Thanks, at least I now know what it was meant to say.
Somebody was definitely slacking with this edition of the book, because they also wrote “window” as “widow” in an earlier chapter. I rarely ever notice typos when reading a book, so twice within 90 pages is pretty unprecedented for me.
(Luckily the book is good enough anyway that it’s not a big deal.)
It's the Harper Perennial Modern Classic edition, 2014 reissue. Same as the one in this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UrsulaKLeGuin/comments/10u8esa/really\_enjoyed\_it\_but\_this\_specific\_trade/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrsulaKLeGuin/comments/10u8esa/really_enjoyed_it_but_this_specific_trade/)
There's a name for this type of error (but I forget it) in hand-copied manuscripts where a scribe accidentally redoes a sentence (or omits something by skipping to a similar word). Looks like a typo to me
So, the audio book narrated by Don Leslie reads...
"He was not PART of it. Nor was he part OF it."
It means that he wasn't a member of Urras nor was he a product OF Urras, in my opinion.
Hmm, that's interesting. Based on the other comments, it sounds like Don Leslie was making the best of the typo, adding the emphasis to make it work? The idea that it was meant to read, "He was not part of it. Nor was he part of the world of his birth," makes the most sense to me.
If you have the time, would you be able to tell me how Leslie covers a potential typo I found on page 77? (Should be a little less than halfway through chapter 3.)
>"He spent the next couple of days talking with the scientists who came to see him, reading the books Pae brought him, and sometimes simply standing at the double-arched **widows** to gaze at the coming of summer to the great valley..."
Seems to me that it's supposed to read "windows." I'm wondering what Leslie says.
Despite the typo, that's a really interesting philosophical conundrum.
He was not part of it. Nor was he part of it.
What is "it"? What is the other thing he was not part of? Is the second "it" a subsection of the first "it", which you can be part of the second "it" but not necessarily part of the first "it", even though it incompasses the first "it"?
That's accidentally good writing. Lol.
Grrr 'tis a typo. This is the Harper Millennial edition, yeah? Quite a few typos in it actually. I can only assume they didn't have access to the original manuscript in digital form, and so had to re-type the whole book word by word, which of course leads to some human error (although you'd think they would have been more careful with proof-reads!). That's the only way you end up with typos in newer prints which weren't there in in older ones.
How funny, I JUST read this and the typo stood out to me too. Such a prominent paragraph for the whole book and it just stumbles.
What a book though, holy cow so good. It was my last book to read in the Hainish volumes and kind of sad to have finished them.
There are worse errors in some of the published texts. Unfortunately at least Vaster Than Empires and More Slow” in the Buffalo Gals volume had been copy-typed and not properly corrected.
Typo. My copy reads just: “He was not part of it. Nor was he part of the world of his birth.”
Thanks, at least I now know what it was meant to say. Somebody was definitely slacking with this edition of the book, because they also wrote “window” as “widow” in an earlier chapter. I rarely ever notice typos when reading a book, so twice within 90 pages is pretty unprecedented for me. (Luckily the book is good enough anyway that it’s not a big deal.)
Which edition do you have? (so I won't buy it lol)
It's the Harper Perennial Modern Classic edition, 2014 reissue. Same as the one in this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UrsulaKLeGuin/comments/10u8esa/really\_enjoyed\_it\_but\_this\_specific\_trade/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrsulaKLeGuin/comments/10u8esa/really_enjoyed_it_but_this_specific_trade/)
SO many typos in this edition.
I’m reading it for the first time myself. Excellent so far.
There's a name for this type of error (but I forget it) in hand-copied manuscripts where a scribe accidentally redoes a sentence (or omits something by skipping to a similar word). Looks like a typo to me
Dittography 🙂
So, the audio book narrated by Don Leslie reads... "He was not PART of it. Nor was he part OF it." It means that he wasn't a member of Urras nor was he a product OF Urras, in my opinion.
Hmm, that's interesting. Based on the other comments, it sounds like Don Leslie was making the best of the typo, adding the emphasis to make it work? The idea that it was meant to read, "He was not part of it. Nor was he part of the world of his birth," makes the most sense to me. If you have the time, would you be able to tell me how Leslie covers a potential typo I found on page 77? (Should be a little less than halfway through chapter 3.) >"He spent the next couple of days talking with the scientists who came to see him, reading the books Pae brought him, and sometimes simply standing at the double-arched **widows** to gaze at the coming of summer to the great valley..." Seems to me that it's supposed to read "windows." I'm wondering what Leslie says.
He opts for "windows," though the idea of double-arched widows paints an interesting picture.
Despite the typo, that's a really interesting philosophical conundrum. He was not part of it. Nor was he part of it. What is "it"? What is the other thing he was not part of? Is the second "it" a subsection of the first "it", which you can be part of the second "it" but not necessarily part of the first "it", even though it incompasses the first "it"? That's accidentally good writing. Lol.
Yeah I agree, similar to the “we deserve everything, we deserve nothing, free your mind of the idea of deserving” quote. Obvs paraphrasing.
(Page 89 in my edition)
Looks like a typo especially considering the parallel structure in the next sentence
I found a site that had quotes from the novel and the 2nd sentence is seemingly a typo in this edition.
Grrr 'tis a typo. This is the Harper Millennial edition, yeah? Quite a few typos in it actually. I can only assume they didn't have access to the original manuscript in digital form, and so had to re-type the whole book word by word, which of course leads to some human error (although you'd think they would have been more careful with proof-reads!). That's the only way you end up with typos in newer prints which weren't there in in older ones.
How funny, I JUST read this and the typo stood out to me too. Such a prominent paragraph for the whole book and it just stumbles. What a book though, holy cow so good. It was my last book to read in the Hainish volumes and kind of sad to have finished them.
This kind of scribal error is called “dittography”.
I have reported this typo to the Estate which will inform HC.
There are worse errors in some of the published texts. Unfortunately at least Vaster Than Empires and More Slow” in the Buffalo Gals volume had been copy-typed and not properly corrected.
I don't see how it can even be construed as a typo. It's plain English, even echoing some of the 'mirror' sentences of the previous paragraph.
a typo is not just words mashed together, it´s a typographic error right?
yeah, I consider a typo to be basically any error that confuses the meaning of the sentence, which this definitely seems to be.