From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy@siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (whorl) Re: Editors
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:19:27 

To my: 
> > ... spectrum of possibility, ranging from their having
> > made the whole thing up out of their heads to the possibility that
> > their statement of editorial principles is strictly accurate.
> > Neither of these extreme cases is either interesting or likely,

Adam S. asked,
> When you say that it is unlikely that their statement of 
> editorial principles is strictly accurate, are you referring 
> to the probability that they introduced inadvertent errors 
> while copying the text?  Or are you saying that it is almost 
> certain they deliberately made more substantial changes than 
> they admit?  If the latter, I don't see the grounds for it.

Neither; I refer to (1) the fact that they simply do not correct
some errors that they themselves seem to think are obvious, 
instead marking them with "sic" and so on; and (2) their having
missed or ignored some errors which seem obvious to us reading
the text "later." 


*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request@lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth@lists.best.com