That could be fixed with a simple line: if Crusoe finds a coat while on the ship and thinks “Good idea I’ll put that on in order to stuff my pocket”. But if that line was dropped somewhere…
Robinson Crusoe is also the infamous “single foot print” on the beach, but that was the error of the Illustrator, who showed the foot print in a 90 degree angle to the waves, implying a one-legged Person Walking Inland, making one print and vanishing.
Much later, a different Illustrator showed one print parallel to the wave line, implying that a normal Person had walked parallel to the shorte, but that the other prints had been washed away, which makes much more sense.
Ah yes. That reminds me of a couple of “Detective novels” written in English in order to aid English learners, published a few years back by ALDI. The first one had a writing Software (not MS Word but similar) suddenly vanishing all Composite verbs while typing (e.g. go away), where I said “No way a program that still has Trouble understanding real speech when spell/ grammar-checking can do that” - and at the end, it turns out some poor Greek grandmothers in a remote village have enough computer-savy to program that Virus (in order to ransom Money). No, I don’t really believe that.
The other novel had a master of disguise, who was so good an actor that he fooled the detective by pretending to be a Young woman the detective was getting interested in for several hours (on a Ferry) - and yet made the stupid mistake of using the American word of “fall” instead of the British “autumn” at one Point, with the detective noticting. Again, a master of disguise would be so deeply immersed in the role that I don’t buy stupid mistakes like that; and with the influence of US media on the Island, I don’t buy strict differences like that for identification between Brits and Yanks.
Began reading lately a recently-published historical novel, by an author hitherto unknown to me, about King Charles I of England’s French Queen Henrietta Maria. It began promisingly enough – the author’s writing style seemed quite workmanlike. A quarter of the way through, however, I was brought up short by a pretty dreadful howler. It’s summer 1625: the newlyweds-with-problems Charles and H.M., on a “progress” around their kingdom, stay for a while at “a palace called Blenheim in a village called Woodstock”.
The author is seemingly unaware that Blenheim Palace came to be, most of a century later – the initial inspiration for its building, being as a reward / tribute from a grateful nation, for the first Duke of Marlborough’s victorious generalship at the battle of Blenheim in 1704. Seeming indication of an alarmingly poor grasp of history on the part of someone supposedly writing a historical novel – for heaven’s sake, “Blenheim” is not at all an English-sounding name – not a potential “red flag” for author? This had me wondering what other historical nonsenses which I might not know about, could be in the novel.
At that point, I gave the author the benefit of the doubt – maybe, one isolated crass error? – and the book was quite readable. Total turn-off and book-abandonment happened not immensely later, though. Not because of factual errors; but thanks to pages on end of prurient, slaveringly-detailed recounting of physical relations between H.M. and her lover (an English minor aristocrat, not the stodgy and uptight Charles). While it’s realised that in the 17th century, sex did exist, and people were aware of it; for me anyway, such graphic and dwelt-on detail doesn’t belong in a historical novel. Book shut, for keeps; and I’d wish to get my money back (two pounds, at the charity shop).
(For anyone who might want to be sure to avoid this work: it is Cavalier Queen, by Fiona Mountain.)
“Whoever was advising Clancy about Russia and the Russian language was not very good at it. Having lived in Russia from 1992 to 2008, I cringe at some of the things he wrote, like Russians Russifying English names (which they never do) and drinking “paper-flavored vodka” (it’s flavored with red peppers, not paper).”
I can sympathize. We lived on Saipan for 6 years, and when I find references to Saipan on a book, it is often wrong. I don’t remember specifics, but I know of one book set in the late 20th century in which visitors to the island found children wearing grass skirts as part of their everyday attire. :smack: It seems that when people write about Saipan, they only got background info from people who visited and hated it, or just threw a dart at a map to choose a setting.
[QUOTE=CelticKnot]
drinking “paper-flavored vodka” (it’s flavored with red peppers, not paper)."
[/QUOTE]
That may be the editor or the printer. I recall reading about Russians putting pepper in vodka, allegedly thought by the drinkers to absorb poisons in cheap, perhaps illegal home made vodka.
I’ve been part of a social group that runs heavily towards Eastern European immigrants for about 10 years. I think this is nothing more than how he heard them pronounce the word “pepper.”
I think the book with the naked swimming man putting things in his pockets was Verne’s The Mysterious Island. I asked someone about it at the time, and was told that in those days, their standard of “naked” was not the same as ours: A person wearing only their undergarments would be considered naked. Though it’s still surprising that undergarments would include pockets.
Dan Brown’s Digital Fortress got a lot worse after this, but one early error that I just had to stop and laugh at was the Japanese businessman, hoping to profit off the chaos the antagonist is causing, thinking “the Shichigosan were smiling on him”.
Shichigosan means ‘seven-five-three’, it’s just the name of a ceremony done for kids when they’re those ages. It’s not a god or any sort of spiritual concept one would pray to. It’s like saying about a Jewish character, “he said a brief prayer to Bar Mitzvah”.
What Brown probably meant was Shichifukujin, which means The Seven Gods of Good Fortune. Since they’re close alphabetically, he probably looked it up in some cultural dictionary, but C&P’ed the wrong line.
With all the book’s other faults, this pretty much ended my interest in Dan Brown.
I don’t know whether Verne had a similar scene but Defoe’s supposed error is somewhat famous. His enemy and critic Charles Gildon made an issue of it shorty after the book was published.
Confusion is understandable because it is only several paragraphs later that the clothing situation is clarified.
Gildon claimed that the “breeches” line was added to a later edition to cover up the error, but in fact the breeches were mentioned in the first edition. I do not know if breeches of the time would have had pockets.
Dale Brown, author of Air Force technothrillers, usually involving a stealth bomber on a secret mission bombing the shit out of the property of another nation.
Wasn’t an error exactly, but years ago, I was reading some Kathy Reichs for a bit. They were okay, entertaining and a quick read until I came across a referenced to poached black bears. Apparently no one in this book could figure out why anyone would kill them. I should add, there is a mix of both US and Canadian police involved in the story.
I was pissed that the author expected the reader to believe that no one in the book had heard about poaching of bears for their gall bladders.
I think the Da Vinci Code tried my patience pretty early, but I had to finish it for my book group. What really sunk it beyond repair, for me, was the ludicrous attempt at representing British academics (however stereotypically villainous, à la Hollywood) with one of them talking about a “safety school” in the context of university admission. Any halfway competent editor would have told him such a term doesn’t exist over here.
PS: And what really took the biscuit, though it’s not a book error, was Dan Brown’s biographical note in the Da Vinci Code: that he’s taught creative writing.