#misprints and typos

[conservethis]

It’s Whursday, my friends.

[stephantom]

From Richard Burton’s diary, September 23, 1980:

I only knew by chance that [Peter O’Toole] had taken such a terrible hammering – a front-page hammering – from the British critics for his performance in Macbeth. I knew only because Onllwyn Brace came to supervise my narration in the documentary film about Welsh rugby football. ‘Your pal O'Toole,’ he said, ‘has been murdered by the English critics.’ ‘For what?’ asked I. ‘For Macbeth,’ said he. I phoned Peter that night as soon as the hours were right and managed to catch him before he'd left the Old Vic. I said, ‘a couple of boys from the BBC were over today to record my voice and they told me you've had a bit of stick from the critics.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘How are the houses?’ I asked. ‘Packed.’ ‘Then remember this my boy,’ I said (he is 4 years younger), ‘you are the most original actor to come out of Britain since the war and fuck the critics.’ ‘Thank you.’ ‘Think of every four letter obscenity, six, eight ten and twelve letter expletives and ram it right up their envious arses in which,’ I said, paraphrasing Robert Atkins, ‘I'm sure there is ample room.‘ ‘Thank you.’ ‘Good night Peter. Don't give in and I love you.’ ‘I won't and it's mutual.’ ‘Good night again.’ ‘Good night Richard and thank you.’

That was the extent of our conversation but my fury at the critics took me through the night – another sleepless one – and I thought of all the things I should have said to Peter and didn't and thought I should write him a letter and didn't and prayed to God I hadn't sounded like a false sympathizer secretly rejoicing in his critical debacle. But no, I comforted myself, he knows I too have been through the fire and understand.

[chainsawgood]

sitting here feeling insane about american psycho because it might be the perfect satire

[alfredo-zauce]

Well? How do y’all feel about it?

[artificelux]

Publishing Independently

There are so many upsides to being an independent author/publisher. One is that I get to do things that are a little more outside the norm, like the soundtrack and the design of the hardcover. Another is feeling more connected with the people purchasing a book, as I get to ship them out myself.

But there is one instance where having the resources of a big publisher would have certainly been nice.

You see, after endless scrutiny and poring over designs and trying to make sure I did everything perfectly… a typo slipped through onto the final version of the softcover. You could say it’s a small thing, that it’s hard to notice, but ever since someone mentioned it, I haven’t been able to unsee it. Pretty sure I’ve seen it in my dreams! Haha.

-- Side note: The person who pointed it out was very kind, and said it should in no way diminish what I’d achieved, creating this project on my own. And they still bought a copy, saying “I’ll have the misprint first edition,” like it was a rare trading card or something. Which certainly made me smile at the time, and I’m very appreciative to them for that. --

And yet, that hasn’t stopped me feeling intense shame over the softcover edition ever since. Like I’ve let myself down. Like I shouldn’t even be selling it, even though the interior is the exact same book as the hardcover. And yet, that’s the truth of producing a limited run on my own. I can’t just have it reprinted; not to mention, I don’t know if I could stomach the paper waste of having it reprinted and trashing the initial run.

So, I’m stuck with it. And I have to keep telling myself that’s fine, even though I’m a perfectionist and it’s hard. Because I am proud of what I’ve made. And somehow this mistake made it past multiple sets of eyes and multiple proofs, which is just… human. And if you read the first chapter… well, it actually kinda fits with my main character Tonic and the beginning of her story.

If there’s a second run at some point (fingers crossed), this small error will be corrected. But until then, if you want a misprint edition from the very first run of Color of a Mirror, the softcover edition is for you.

Dan

colorofamirror.net

[loko4koko]

>BRUH i just was skimming through don’t tell me to go away from you and i got to a paragraph and the whole BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE WAS GONE

>so i just fcking fixed it

>and now i am so EMBARRASSED that you lovely folks had to try and figure out what i meant by this for the past few weeks 😭 like the whole highlighted part was just not there wtffffff

[theidiotabides]

Finally got around to reading the graphic novel adaptations & just read The Message & uhhhhhhhhhhh

Was nobody going to tell me that they got Ax's NAME WRONG????

