Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pg. 438 - "on"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pg. 438 - "on"

    does anybody know why the word "on" is written twice on pg. 438? its at the point where Navy is climbing through the stairs in the ceiling and the words are going sideways toward the edge of the page and then swap to point towards the spine. MZD doesn't make typos, right? why would there be two 'on's? double ONtendre maybe? surely there is something deeper here.

  • #2
    Re: pg. 438 - "on"

    Originally posted by hugopunkhugo
    does anybody know why the word "on" is written twice on pg. 438?...MZD doesn't make typos, right?.
    Originally posted by MZD
    ...lodges on on a step...
    Do you consider Danielewski to be infallible?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: pg. 438 - "on"

      Originally posted by Ellimist
      Originally posted by MZD
      ...lodges on on a step...
      Do you consider Danielewski to be infallible?
      I'm wondering if that is actually a mistake. Read a certain way, that phrase could mean this: ...lodges on onto a step.

      A bit like saying latches on onto a steel pipe.

      I'm pretty sure it's grammatically wrong, but it could be just one of MZD's (or whoever the fictional author is) stylistic deviances.

      And also, Ellimist, MZD stated that there are no mistakes in the book. Now we can consider that as an attempt to cleverly disguise even unintentional typos as deliberate clues, but I choose to look at it the other way. I choose to believe that MZD most certainly did intend every single mistake/typo present in the book. I don't consider MZD to be infallible, but the way I see it, there is no reason why we should consider one typo (pisces) as deliberate and another (a missing period or one of the many mistakes Johnny's writing features) as a genuine error.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: pg. 438 - "on"

        Originally posted by sutrix
        I choose to believe that MZD most certainly did intend every single mistake/typo present in the book. I don't consider MZD to be infallible, but the way I see it, there is no reason why we should consider one typo (pisces) as deliberate and another (a missing period or one of the many mistakes Johnny's writing features) as a genuine error.
        What about the non-blue on page 708? Would that be considered something that has significance, according to your beliefs?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: pg. 438 - "on"

          Originally posted by Ellimist
          What about the non-blue on page 708? Would that be considered something that has significance, according to your beliefs?
          Yup. Don't ask me what that significance is, though. I don't know (not even a half baked theory). Yet.

          Why? Has the blue on p. 708 been confirmed as an official mistake, or something?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: pg. 438 - "on"

            Originally posted by sutrix
            Why? Has the blue on p. 708 been confirmed as an official mistake, or something?
            nah... wish I knew, though...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: pg. 438 - "on"

              [quote="sutrix"]
              Originally posted by Ellimist
              Why? Has the blue on p. 708 been confirmed as an official mistake, or something?
              Not sure if this counts as "confirmation," but it has apparently been "fixed" in softcover printings later than the 11th. (See anomaly no. 6).

              Comment


              • #8
                ,

                pg. 708 is just a Random (publishing), not THE on Ash Tree Lane.

                nevermind. i thought this could be in black to separate the Navidson from all other normal, random s, but that assertion is already made.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ,

                  I checked the thread out, MoleculaRR*. Thank you.


                  Originally posted by hugopunkhugo
                  pg. 708 is just a Random (publishing), not THE on Ash Tree Lane.

                  nevermind. i thought this could be in black to separate the Navidson from all other normal, random s, but that assertion is already made.
                  Well, but every other Random is in blue, isn't it?

                  _____________
                  *Thanks, f_s.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think he just broke the code: House

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ;

                      /\/\ how'd you do that?? /\/\

                      just some more bits, P. never uses the word ''. also, on my book (2nd edition paperback 3rd printing, blueprint and compass rose emblem cover) the word '' is printed in white twice on the back cover, once in Random and again in www.random.com. both of these appear in blue on the back of the title page.

                      i still want to know about those two 'on's on pg. 438.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What? Spell "House"?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Friday
                          House
                          Smartass.

                          edit: wtf?

                          my formatting went away. stupid boards.

                          Hou[i ][/i]se (without that one space) is how he did it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I know.

                            Somehow, hacking the color of words like "Minotaur" really isn't that fascinating.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I wanted to see how long this would go on before someone thought to quote me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X