Mistakes in books. Have you ever found one?

[Guest Sedgewick]

If you want to find mistakes in books then all you need to do is get the da Vinci code because that was full of them. Professors could devote their lives to that books errors.

[wiccibat]

I found one that bugs me daily as it's on the front cover of 'Gardening & planting by the Moon 2008'

It's by Nick Kollerstrom, described on the cover as BBC's Lunar Gardening Corespondant.

Has he been a naughty boy then?

[Guest]

If you want to find mistakes in books then all you need to do is get the da Vinci code because that was full of them. Professors could devote their lives to that books errors.

 

Oh great. You've really pushed my button with that one. DVC and My Sister's Keeper could keep me ranting for hours.

 

But I'll be good...

[Icecream]

I am sure we could all rant about the Da Vinci Code, but itsn't a lot of it a matter of opinion?

[Guest Sedgewick]

I am sure we could all rant about the Da Vinci Code, but itsn't a lot of it a matter of opinion?

It's not really a matter of opinion when we're referring to explicit mistakes in books.

[carm]

I've seen mistakes in book along the lines of missing words and grammatical errors as well

[Guest]

I am sure we could all rant about the Da Vinci Code, but itsn't a lot of it a matter of opinion?

 

Not when it comes to historical and geographical errors that the author states are facts. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about art, history, science, geography or religion would know that's not true.

 

I can't remember who said "There's no point in arguing about matters of taste," and reluctantly I would have to agree with that. I can't believe Dan Brown is an English teacher (or is it Eng.Lit.? I'm not sure) given all the grammatical errors and broken 'rules' in his novels (telling not showing, info dumps, dialogue attribution and the like).

 

However, when it comes to him saying "This person was born in whatever-year-A.D. and they did this, then they did that, and went to such-and-such a place," - if he's wrong, he's wrong.

[Icecream]

Well OK, if you say so. It is a long tme since i read the book.

[Nox]

Not when it comes to historical and geographical errors that the author states are facts. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about art, history, science, geography or religion would know that's not true.

 

I can't remember who said "There's no point in arguing about matters of taste," and reluctantly I would have to agree with that. I can't believe Dan Brown is an English teacher (or is it Eng.Lit.? I'm not sure) given all the grammatical errors and broken 'rules' in his novels (telling not showing, info dumps, dialogue attribution and the like).

 

However, when it comes to him saying "This person was born in whatever-year-A.D. and they did this, then they did that, and went to such-and-such a place," - if he's wrong, he's wrong.

 

Wouldn't Kaufman be to blame when it comes to grammatical errors?

 

And the other part, have you actually been there when that person was born?Have you been there when the person did this and that and went to such-and-such a place?

 

My point is his books are based on speculations, which would include when someone was born or died, at list from his perspective. If you ware to say Rasputin died on that-and-that day you're bound to find someone who will disagree with you.

Why couldn't it be the same with people who died as "facts"?

[Guest]

Uh...you do realise I was using "This person was born here on that date blah blah," as an example? If a fact is indisputable and someone publishes a book which contradicts that but claims his version (contrary to millenia of history) is the correct version, you have to wonder about the integrity of the rest of his writings.

 

Might I recommend this book which explains it better than I could?

 

Of course, there's also the other problem of asserting something as fact with no proof to back it up. It all makes for valid entertainment but let's not give it any more credence than mere speculation deserves.

[Nox]

Yes...and I was using the "Ware you there when the person was born blah blah" as an example as well.

I did mention it's all speculation, did I not?

Well when you put it like that his history might be more accurate, as it wasn't dragged about for a millennia, after that much time some things are bound to change.

And it is his belief that his version are facts, just as is your belief the "millennia of history" are all facts.

 

But I do agree on the whole he has no proof, as I did say it's speculation, but so are many things that a lot of people believe, I would hate to resort to the whole "The world is flat" fact that was oh so popular.And proof is often dependant upon the Eye of the Beholder.

