How finicky is too finicky?

[pameladean]

So I'm going over the scanned text of The Dubious Hills to catch errors and to confirm its correspondence with the originally published version. Early on, something reminds Arry of "one of Beldi's paintings." I had forgotten that Beldi ever painted anything, and was considering this in the light of the short stories (all striving to be novels,

Comments

[rj_anderson]

If it was me, I'd go mad knowing a continuity glitch was there and I didn't fix it when I could have -- especially when the fix is as easy as the #2 you've suggested. I found a similar gaffe recently when I was reviewing the manuscript of REBEL for the US reprint, and even though none of my readers or reviewers ever seemed to notice that Timothy was barefoot in one scene only to have socks on (very plot-important socks too!) in the next, I was glad for a chance to correct it.

On the other hand, I didn't notice the inconsistency the last two times I read TDH and probably wouldn't have noticed it this time either. So I wouldn't blame you for deciding to leave well enough alone -- except that, ideally, you'll have new readers perusing this edition and not merely old familiar ones, so it wouldn't necessarily fall into the category of Things One Is Used To for them.

[pameladean]

Oh yes, if I had that situation with the socks (plot-important socks!) I would have to make a change.

I just keep thinking about my own experience with oft-read books. Sooner or later the brain has time to think, "Wait, what?" and it's a sad moment, even though all authors are human and we might as well remember it.

Your point about potential new readers is well taken.

P.

[kalimac]

FWIW, #3 is the explanation I thought of that would cover all the facts as presented, before I read as far as your proffering of it.

However, if you want to make the minimal possible change and do #2, why not go for making Beldi's name a typo here and say that Arry was reminded of a painting by Boldini?

[thomasyan]

I also immediately thought of #3 before seeing the actual list of choices.

[pameladean]

You and kalimac are in good company with one another and with several commenters further below. I'm inclining to this solution.

P.

[pameladean]

This made me fall over, but, sadly, Arry has never heard of Boldini, nor could she have without massive changes to the book.

P.

[sartorias]

#3, add 'anymore' to the sentence?

(I have to admit that I am a continuity freak once I trip over something, though these are almost all image-related.)

[pameladean]

Yes, that is actually an elegant possible solution; I will have to think on it.

I think being a continuity freak is a very useful quality in a writer.

P.

[tiger_spot]

That was my immediate thought.

[pameladean]

Now I wonder why it wasn't mine!

P.

[sovay]

a note from Harriet Vane to Philip Boyes is introduced into evidence, and the judge remarks, "It is signed simply, M."

That's great. Is it known if that's just a misprint or a fossil from an earlier draft?

[pameladean]

I have no idea. I first actually noticed it in the facsimile hardcover, which I was reading very carefully for the first time, though of course it was rereading of the actual book; and just assumed that it had been corrected in paperback editions later on. Then I became curious and checked. Nope, it's there all the time. I haven't made any kind of study of Sayers's manuscript history; I don't know if anybody else has either. I was so put off by the first biography and critical study of her that I read that I've pretty much been avoiding such things since.

P.

[kalimac]

Hoping this wasn't it, I thought the best study of Sayers I've read is the one by James Brabazon. It makes The Mind of the Maker sound considerably more interesting than it actually is, which makes me think that Brabazon is a posthumous re-incarnation of C.S. Lewis.

[pameladean]

Sadly, that was the one. I didn't mean that I thought it was worthless, though; just that his weird obsession with her appearance and weight was very offputting. I also felt that he got a number of minor aspects of the novels wrong, but can no longer recall which ones. I figured that his book probably really was one of the better ones, so I didn't want to read any more. My reaction may have been sharpened by having read a spectacularly uneven and in places just dreadful bio of Mary Renault at around the same time.

The Mind of the Maker is very strange. The first time I read it I was fascinated and wildly excited. I did not and do not believe in the entities that she was invoking, but as a means of organizing both the creative mind and the creative work I thought that her analysis was intellectually amazing and potentially very useful. I tried reading it again about ten years later and I couldn't, except for the passages in which she discusses her own work, which remained fascinating -- the discussion of the chess set in Gaudy

[timprov]

I'm reminded of the afterword to The Lord of Castle Black.

[pameladean]

ROFL.

I mean to say, rather, Indeed, no depiction of the workings of the artist, however fantastical and seemingly exaggerated, has not occurred in reality at one time or another.

P.