RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
Richard Simpkin asked over on the Universes blog if it would be possible to fix the various typos, etc. in the first-original mass market paperbacks of the Deed. He could think of one off the top of his head. So could I (but I don’t know yet if we had the same one in mind.) So I’m opening up a topic where you can post the ones you’ve noticed, and meanwhile I’ll ask Baen Books if they’re prepared to fix a few things that slid through. Please reference the mistakes to the title (since the anniversary edition will be in three separate ones) and if possible the page 3 of the original paperback. At this point I don’t know how many, if any, of the errors they’re going to have time to fix. My guess is that they’ll be willing to fix typos & misspellings, but not change the places where it was my research or analysis that went wrong, because that would falsify the “new edition” thing. Or maybe not. We’ll see.
Comment by Grahame Grieve — April 25, 2017 @ 4:38 pm
Not deeds, but in one of the later books, around where Arianya is sick, she is wrongly referred to as Arian not Arianya
Comment by Genko — April 25, 2017 @ 5:31 pm
Oh, yeah. Both of these are in the first book, off the top of my head.
One that always bugs me is when Paks is first getting oriented to the barracks. She is told where to put her nightshirt, and a few minutes later, someone tells her to put it somewhere else. Can’t remember exactly – one is on a shelf, and the other is tucked under the mattress? Something like that. A minor thing, but it always catches me. I don’t have the book nearby, and it’s not showing up in the cloud, so sorry.
I’m pretty sure there are a couple of others like that. One I always find confusing is when she’s driving the wagon after it’s attacked. There’s a crash, and it seems the wagon is stopped, but then she’s asked to “smooth out the ride a little.” Your writing is usually so clear that I figured something happened there that got out of sequence. I’ve read it multiple times trying to figure out what’s going on there.
Comment by Genko — April 25, 2017 @ 5:32 pm
Sheepfarmers Daughter, of course. Pretty early in the book.
Comment by Butterwaffle — April 25, 2017 @ 6:06 pm
Ah, I’ve found the nightshift reference in The Sheepfarmer’s Daughter, chapter 2. The first mention is
“She didn’t know what to do with the nightshift. Bosk came to the door; Paks caught his eye and he came forward.
‘What do we do with these?’
‘See that ledge? Fold it neatly and put it there.’
…”
and then 2 paragraphs later
“He found something wrong with each person: … nightshift under the bed weren’t you listening, …”
Of course there could have been a ledge under the bed.
Comment by Richard Simpkin — April 26, 2017 @ 12:11 am
Mine is Oath of Gold chapter 9 (p914 in UK omnibus) when the woman transforms into the giant spider: “a great belly swelling below, bursting out of the blue gown Suliya had worn”. Her name is Arvys (Lady Arvys Terrostin, first named nine pages before). There is nobody called Suliya, Suli or Suriya anywhere near that part of the book.
Comment by elizabeth — April 26, 2017 @ 12:34 am
Thanks, everyone. Good catches, all those.
Comment by Daniel Glover — April 26, 2017 @ 10:52 am
@Butterwaffle:
That’s what was wrong with THAT recruit. They put it under the bed, not on the ledge. The address wasn’t to Paks, it was Paks observing the inspection.
Comment by Kathy_S — April 26, 2017 @ 1:06 pm
I agree with Daniel- I thought the recruit who wasn’t listening put the nightshirt under the bed instead of on the ledge.
Comment by Butterwaffle — April 27, 2017 @ 5:47 pm
@Daniel @Kathy_S I see your point and don’t know why that didn’t occur to me.
I have found another source of confusion, although maybe it’s my inability to parse English. In chapter 22 of The Sheepfarmer’s Daughter, there is this sentence:
“Stammel moved on, and Paks surprised an expression on the recruits’ faces that made her uncomfortable.”
Does that mean Paks surprised the recruits and surprising them made her uncomfortable?
This bug hunt has been a good excuse to re-read the Paks series.
Comment by elizabeth — April 27, 2017 @ 6:22 pm
Butterwaffle: It’s an oldish expression–don’t hear/see it much now. It means she saw an expression on someone’s face that they would likely have concealed if they’d known she was going to look at them. Sometimes it’s a fleeting expression, and usually it’s something unpleasant/troubling. However, in some situations it’s open admiration seen by someone who’s embarrassed by it.
