|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:46 pm
I am just rereading the series in order and am on Dead Beat. In Chapter 39, he is talking about an old Chrysler and later on the same page he talks about Sue on the Caddy's hood.
(Page 382 in the paperback edition). Mistake?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:18 am
Its possibly. The most recent edition of The Butcher Block goes through a list of discrepancies throughout the series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:22 pm
I don't know, but I've seen tons of grammatical errors in the books.
Missing quotations, and small stuff like that.
Haha.
It just makes the books have more personality to me.
heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:43 pm
Edwit I don't know, but I've seen tons of grammatical errors in the books. Missing quotations, and small stuff like that. Haha. It just makes the books have more personality to me. heart To be fair, those things are found in all books. And it is not as bad as in the second harry potter book where they accidently called "Percy" "Perry".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:26 pm
It usually happens in most first editions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:06 am
Thy're nowhere near as bad as the Torchwood novelisations... you have to skip sentences because the first half of the sentence is reapeated, or words... or words/sentences are missing...
They don't use a spellcheck either - there's one classic page where 'Captain Jack' is written as 'Cpatain Jock'... rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:44 pm
There are certainly a few typos, but for me a real mistake is like the one in Grave Peril where Harry looks at his face in his bathroom mirror when he's made it very clear that wizards don't keep mirrors because they never know what creatures will use them as a gateway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:59 pm
A big one that I remember is from the first book (Storm Front) when Harry says this in regards to Toot-toot and Names: Quote: What was his name? Please, do you think wizards just give information like that away? You don't know what I went through to get it. Despite this, he mentions names of various other creatures like Kalshazzak and Chaunzaggoroth (Chauncy) from Fool Moon to name a couple. If he can mention Names like that, why not Toot's Name? mad I know there are some other things I noticed, but am too tired to remember right now...zzZzZZzz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:37 am
RD Jin A big one that I remember is from the first book (Storm Front) when Harry says this in regards to Toot-toot and Names: Quote: What was his name? Please, do you think wizards just give information like that away? You don't know what I went through to get it. Despite this, he mentions names of various other creatures like Kalshazzak and Chaunzaggoroth (Chauncy) from Fool Moon to name a couple. If he can mention Names like that, why not Toot's Name? mad I know there are some other things I noticed, but am too tired to remember right now...zzZzZZzz for the life of me, I can't remember what kind of relationship he has with Kalshazzak or Chaunzaggoroth... but I imagine he didn't want to share Toot's Name because he doesn't want to break the trust they share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:54 pm
KudoRan RD Jin A big one that I remember is from the first book (Storm Front) when Harry says this in regards to Toot-toot and Names: Quote: What was his name? Please, do you think wizards just give information like that away? You don't know what I went through to get it. Despite this, he mentions names of various other creatures like Kalshazzak and Chaunzaggoroth (Chauncy) from Fool Moon to name a couple. If he can mention Names like that, why not Toot's Name? mad I know there are some other things I noticed, but am too tired to remember right now...zzZzZZzz for the life of me, I can't remember what kind of relationship he has with Kalshazzak or Chaunzaggoroth... but I imagine he didn't want to share Toot's Name because he doesn't want to break the trust they share Well the two names I mentioned were of demons. The first one was the demon Victor Sells was controlling in Storm Front and the second one (Chauncy) was summoned by Harry for info regarding the case he was working on. I suppose you're right about Toot though. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:35 pm
RD Jin A big one that I remember is from the first book (Storm Front) when Harry says this in regards to Toot-toot and Names: Quote: What was his name? Please, do you think wizards just give information like that away? You don't know what I went through to get it. Despite this, he mentions names of various other creatures like Kalshazzak and Chaunzaggoroth (Chauncy) from Fool Moon to name a couple. If he can mention Names like that, why not Toot's Name? mad I know there are some other things I noticed, but am too tired to remember right now...zzZzZZzz He busted his butt for toot's name, the others not so much and he was trying to make a point. Oh and least I forget the main reason he never shared toot's name: Butcher himself doesn't know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:05 pm
Edwit I don't know, but I've seen tons of grammatical errors in the books. Missing quotations, and small stuff like that. Haha. It just makes the books have more personality to me. heart really? i never notice... ^^" well, it's a good thing English can be such a flexible language, even if you get it some of it wrong, as long it's understandable... =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:17 pm
English can still be read with minor mistakes for three reasons.
So damn many people don't know all of the sublties and rules of the langauge that they don't notice when there is a mistake.
Most novels (espeically the Dredesen files) are so good that the reader gets so into the novel that they don't tiny mistakes.
Most importantly though because people are lazy. Haven't you seen one of those bulletons/chain letters where the middle letters of words are all messed up but you can still read it because the first and last letters are the same? A lot of the time we don't read the word merely guess as to what it is based on the first letter or two.
As a whole, we're a lazy group NeverEden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:20 pm
Or I prefer from this perspective, that English is a "successful" language because anyone can just the learn the basic and can sound even the most eloquent of the eloquent even if they're not grammatically correct.
Actually, before Webster wrote the dictionary... there were not any right way to spell anything as long you got sound of the word right... like you could have spelled cup as cupp or cuppe... =P And it would still be right. =)
I guess the point is that... English isn't like Chinese, were even a single stroke here and there and you get a totally different language. People who speak Mandarin, a dialect of Chinese, wouldn't be able to understand people who speak Cantonese, another dialect of Chinese. Whereas in English, you could speak it Australia or England or Canada or India and ppl would still understand it, assuming if you're speaking basic words to its most common usage and not slangs or anything like that.
Well, it's alot better reading the book in English than in another language. Though not a romantic language, it's easy reading enough. =) Communication is, after all, the main purpose for language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