That's a typo, right? That's gotta be a typo, but like -- not to be a copyeditor on main, but I actually am a copyeditor, and I just -- how THE FUCK do you miss THAT? It's TWO LETTERS off, too! What the fuck?

It's the only time his full name is said in the book, so there's no other instance to compare it to, but surely they didn't just CHANGE HIS NAME, right? Why would they? Do I have a misprint copy or something? WHAT IS HAPPENING. I DEMAND SATISFACTION. SCHOLASTIC, EXPLAIN YOURSELF

OG text for context/completionism:

[savagewildnerness]

i didnt know it was different between countries, but surely anne wrote it one way originally, so which version is correct? and why does it differ? sorry for all these questions!

I presume it isn't supposed to be different. I had originally thought it was just a typo in my copy of The Vampire Lestat... but now I bought a brand new copy, I see it may be written this way in all U.K. versions of the book? Because it's printed exactly the same way in this copy as my other, very old (from 1986!) secondhand copy!

I would assume the U.S. version to be the correct version, in which I think it says "He was talking about Louis."

It makes a big difference as the scene in the books is a time when Armand visits Lestat in New Orleans some time between 1900 and 1929, when Lestat goes into The Earth (the TV equivalent would be the reunion in S2E8 time.) Lestat already is pretty confused and out of it at this time. He is confused in his recollection; he was confused and weak at the time.

But "He was talking to Louis" and had been for some time suggests Lestat thinks Armand was literally talking *to* Louis - so either Louis is there, or Lestat is hallucinating a Louis.

Whereas "He was talking about Louis" suggests Lestat does not think Louis is actually there... which makes a lot more sense! However, being in the U.K. I had only ever read the first version... and since it doesn't seem like Louis is actually there as Lestat goes on to say he cannot truly imagine that Louis is alive, but he finds it wonderful that he is, it makes it seem as though Lestat is even more confused and his mind even more addled....

If it's a misprint... how has nobody noticed in ALL U.K copies of the book sold in the last FORTY YEARS!!?!?!?

[milksockets]

given that i’m someone who loses my mind when i find egregious misprints in publications, i’m not pleased whenever i notice that i made a typo on a post here like oops who’s the dummy now

then i remember that i am not being *paid for this* (though i should be) like copy editors are, and everything is fine again 🤗

[tokidokitokyo]

誤植

ごしょく

misprint; typographical error; typo

この本は誤植はまずほとんどない。 この ほん は ごしょく まず ほとんどない。 This book has few, if any, misprints.

[fernsnailz]

IM NOT THAT GUY!!! but potentially it is a sonic ‘in joke’ to the time in an information section of some kind of sonic thing or whatever there was a typo or misprint that said ‘rogue the cat’ instead of rogue the bat & they are joking about that????????? idk good luck

ty i'm assuming it was some sort of reference yeah! also i love how you've framed this ask. i like to think that you broke through my wall yelling "I'M NOT THAT GUY" and then soon after left through the same hole after confusedly wishing me luck

[thatgirlonstage]

Sometimes I get overwhelmed by how ephemeral most art is. Even outside willful capitalist greed that pulls shows and films from streaming (or refuses to even release them in the first place) and refuses to make video game consoles backwards compatible—even with the best will and effort to preservation in the world—paints and dyes and fabrics fade and degrade over time. Stone and metal statues get worn down. Colors aren’t perfectly replicable on new monitors or with new ingredients. DVDs and CDs and records get scratched. Files lose data. Film gets worn out. Things can’t be copied with complete fidelity to their original — brushstrokes or colors or sound quality will have shifted, even with the most careful effort, even if you are using the same medium (and if you can’t use the same medium, eg digitizing something originally on film, you will inevitably lose some things you can’t get back. Fuzziness and timbre and color quality that artists knew they were working with and whether they leaned into it or worked around it they expected it to be there and their absence will inevitably be felt). Plain text is essentially the only thing that can at least theoretically be copied without any loss of information, but even that is only in theory! Typos and misprints and errors plague any copy. Debates rage over whether something in an older version was an error corrected in a later edition or an intentional choice that got revised for whatever multitude of possible reasons. I haven’t even touched art that is by its very nature ephemeral from the start — live performance and installations made of living plants and art where the whole purpose is watching something fall apart.