For example: someone may “make a face” or stick out their tongue or make a rude gesture at someone whose back is turned–a communication to others who see it–and quickly shift expression when the person starts to turn around. We are losing (if we haven’t lost) most of the conventions about controlling facial expression in this country that were in force when I was a child.
Comment by Richard Simpkin — April 28, 2017 @ 6:50 am
I’ve just opened at random and found, I ch23 (p280 in UK omnibus, as all page numbers I quote will be): “Cracolyna’s cohort sent a flight of fire arrows; almost flickered out.” Almost al?
Questionable names (you may remember I made myself a complete list):
– I ch19 p224 song called “At hi Tammarion“: we can allow the harper licence, but everywhere else the name is spelt with double r, Tammarrion.
– I c30 p343 “Paks gave a last look to Bossik, below with reserves” – typo for Vossik (compare two paras on, top of next page)
– II c11 p515 “‘Our loyalty is to the crown of Tsaia – or, more accurately, to the heir of the house of Mahierian‘” (extra i).
– II c14 p565 “‘and Master Travannen is wounded'” when c9 p493 he was Gar Travennin.
– II ch18 p619 “‘You didn’t tell this to Marshal Berran or Fenith'” when (I c25 p302) it was (High) Marshal Kereth.
The Duke holds a conference III ch10 bottom of p922: “the captains were all there but Cracolyna, who had the watch”. Arcolin, Dorrin and Pont all speak, then three pages on “Cracolyna shifted in his seat”. He has some more lines later too. The one not there that time is Valichi.
One more thing puzzled me around there – this is a different level of problem. III ch9 p912, Kieri to Arvys. “‘Your Lady? And who is that? [turns out to be Achyra] Is the Queen that angry with me?” Problem is Kieri knows no queen. Rather, Elizabeth, whatever you know about Mikeli’s mother you kept to yourself, and when we do meet Mikeli the following winter he has no mother. The Regency Council is all men.
Comment by Richard Simpkin — April 28, 2017 @ 6:58 am
Oops, typo myself there: almost all?
Comment by Butterwaffle — May 1, 2017 @ 6:29 pm
In The Deed Of Paksenarrion,book II: Divided Allegiance, chapter 22, I came across this where the Marshal General Arianya is discussing paladin candidates:
“Which leave us with the new list—what have we got?”
which should probably be “leaves” not “leave.” Sorry for no page numbers but it’s the Baen e-book.
Also, thanks for explaining the meaning of “to surprise a face.”
Comment by Butterwaffle — May 1, 2017 @ 7:08 pm
Also, in the same chapter (Divided Allegiance 22), there are 2 mentions of a place named “achael”:
Paks was startled to see the Training Master grab Cami by both shoulders and hug her. “Gird’s right arm, I thought you were still in achael!”
“Through Midwinter Feast? Master Chanis, even the High Lord wouldn’t keep me in achael through the best day in the year!”
I am guessing that most probably the e-book version was created by some program that didn’t understand some glyphs in the original encoding and the place is actually Šachael or Ñachael or some such?
Comment by elizabeth — May 1, 2017 @ 9:07 pm
Butterwaffle: “achael” A ritual isolation following a perceived crisis in a paladin’s life, involving silence and meditation . I remember that I had more about it in the notes that have since disappeared, but it didn’t need an upper-case A. Also on the error you found–thanks for giving me enough info that I can find that in the original.
Everyone: I’ve now received the Editor’s Letter and will be diving into its 19 single spaced pages until I’m finished. Thanks for all your suggestions and help; I’ll see you when INTO THE FIRE is sent back to Editor. I may be able to squeeze out some time to post on the Universes blog.
Comment by Jonathan Schor — May 10, 2017 @ 12:30 pm
HI – Please don’t remove the bloopers unless they really really effect the story. Some of the fun is to bring them up in conversations to show that you really know the books.
Looking for errors can be a lot of fun.
Comment by Kyta — May 16, 2017 @ 2:28 pm
There was one… maybe towards the beginning of Divided Allegiance?… where there was an exclamation point instead of a lower-case “i: or “l..” will see if I can find it at home!
