Is it a mistake that Hollis refers to Alberto as Alejandro on page 202?

I'm not up to that yet, but the very first word of the first chapter is quoted speech, and yet there is no opening quotation mark (while there is a closing one). Was it dropped for typographical reasons, or is it a mistake? I am anal enough to be bothered by this kind of thing.

Englishtically speakink, proofreading died, and died hard, in the 80s. I see lotsa that shit in modern bookdom; I'd bet the rent that it's a mistake.

I NEVER saw punctation flaws in books when I was a kid. The books of the 30s through the 70s, the ones I grew up with, were *perfect* in that regard. Errors simply weren't permitted.

There's also a reference to the Sultan of Dubai. No such person. It was a bit jarring, considering how well everything else is done (the scene at the W on Union Square? Perfectly accurate in its description of the physical layout of the space.)

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
I'm not up to that yet, but the very first word of the first chapter is quoted speech, and yet there is no opening quotation mark (while there is a closing one). Was it dropped for typographical reasons, or is it a mistake? I am anal enough to be bothered by this kind of thing.

I would guess that it is intentional. At least in the UK trade paperback edition. To make room for large fat R the sentence starts with.

I'm guessing that too, Hasa, but it seems kind of lazy. I've seen articles that started with the same sort of large drop cap (or initial) as part of quoted text, but I've never noticed the quotation mark being dropped entirely. I've seen examples of the quotation mark being made the initial, and other examples where the quotation mark was worked in as a character of the same font and size outside the left margin, and other such tricks, if memory serves. Losing the opening quotation mark just doesn't seem right to me.

At least they seem to repeat it in chapter 34. (Found that flicking through the book at random.)

I've seen that quotes thing more than once so far, but as far as I can tell, this is one character referring to another by the wrong name. The name of a third character which the first doesn't even know. (Unless of course I've jumped the gun and need only read on...)

On page 172,

quote:

Inchmale, she guessed was sitting up in business class, headed for New York, reading the Economist, a magazine he read...

Properly, its The Economist. Its one of the few publications where 'The' is a proper part of the title.

On page 193,

quote:

"What do you know about steganography?"

"I don't even know how to pronounce it."

Well, didn't Bigend just pronounce 'steganography in the previous sentence? It makes little sense for Hollis to use the present tense.

Not necessarily. I've listened to people pronounce words several times over before I could get the pronounciation correct. And I still hear people say Apple Ay shia instead of Apple at cha.

quote:

I would guess that it is intentional. At least in the UK trade paperback edition. To make room for large fat R the sentence starts with.

I could swear I've seen this in other books.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasa:

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
... the very first word of the first chapter is quoted speech, and yet there is no opening quotation mark (while there is a closing one).

I would guess that it is intentional.

Yes. It is on purpose. A style thing, with the whole different font theme and all.

quote:

Originally posted by Black Jacque:
On page 193,

quote:

"What do you know about steganography?"

"I don't even know how to pronounce it."

Well, didn't Bigend just pronounce 'steganography in the previous sentence? It makes little sense for Hollis to use the present tense.

It's a common verbal joke I've heard from people confronted with a new, difficult word.

Bigend might well have said it with some thick Belgian accent that added further irony to her joke?

I doubt Bigend can do a heavy Belgian accent, even if he wanted to.

The typical joke,in my experience, is "I do not even know how to write it", which fits better with the spoken word. However I have met the pronounce it gambit, mostly from non-natives that even after hearing it are unable to repeat it correctly.

"Steganography" is one I actually have to think through a couple of times before I can get my tongue around it. It's like it has an extra, unexpected syllable.

Steganography comes up from time to time round the office. I work with people who can neither spell it nor pronounce it, even after talking about it for several years.

Say 'stegasaurus-y' and, I suppose, you've got it. But maybe it's got some stupid accent I'm unaware of? Like ste-GAN-o-gra-phy?

I say it "stega-NAH-graphy" (I can't decide if I'm saying an "a" or an "o" on the accented syllable there; it's kind of an in-between thing).