[Icecream]

I think Nox has a point. He has managed to put some of what I was thinking into words. I suppose it depends exactly what facts you are talking about, and I dont want to get into a discussion about the book here. However, you can't always know that a fact is fact just because it is recorded somewhere (depending maybe on where it is recorded). Also, part of the whole point of books is to make stories, which often twist facts to suit the flow, especially with facts concerning events that occured centuries ago. I am not sure that you can say these books have errors, unless they are undisputable.

 

I'm quite tired, so if I'm not explaining myself well, I apologise.

[Guest]

...I dont want to get into a discussion about the book here...

 

Then why are you posting in this thread? It's about mistakes in books after all.

 

...you can't always know that a fact is fact just because it is recorded somewhere...

 

Huh? On that basis you couldn't be sure that the world is an oblate spheroid just because scientists say so. You couldn't be sure Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister just because you see it on the news. You couldn't be sure dogs bark just because you hear them do it.

 

While I'm recommending we don't take something as fact just because Dan Brown says it is, neither would I recommend such stringent credulity. That's just foolish, to doubt something 'just because'.

 

Take this as an example. If I said "My dad is married to Anne Boleyn; that's a fact," you'd be able to refute it. How? By reminding me my dad was born in 1955 and Anne Boleyn died in 1536.

 

But of course, we can't believe 'facts' just because they're recorded in history books, can we? That there's just foolish talk...

[Icecream]

I said facts from centuries ago, not from what I have seen on the news that has happened today.

 

And I said I didn't want to get into a discussion solely about one book (i.e go off topic), not about errors in books.

 

Will you please read what I say? If anyone is a fool, you are. People dispute historical fact all the time.

[Guest]

...Will you please read what I say? If anyone is a fool, you are. People dispute historical fact all the time.

 

Only if you promise to mind your manners in future. Goodness knows where the "If anyone is a fool, you are," came from but I'd prefer to discuss books with someone who doesn't need to resort to editing their posts to add insults to make their point.

[Nox]

Huh? On that basis you couldn't be sure that the world is an oblate spheroid just because scientists say so.

 

I still say the world is flat, otherwise how come we never fell off it?

 

You couldn't be sure Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister just because you see it on the news.

 

Video editing plus government conspiracy.

 

You couldn't be sure dogs bark just because you hear them do it.

 

Mind fabricates fiction.We could all be suffering from mass hysteria that makes us think dogs bark when in fact they make a sound very much alike a small orangutan in mating season.

 

My point is, that each fact is not in fact a fact(that was fun to say), everything and I mean EVERYTHING has a doubt, no matter how small and tiny, it's always there.

[Icecream]

Only if you promise to mind your manners in future. Goodness knows where the "If anyone is a fool, you are," came from but I'd prefer to discuss books with someone who doesn't need to resort to editing their posts to add insults to make their point.

 

My manners?! I am not insulting you. I have no intention of insulting anybody, so calm down, but you did call me foolish, so you are going against your own principle there.

[Guest]

I still say the world is flat, otherwise how come we never fell off it?

 

Dammit, you've got me there.

 

Video editing plus government conspiracy.

 

Now that's a more attractive idea than the thought of Brown being P.M.

 

Mind fabricates fiction.We could all be suffering from mass hysteria that makes us think dogs bark when in fact they make a sound very much alike a small orangutan in mating season.

 

But that begs the question how do we know an orang-utan sounds like an orang-utan?

 

My point is, that each fact is not in fact a fact(that was fun to say), everything and I mean EVERYTHING has a doubt, no matter how small and tiny, it's always there.

 

I think reasonable doubt is called for here. If doubt was limitless, we wouldn't believe in anything and that could lead to despair...or else large pink elephants doing the lambada in the city centre.

[Guest]

My manners?! I am not insulting you. I have no intention of insulting anybody, so calm down, but you did call me foolish, so you are going against your own principle there.

