note-perfect, as is the slow tightening of the noose and the gradual intrusion of the fascist elements. It is a completely engaging book like no other I read that year.). I don't know if these are the kinds of things you want to look at, nor if you even agree with me, so just now I haven't got page numbers handy but if these are the sorts of changes you are considering, I will very happily hunt up page numbers for you.

The easy one: What I think of as driveway gravel -- granite pea gravel -- simply doesn't take imprints. Certainly not anything so precise as to determine shoe size or manufactury. It's too coarse and loose. Could there be a sandy verge to the gravel drive, or could the drive itself be something other than gravel for there to be precise footprints in? Decomposed granite would be swell.

Harder to jigger: could the shotgun have been loaded for something other than small game? The face being shot clean off doesn't seem plausible with bird- or rabbit-shot, even at close range. Dick Cheney is not your friend in this case (as in so many other, non-literary ones).

Jodhpurs are not critical for riding -- any trousers will do, and an experienced rider would know it. Good, well-fitted and appropriately-heeled riding boots are crucial and an equally strong indication that one has gone riding. Switch?

Hardest to jigger: Carbon-monoxide poisoning supposedly leaves the victim a distinctive cherry-red color that other forms of asphyxia don't produce. Also, most mechanical forms of asphyxia seem likely to produce facial petechial hemorrhaging that I don't believe is associated with carbon-monoxide poisoning. I don't see how the DI would have missed that, and I don't know how to fix it, either, but it really bothered me because he is otherwise competent and observant. Possibly a throw-away line about the absence of the cherry-red coloring and how it doesn't happen in all cases (in fact, it doesn't always happen, but its absence should be notable in the discovery).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	papersky 2008-07-11 07:52 pm UTC (link)
	I've already fixed the gravel, because I remember you mentioning it at the time. It's much finer gravel than you were imagining, almost as fine as sand. This didn't take much, but it's done. (Reply to this) (Parent)

shezan
2008-07-12 12:19 am UTC (link)

Can't recall where, but it seemed to me there was the use of Lady (First Name) (Last Name) when referring to the wife of a knight/peer. She would be Lady (Last Name). Lady (First name), as in, say, Lady Diana Spencer, only applies to the daughter of an Earl or above. So Sir Oswald Mosley's wife, née Diana Mitford, would be Diana, Lady Mosley, never Lady Diana Mosley, because her father was "only" a Baron (Redesdale).

Hurrah for "earned out"!

(Reply to this)

	Perhaps later . . . tom_barclay 2008-07-12 12:44 am UTC (link)
	shezan's "Hurrah" is seconded! Very pleased to hear about the new edition and that this somewhat controversial (yeah, silly, agreed) book has earned out! I hope later on you'll be glad of the chance to pick up the loose threads. None of my acquaintances have ever had the opportunity, to the best of my knowledge. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Perhaps later . . . papersky 2008-07-12 06:10 am UTC (link)
	I usually get to do it with the paperback. And I'm very glad to have the chance, it's just one of those things that grinds one down to do. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mjlayman 2008-07-12 01:22 am UTC (link)
	Oh, congrats on earning out! And a new edition, how wonderful! (Reply to this)

bunsen_h
2008-07-12 02:13 am UTC (link)

I recall someone at the first Farthing Party commenting that he was surprised that Brown didn't cut and run when he saw what he'd gotten into. It struck me as a bit odd, also, but I assumed that we'd eventually learn that he had some motivation for sticking it out, even if we didn't find out what that motivation was. (I had a couple of ideas and was wondering how they'd compare with the truth.) Is that within the scope of the kind of tweaking you want to do?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	papersky 2008-07-12 06:09 am UTC (link)
	No, definitely not. I can't rewrite the whole book, let alone write a different book from a different point of view. The motivation of minor characters who die just isn't going to be revealed in perfect clarity. I think it's possible to work out. (When I see you I'd be happy to have a conversation about your ideas.) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bunsen_h
2008-07-12 01:47 pm UTC (link)

I was thinking more in terms of the characters noting that there was an anomaly: "Odd that he didn't just bugger off when he saw [X]." "Add that to the list."

