Reverse points?

External Since: Apr 22, 2004 Posts: 8

Things have been a bit slow here, and it's a gloomy day outside, so maybe
it's time for me to step out of the shadows and post something.

When I was in graduate school, a friend introduced me to the works of
Robertson Davies (she said The Rebel Angels got her through her first year
at Yale), and I started reading everything by him that I could find.

In Tempest Tost, his first novel, I ran across this description of student
teaching: "Many students who were impeccable in the theoretical side of
their work broke down badly in model-teaching.... A girl, attempting to tell
a class some apocryphal stories about the early musical development of the
young Handel, lost her nerve and spoke thirty-seven times of 'the
harpsichord', which, as she had never seen or heard the instrument in
question, was not altogether surprising." (King Penguin edition, pg. 80)

This always puzzled me, since there didn't seem to be anything wrong with
it. When I tracked down a first edition, I looked up that passage and found
that she had spoken of "the harpischord." (Clarke Irwin, p. 117; also
spelled that way in the US and UK firsts.) Obviously some well-meaning
editor (or typesetter?) changed it, not realizing that it rendered that
sentence meaningless, and nobody has bothered to correct it in subsequent
printings.

I've generally heard that a point is a *mistake* that has been corrected in
a later edition (though Carter's ABC just says "any peculiarity in a book
whose presence in or absence from a particular copy calls for note"). What
about a "mistake" that is mistakenly corrected in a later edition? Is this a
reverse point?

And finally, does anyone know of similar mistakes, mistakenly corrected?

Phred

External Since: Mar 30, 2004 Posts: 367

"Phred" <phred RemoveThis @ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:cihvm3010eu@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Things have been a bit slow here, and it's a gloomy day outside, so maybe
> it's time for me to step out of the shadows and post something.
>

<snip>

>
> I've generally heard that a point is a *mistake* that has been corrected
in
> a later edition (though Carter's ABC just says "any peculiarity in a book
> whose presence in or absence from a particular copy calls for note").

....

No. As Carter notes, a point is anything which enables a collector,
or any other interested party for that matter, to distinguish one
particular
copy of a book from another. And furthermore, because most editions or
printings of books are fairly uniform, points are most often used in
distinguishing one printing or edition - most often the first, from
another. Although points are also discovered which indicate differences
between copies in what were formerly regarded as being the same edition
or printing.
Points can be textual - not simply mistakes and typos, but substituted
words - typographical, where a subtle change has been made in the spacing
of one or two lines, or where there's evidence of broken type - binding -
where the colour of the cloth is different - or paper - where different
types of paper were used. Etc,etc. Although the latter are merely
circumstantial - a difference in paper or binding wouldn't necessarily
indicate a different printing or edition without corroborating evidence.
In fact, almost any detail which can be altered to the slightest degree
in the production process of a book, can function as a point.

....

> What
> about a "mistake" that is mistakenly corrected in a later edition? Is
this a
> reverse point?
>

No. For the reasons given.

....

> And finally, does anyone know of similar mistakes, mistakenly corrected?
>

....

An interesting question.

....

> Phred
>
>

....

michael adams

....