 

Might I suggest you go back and read my posts again? NOWHERE did I say you were a fool. I said such stringent credulity was foolish, and mentioned 'foolish talk'.

 

If I want to insult someone, I do so directly, and believe you me, the above words were not directed at you. I was talking about the nature of belief and how we know what we know - NOT whether or not you are a fool.

 

And thanks, but I'm perfectly calm already.

[Nox]

I think reasonable doubt is called for here. If doubt was limitless, we wouldn't believe in anything and that could lead to despair...or else large pink elephants doing the lambada in the city centre.

 

But what is resonable to you may not be resonable to others, for example, I bealive in God, yet I have no proof, so your theory on limitless doubt is false.I bealive in spite of the limitless doubt.

And I do apologise for bringing in religion but it was the first thing that poped into my head.

 

And are you saying those waren't large pink elephants doing the lambada in the city centre the other day?

[Guest]

But what is resonable to you may not be resonable to others...

 

There's a standard in British courts of reasonable doubt though. Say you saw someone pick up a knife, stick it in someone and kill them. You could give evidence in court. Could the defence then claim aliens landed a spaceship and caused you to hallucinate and someone else was the murderer? Sure, but that wouldn't be reasonable, legal doubt. That'd be contempt of court probably!

 

It's a fascinating discussion and, given that it all stemmed from DVC, I don't think God/religion is entirely irrelevant here but it is pretty near off topic. I'm not saying that to avoid talking about it; there's always PMs and emails (or starting another thread).

 

Suffice it to say I am certain of three things:

 

1) Dan Brown is not my favourite writer.

2) Chocolate is good and

3) The Prime Minister is a pink elephant.

 

[Nox]

There's a standard in British courts of reasonable doubt though. Say you saw someone pick up a knife, stick it in someone and kill them. You could give evidence in court. Could the defense then claim aliens landed a spaceship and caused you to hallucinate and someone else was the murderer? Sure, but that wouldn't be reasonable, legal doubt. That'd be contempt of court probably!

 

They could say he was suffering from temporary rage and such, which is quite hard to prove, and trust me every shrink can be played.I'm not saying every doubt can be put to place, but there's always one, and sometimes that's all you need.

 

It's a fascinating discussion and, given that it all stemmed from DVC, I don't think God/religion is entirely irrelevant here but it is pretty near off topic. I'm not saying that to avoid talking about it; there's always PMs and emails (or starting another thread).

 

Agreed.

 

Suffice it to say I am certain of three things:

 

1) Dan Brown is not my favorite writer.

2) Chocolate is good and

3) The Prime Minister is a pink elephant.

 

 

1. Agreed.

2. Solid orgasm.

3. Would be an improvement.

[Guest Sedgewick]

Christ! One mention of Dan Brown and the place becomes a creche. I suppose England being the only country in Europe where they drive on the left is okay because Dan Brown said so? Newsflash: there's more than England. Apart from the UK there's Ireland and a couple of Med countries.

[Nox]

Christ! One mention of Dan Brown and the place becomes a creche. I suppose England being the only country in Europe where they drive on the left is okay because Dan Brown said so? Newsflash: there's more than England. Apart from the UK there's Ireland and a couple of Med countries.

 

Perhaps he was a pedestrian in the said countries and only drove in England, which would ring true that the cars did not in fact drive on the left but if he was walking on the left side all of the tracks would be on the right side for him.

[Guest]

And of course, there's a whole other discussion of the UK not being simply England, but also SCOTLAND, WALES and N.IRELAND. We don't know what side of the road Dan Brown drives on in those separate countries, or perhaps he has a chauffeur? Maybe he uses a unicycle? Perhaps he has mastered the art of teleportation making the question of 'sides' irrelevant. Every time you hear a whoosh in the ether above you, behind you or all around you, it could be Dan Brown teleporting, or maybe even the sound of his career whizzing by - we can only hope.