Idk. I am desperately and fiercely in favor of all efforts at preservation of art while also being painfully aware of how impossible it is to preserve anything forever. Go to the theatre and feel with your whole heart how incredible it is to witness something that will only be done exactly like this just once, just today, just right this moment, and then it will be gone forever, whether its alterations are obvious or almost imperceptible they will be there. Then expand that feeling to everything you touch and feel at once lucky and heartbroken.

[adachimoe]

The mysterious Design Works misprinting of Kanji and Dojima's birth years

A first printing of the Persona 4 Design Works incorrectly has Kanji and Dojima's birth years wrong lol. For Kanji, it lists his as 1995, which would make him 1 year older at the start of the game since his birthday is in January. Dojima's is listed as 1970, making him 1 year younger.

Both of their ages are correct (15 and 42, respectively; maybe Kanji could pass as a 42 year old tho). Reprints and the ebook version have 1996 and 1969, and other books published later like Persona Club P4 have these listed correctly, so this was just some random typo.

This doesn't change anything for Dojima since his age is never brought up in the plot, but for Kanji, if he were born in 1995 he would be a 2nd year student like the protagonist. And in Golden, he would be able to get a scooter license instead of having to use the mom bike.

[thexgrayxlady]

What I Read in June 2024

Witches Abroad by Terry Pratchett - 4.25/5.00

This was a fun road trip. In spite of some bits that probably didn't age well, it was still an overall good time. I loved the bit where Granny Ogg whacks Gollum with an oar. The scene with the brazier is fantastic. Literally half of this review could just be talking about my favorite scenes. I am always in awe of how seamlessly Pratchett can take a scene from very silly and funny to chilling, uncomfortable, and tear jerking, almost without the reader noticing what's going on. The Big Bad Wolf now haunts rent free in my head. I really liked watching Granny Weatherwax go up against her Disney adult sister.

The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin - 4.75/5.00

This was brutal and beautiful. I ripped through at least half in a day like it was nothing and was too caught up in it to take very many notes. The characters are deep and complex and the world building is incredible. The entire buildup to the last day on the island is horrifying and I could not look away. And the ending is fantastic. I can't wait to read the next one.

Godkiller by Hannah Kaner - 3.75/5.00

This is a strong debut novel with a fascinating, lived-in feeling world and an interesting protagonist. However, it's held back by too many POVs and cartoonish, mustache twirling antagonists. I liked when the gods felt appropriately inhuman and wish that their skewed morality came up more often. Skedi especially has a moment where he does something horrific to one of the main characters and it's just ignored and forgiven almost immediately. That being said, the antagonistic gods just feel too cartoonishly evil and not enough like they're acting in accordance with their nature.

The edition I have is also riddled with typos and misprints. I got it used so I don't know if I got some kind of ARC, but I don't appreciate the lack of quality control that went into it.

The atmosphere built up in the first part of the book is really cool. You can see a lot of influence from The Witcher and Elden Ring. The abandoned city of the gods feels appropriately creepy. For all of my little issues with it, I can't wait to see what the author does next and hope that she continues to grow and improve.

Garden of Lies by Amanda Quick - 3.00/5.00

This was a mostly satisfying romance/mystery novel. I appreciate that Ursula is an independent, professional businesswoman who knows what she wants. I appreciate that the author understands the importance of secretaries and equal pay. The main characters have a dynamic that's based on mutual respect. It could have done without the island subplot, but it's not too intrusive. Ultimately, not a bad way to spend a rainy afternoon.

[instantezra]

genuinely cannot believe i got the fromt bottomns crewneck and to my surprise the sticker pack ALSO had the typo misprint thank u mat and brian 🙂‍↕️

[barbiejewelle]

Glancing through a paperback version of Sinéad O'Connor's memoir (Rememberings) published last year. The hardcover was published in 2021.

The text under the picture obviously a misprint, Sinéad was about 14 in 1980 and she did not meat John until 1987.

She married him in 1989 and they divorced in 1991.

How did the publishers miss something like that. The thing that clued me into the typo was the fact she she looks a lot older than 13 or 14 in the pic.

Sorry for the ramble but I had to get that off my chest.