[sic] (sic) [sic]

[farsidedude]

OK! I need help. I've used the search function for hours and I'm just too damn lazy to look anymore through the book itself.

Anyway, my question is can anyone tell me all the pages that [sic] appears on? My searching had found [sic] on page 248 after "Navilson," page 379 after "...parent)he)see)s), and the ever so famous page 643 after "Ms. Livre." I know there are more out there. Please help!

[John B.]

I don't know of others off the top of my head, but . . . you're going to a lot of trouble for some reason. What are you working on?

[farsidedude]

quote

What are you working on?

I'm trying to find the importance behind the mistakes that were put in on purpose, and in order to do that I have to find all of them.

Another mistake I found that had no [sic] following it was "he had a spent a lifetime" on page 91 toward the bottom of the page.

Does anybody know what the [sic] actually means and why it only follows some of the mistakes in the book?

[Ra-ra]

Sic is latin for 'so' or 'thus' and is used in brackets to indicate that an odd or questionable reading is what was actually written or printed.

Hope that helps.

[Ra-ra]

Although I'm actually still confused myself as to it's exact usage.

[The Disgruntled Frenchman]

Though basically what ra said, people use (sic) when they intentionally mispell(sic) a word. Or in the sense that something that seems obviously erroneous was done so intentionally. Sorry to reiterate ra, but I thought this might sound a little clearer.

[Ra-ra]

No problem

Just don't do it again... [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

No seriously, don't blame me- blame my dictionary.

[farsidedude]

I though it was something along those lines. Thank you!

[verismo]

It's also used when quoting someone else's mistake...right? To show "I didn't spell this wrong, I am just quoting them".

[John B.]

You might also find this thread useful, in case you haven't run across it yet.

[farsidedude]

Yes, I came across that thread, and man was it long. Thanks for digging it out because it is a good thread. I don't know why I forgot what [sic] means. anyway, it didn't mention any of the other [sic] words, so I ask my main question again. Does anybody know where any more grammatical errors are in the book and also more errors with [sic] following them?

[Nash]

Does anybody know where any more grammatical errors are in the book and also more errors with [sic] following them?

We've done the compilation of the [sic] but on the French book here, so the text is in French and the pages don't match precisely.

You have to search the "sic" some pages before our pages.

For instance,
"Navilson" p 248 for you, p 254 for us.
"parent)he)see)s)" p 379 and p 390 on our version
"Ms Livre" p 643 and p 659

Maybe pwhite who has the french and the english book can help you.

[verismo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by farsidedude:
Yes, I came across that thread, and man was it long. Thanks for digging it out because it is a good thread. I don't know why I forgot what [sic] means. anyway, it didn't mention any of the other [sic] words, so I ask my main question again. Does anybody know where any more grammatical errors are in the book and also more errors with [sic] following them?

---

Yeah, what about all the mistakes that don't have sic after them?

Had it not caught up with me
torn to pisces
etc etc?

[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: verismo ]

[pwhite]

At the suggestion of Nash:

p. 114 (n. 135): phantasize [sic]

p. 248 (n. 226): Navilson [sic]

p. 328: achievement [sic] (should be plural)

p. 328: because he didn't [sic] the Varsity football squad

p. 330: failue [sic]

p. 336 (n. 295): misprision (there's a [sic] in the French version, not in the English)

p. 379: parent)he)see)s) [sic]

p. 539: A Brief History of How [sic] I Love (the sic is in J's font)

p. 643: Livre [sic]

And that's it. Of course, there may be others. Enough, I have work to do!

[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: pwhite ]

[morningchoir]

i know there are a lot in the chapter about holloway and his therapist. i thought it meant that those were some of the parts missing, like the parenthesis.

[farsidedude]

pwhite, you rule! Thanks, that really helped.

[Jillian]

Is there a pattern to when it's

(sic) with parentheses and
[sic] with brackets?

Seems like he uses both--unless I'm just tired and I made that up... [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[farsidedude]

quote:

---

Is there a pattern to when it's
(sic) with parentheses and
[sic] with brackets?

---

Well, so far the only [sic] out of all the ones we've been discussing in this thread that uses parentheses is the one on page 379, and I think it uses parentheses as a play on the error it is pointing out, which is in fact the word parentheses. "parent)he)see)s" Does that make sense?

