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, but I am pretending that that isn't happening until it's the right time to give up) that I'm writing about Arry's family after the end of the book, when I hit a remark in a later chapter. Arry, Con, and Beldi are figuring out what kind of coming-of-age present to give to a friend, and they decide to pass on some old paintbrushes of their mother's, because "None of the three of them painted." Ooops.

I see three choices.

1. Leave it alone. The book has been out for literally decades. People are used to it. This kind of error is perhaps like the one in Dorothy L. Sayers's Strong Poison, in which a note from Harriet Vane to Philip Boyes is introduced into evidence, and the judge remarks, "It is signed simply, M." This used to drive me wild. Of course, on the first reading of a mystery novel anything might be important, but since the judge ought to have remarked on it, it was probably just a typo. It's in the facsimile hardcover we have and in all paperback editions I've seen. Eventually, I had to just get over it. But I must admit that it still makes me twitch when I get to that part of the book.

2. Change the earlier reference so that Arry is reminded of someone else's paintings; there are at least three possibilities that I can think of offhand that aren't inconsistent with other assertions in the book.

3. Leave in the reference to Beldi's paintings and add a line or so to the scene where they choose to give away the brushes, about how he doesn't paint any more. This is, honestly, probably what I had in mind and lost track of in the lengthy process of writing and rewriting the book. But a larger change isn't necessarily the right thing at this juncture.

I think any of these choices is valid; it depends on the author and the book. But I'd be very much interested in any opinions or similar experiences anyone has or has had.

Pamela

Comments

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

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.livejournal.com]

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.livejournal.com]

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.livejournal.com]

#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.livejournal.com]

That was my immediate thought.

[pameladean]

Now I wonder why it wasn't mine!

P.

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Because writers are people who will never use one word when thirty will do. :)

[alecaustin.livejournal.com]

This seems like the most elegant fix that actually addresses things.

[pameladean]

Yes, it does; I will probably adopt it unless I am smitten with inspiration in the middle of the night.

P.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

No, wait, I actually like this suggestion better than mine.

[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.livejournal.com]

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 Night, for example.

P.

[kate_nepveu]

It's still in the most recent ebook edition.

(My health insurance card actually has my middle initial as M instead of H, because someone misread someone's handwriting, and I was told it would be too difficult to change.)

[timprov.livejournal.com]

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.

[redmorlock.livejournal.com]

I remember reading Poul Anderson's introduction to the new release of his first novel. He said he had revised it as though he were helping a new writer whose work should be treated with respect. My summation probably doesn't use any of his words and may entirely miss what he actually wrote since I read it decades ago, but that has always seemed wise to me. How it applies here, I haven't a clue, but you might.

[pameladean]

That is so very Poul Anderson, isn't it?

I will bear it in mind. Thank you.

P.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I think this is it:

"I am not being affected in referring to the author as someone else. He was. A generation lies between us. ... This young, in many ways naive lad who bore my name could, all unwittingly, give readers a wrong impression of my work and me. At the same time, I don't feel free to tamper with what he has done. If nothing else, that would be unfair to those who have heard of his book and think they are buying it. ... I did allow myself a number of textual emendations. I like to think that the author would have been glad to take the advice of a man more experienced ... I did not rewrite end to end: as said, that appeared unethical. Hence the style is not mine."
- Poul Anderson, foreword to The Broken Sword (Ballantine, 1971)

[redmorlock.livejournal.com]

That's lovely. Thank you.

[cija.livejournal.com]

I am a person who has read The Dubious Hills a very large number of times and I took the "none of them painted" reference to be a powerfully subtle indication of something being slightly wrong with Beldi after their parents left, that Arry noticed enough to articulate but without being able to thoroughly think through what it might mean. Like that whether or not he had lost the impulse to paint, he wouldn't use their mother's paintbrushes, which presumably were the only ones they had, and he wouldn't say anything about it either. Maybe I am just making that up now but I am pretty sure it's what I thought upon first reading. & it is the more powerful for the "anymore" being only implied.

[pameladean]

I don't think you're making it up; I do think that was what I intended to do and you picked up on a bunch of very slight stuff; but now it seems to me just not quite done. On the other hand, I'm not reading this as a reader, as it were, just as a technician, as it were, to make sure things aren't messed up. Your point about Arry goes to viewpoint, so I might just add "now" rather than "any more"; or I might leave it.

P.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I think I just assumed that Beldi had made some paintings as a child but didn't think of himself as a painter. One of my children, for instance, almost never used to draw as a child (still doesn't), but once when he had to make a drawing of an instrument for a school assignment, he sat down and drew a very elaborate and almost entirely correct representation of his sister's trumpet. Either don't do it at all, or overdo it -- yup, that's my kid.

Re Harriet Vane: I think my headcanon for the "M" was that Boyes had a pet name for her beginning with that letter, which had become automatic after long use. Not that that really works, given that it still ought to look funny to other people.

[pameladean]

You make me wonder if Sayers intended that and didn't follow through or left it unintentionally. I am reminded of Harriet's saying in Gaudy Night that she's never produced a book without six major howlers. Not that this is a major howler, but things do slip past.

P.

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

Add a preface, noting that you have made a few very minor changes in the realm of copy editing.

If you want to be academically rigorous, or rigorously academic, add an appendix with the details.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

If it was me, I'd go with # 2. It fixes the inconsistency and it's literally one word changed. I tend toward not messing with already-published work unless there's an actual error.

[belegwen.livejournal.com]

I don't think I could do option one. Knowing it was there would slowly drive me batty.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

I can't WAIT for more stories about these guys after the end of the book.

[pameladean]

Going North, which I hope will be released by Blaisdell Press later this year, is about Arry. I had originally put everyone except Bec into that book, but took them out again when the publisher objected to the length of the original manuscript. And really, they didn't belong in that book. They need their own book. I really miss Con in the revised Going North, but even Con is not capable of bilocation.

P.