Also– does anyone else’s omnibus edition split around page 1009 and a chunk of pages come out? I am on my 3rd copy of the omnibus for this reason! 🙂
Comment by Daniel Glover — July 23, 2017 @ 12:54 pm
Not exactly a blooper, but there was the conversation about the Duke’s company using long bows or crossbows. Several of us were under the impression it was long bows rather than crossbows. Among a clear example of why is near the end of chapter 18 in Divided Alliance where Paks is describing her training as she’s being admitted to knight training in Fin Panir.
“Do you use them all?”
“No, my lady. Just sword and dagger, and I can use a long-bow though not well.”
Page 305 in the third printing.
Comment by Daniel Glover — July 25, 2017 @ 8:30 pm
This definite blooper. Chapter 19 in Oath of Gold, page 278 in the third printing, about six pages from the start of the chapter. Talking about the tent as the party left Chaya after the king died.
“They had a small one, it would sleep all six of them if they crowded in.”
I only counted four squire names during introductions to Paks. Then on page 281 when the snowstorm hits,
“But with four others, and two pack animals–”
Pretty sure the first reference should say “five”.
Comment by Jaimison Karp — April 17, 2018 @ 12:37 pm
Sorry this is late. I am listening to the audible Deed books and I am in Oath of Gold. When the knights are to have their trials at the feast of luap “the marshal general” is used one time in place of “the high marshal”. this would be chapter 26 of oath of gold.
I caught this while listening during my drive home yesterday. 🙂
Comment by Brian C Altmiller — May 8, 2019 @ 6:03 am
I was troubled by the end of chapter twenty-four in Oath of Gold after Paks reveals to Duke Phelan that he’s really the king and they’re trying to keep things under wraps for a while. Paks, Phelan, and the king’s squires need to figure out some reason why the squires might be staying with Phelan, so they come up with the (false) story that Paks has asked Phelan to look some things up in the company records and the squires are assisting with that. In fact, at the end of chapter twenty-four, Paks tells one of the palace servants/functionaries, “Sir, I have asked him to look up something from his records; the squires go with him to take notes.”
Isn’t that a lie? And I thought paladins didn’t lie. I suppose Paks could have just managed to make it true by asking Phelan to look up some irrelevant detail in the records. But isn’t that skating awfully close to a falsehood?
Comment by elizabeth — May 8, 2019 @ 9:13 am
Paladins in the Paksworld books are not D&D paladins: they don’t have to be stupid-good and follow rules beyond all sense. Paks’s mission–from the gods, as she believes–was to find the true king and get him to Lyonya, which means it includes confusing his enemies as necessary to keep them from killing him. Mileage varies here from culture to culture and person to person: what is considered an acceptable reason to conceal a truth or tell an untruth? In ours, in my lifetime, lying about medical prognoses went from common and acceptable when a patient had a fatal condition (the patient wasn’t told but a person in authority in the family was) to unacceptable (patient has a right to know the facts of their case.) Some people think social lies (“I’m sorry but I can’t come; I have another engagement/appointment” when you just don’t want to go to X’s party) are acceptable; some don’t. And within the group who think social lies are acceptable, which *kind* of social lie often matters. Lies generally considered unacceptable are those that harm someone else (“I saw Janice dealing drugs from her car and I thought you should know…”), those that promote the speaker’s interests (claiming credit for things you didn’t do, turning in a report as if you had researched and written it), those that refuse responsibility for what you actually did (“No, I didn’t steal that file!”), and related types of dishonesty. A paladin in Pak’s world is expected to have good judgment and self-awareness about a particular situation (self-awareness not to say something where the underlying motivation is selfish…jealousy, greed, vindictiveness, etc. Judgment to know whether telling the absolute truth will cause more harm than an untruth.
In the case you bring up, there is no way to conceal that King’s Squires from Lyonya are walking around the halls of the palace in Tsaia accompanying a duke of Tsaia under suspicion of some misdoing. What business is that of Lyonya? Everyone who sees them will want an explanation. Many at court will know that the succession in Lyonya is not settled (or Lyonyan King’s Squires would be there, not here.) The Tsaian court has seen its share of assassinations and attempts at assassination, so just saying “Duke Phelan is actually the heir to the throne of Lyonya” is highly dangerous to him. Trying to dress Lyonyan King’s Squires as something else (Tsaian court officials?) won’t work because too many people know the court officials and these people aren’t the same faces. So the subterfuge. And paladins do lie, when appropriate, in this story universe.