Did anyone notice the line on the same page "if if were a fifth I'd be drunk?" Man I love that line.

[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: farsidedude ]

[Jillian]

Thanks for finding that for me! Interesting that he's talking about written legacies (like his mom's letters) and that last word before the (sic) is broken into

parent
he
see)s

On that same paragraph, here's what happens when you match up the parentheses (I'll let the smart folks look for insight in it):

Now that I think about it, I guess I’ve always gravitated towards written legacies s

Private lands surrounded by great bewildering oceans see

A description I don’t entirely understand even as I write it down now he

Though the sense of adventure about words, appeals to me—ah but to hell with the closing parent

That little “l” making so little difference

(sic)

What's jumping out at me on first glance is "to hell with the closing parent" (and PHL's letters could be called part of the "closing") and "that little 'l' making so little difference (and her last name was Lievre, and she was able to make so little difference to him, even with her letters).

Whatcha think about that?

[Jillian]

quote:

---

Originally posted by verismo:



Yeah, what about all the mistakes that don't have sic after them?

Had it not caught up with me
torn to pisces
etc etc?

[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: verismo ]

---

Could it be that they aren't mistakes?

[verismo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jillian:

Could it be that they aren't mistakes?

---

Well, yeah. They aren't misprints...neither are the ones with [sic], but they are...uhh...wrong on purpose? YOu know what I mean. I am just trying to figure out what this fellow is trying to catalog.

[pwhite]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jillian:
...and "that little 'l' making so little difference (and her last name was Lievre, and she was able to make so little difference to him, even with her letters).

---

Possibly, but I'd be more inclined to read the 'little 'l'' in the context of the preceding clause. WORDS / WORLDS (that little 'l' making so little difference).
Out of interest I had a look at the French translation, and it seem Claro chose to render a similar verbal effect: the little 'l' has morphed into a little 'r', giving MOTS / MORTS ('words' / 'deaths' or 'dead things').

[Jillian]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pwhite:


Possibly, but I'd be more inclined to read the 'little 'l'' in the context of the preceding clause. WORDS / WORLDS (that little 'l' making so little difference).
Out of interest I had a look at the French translation, and it seem Claro chose to render a similar verbal effect: the little 'l' has morphed into a little 'r', giving MOTS / MORTS ('words' / 'deaths' or 'dead things').

---

oooh...now that's creepy...

Thanks for catching that words/worlds thing. I didn't even see it--I took him at his, um, "word", and saw it as "the sense of adventure about words," which is certainly a good definition for HOL.

Interesting, in trying to find the page again I used the index--"parentheses" isn't listed but the last entry for "parent" refers to this paragraph we're discussing...

I hadn't thought about that-- when translating the book, one would have to create all new word tricks. Fascinating.

[ September 19, 2003: Message edited by: Jillian ]

[Jillian]

quote:

---

Originally posted by verismo:


Well, yeah. They aren't misprints...neither are the ones with [sic], but they are...uhh...wrong on purpose? YOu know what I mean. I am just trying to figure out what this fellow is trying to catalog.

---

I haven't figured it out either but it sounds like Freudian slips--or clues--

I did a play by W. David Hancock (a playwright in the same vein as MDZ) and he said that, when writing, he would sometimes accidentally type something but the mistake was "better" (rang more true) than the original, so he would leave it. For example, from Hancock's unpublished The Incubus Archives: "...the choice between a period or a coma," (instead of "comma") is said by a girl who was brainwashed by a cult (and therefore put in a "coma" by them).

I don't know if the above made any sense, but I guess I see these non-[sic] mistakes like that: where the "wrong" word is more "right" in feeling and meaning than the "right" word.

(BTW, if you loved HOL, you'll love Hancock. Look him up.)

[FallingQuarters]

sic schizophrenic Edenic cephalic

[noevilstar]

[QUOTE=pwhite]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jillian:
...and "that little 'l' making so little difference (and her last name was Lievre, and she was able to make so little difference to him, even with her letters).

---

The little l [sic] could be a reference to the Navilson [sic], but don't have much to go on about navilson

(On a side note, assemblage artist Louise Nevelson is currently being portrayed in Albee's play "Ocupant" by Mercedes Ruehl)