I could have cut the last few Star Trek series a lot more slack for their total bungling of basic science if their supposedly-competent personnel had, once in a while, made comments like "Wait a minute, that's impossible according to known physics. Something here is stranger than we thought." I don't have to understand the motivation of minor characters (or the modified laws of nature in an SF novel), but if I notice that something's very odd in a situation and the better-in-that-field-than-me characters don't, it tends to weaken the story for me.

But I'm not at all disagreeing with your limiting your changes to basic copy-editing and other minor tweaks. Changing more than that for a new printing would be getting into an odd kind of revisionism.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Notice the ST writer's guide said to use insert technobabble and leave it for the staff writers

cem
2008-07-13 05:26 pm UTC (link)

Notice the ST writer's guide said to use insert technobabble and leave it for the staff writers. I suppose in an effort to keep the pseudo-science consistent with previous vocabulary - somewhat like David Drake's defense of his writing in the Honorverse where Drake left it to Weber to fill in the blanks and is still being called for inconsistencies with Weber where it is all Weber -

I suppose any effort to bring in and explain incidents of hard science in later Star Trek would have complicated the exposition and slowed the action as well as being a complete break with precedent.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Page 94 for Heinkels try Messerschmitt 3/4 down

cem
2008-07-13 05:17 pm UTC (link)

Page 94 for Heinkels try Messerschmitt 3/4 down.

As a couple of people have noted in our time line any Heinkels over the British Isles would have been bombers - eventually night fighters and photo-recon - nothing that could hang on a Hurricane's tail and certainly not on a Spitfire's - although there is an alternate history possibility that the Heinkel design with its longer range had been selected over the Bf 109 or in addition with the Bf 109 as an interceptor and the Heinkel as an escort fighter (better with development than the useless efforts actually made) and so allowed more loiter time.

(Reply to this)

ethelmay
2008-07-18 06:55 pm UTC (link)

Typos I've seen:
p. 92 "strait-laced" should be one word
p. 211 "crock" should be "crook"
p. 232 "Warasaw" should be "Warsaw" (I thought at first it might be Mrs. Smollett's accent, but then on the top of 233 she says "Warsaw", so presumably one or the other is wrong)
p. 233 "conservetoire" should be "conservatoire"
p. 270 "Phillipa" should perhaps be "Philippa," which is the more common spelling, but as Lucy is making up the name on the fly I can hardly say it's wrong
p. 291 "Rackhameque" should be "Rackhamesque"

Other things I wasn't as sure about:
p. 22-23 should "centers of power" be "center of power"?
p. 43 "Mrs. Kahn ... who he remembered" should have "whom" (Lucy almost never uses "whom," I know -- I was quite surprised when she *did* use it on p. 133 -- but it seems as though the Carmichael narrative is more formal)
p. 55 Daphne's "sweater" surprised me: should it be "jumper"?
p. 67 would "shirt" be used for a woman's garment? suggest "blouse" (though as it's actually Daphne's sweater redux, perhaps Carmichael is supposed to be getting women's clothes wildly wrong?)
p. 77 "conflab" -- I've more often seen "confab"; never seen "conflab" in an older book that I recall
p. 78 I wouldn't cap "Duke" or "Viscount" as common nouns
p. 113 "very afraid" -- I think Lucy would have said "very much afraid"
p. 157 would Lucy have said "movies"?
p. 173 "Well she'll get away with that now" should have a comma after "Well", to my way of thinking
p. 210 at bottom: should "hardwares" be "hardware"?
p. 211 others have mentioned the duct tape, which may be a Tiffany
p. 228 fruit cake is *exactly* the sort of thing you *can* keep around, and I'm surprised Lucy doesn't know that
p. 318 should "St. Martins" have an apostrophe?

(Reply to this)

	tardigrade 2008-07-23 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	I'm probably far too late with my pettifogging, nitpicking quibbling, but... in the last paragraph of Chapter 25, "station wagon" is mentioned - I thought that "shooting brake" would be more suited to the period. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ethelmay 2008-07-24 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	"Estate car" or "estate wagon" might be another possibility. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs