The story is by Dorothy Dunnett. It starts in _Game of Kings_, but I was referring to something that doesn't really make sense for 4 or 5 books. If you like historical fiction and badly-hurt characters carrying on heroically in impossible situations, you might enjoy it. You need a good tolerance for unreliable narration and adjective overload, though.
If you tend to be overwhelmed in bad ways by disturbing scenes in books, I should warn you that Dunnett has several of them in different directions. (Though I thought she flinched from the really disturbing scenario at the end, after spending 6 books setting it up.) Let me know if you want more details.
No, actually, come to think of it, I've been vaguely meaning to get around to reading Dunnett eventually, and while I'm not totally spoiler-phobic, I do like to explore books on my own.
So, thank you for /not/ providing details, in this case.
I'm working on a document that has "senor-level" where it should have "sensor-level", and also refers to a radio frequency "single" instead of "signal".
You still win, though. Like the writer who confused "burro" and "burrow", your pneumonic/mnemonic writer cannot tell his or her ass from a hole in the ground.
I messed up "conscience" and "conscious" in a paper last semester, but I was using SST. Granted, I should've caught the mistake in editing, but at least that was somewhat understandable.
A good friend who edits textbooks immediately caught a mistake in this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/26/rita/index.html)a day or two ago. As she said,
"Ariel" is a character in The Little Mermaid (and Shakespeare, apparently). "Aerial" is an adjective describing something from above the ground, like "aerial photography." I can't speak for the rest of the population, but if the first word in a feature article is misspelled, it makes me less inclined to actually read the whole thing.
I was once asked to critique a manuscript by a good ally, who persistently wrote "orgasm" when he meant "organism"; it made it hard to keep a straight face.
This is a fairly common error among programmers. One place I worked, it was so bad we referred to it as the "mnemonic plague." I would routinely do global search and replace on documents and come up with fifty or more changes. That is where I learned to pronounce it as "knee-monic" rather than "nuh-monic."
I wonder if that's an idiolectic or regional difference - it wouldn't occur to me to change my pronunciation of mnemonic from "nuh-monic", but that's in part because I pronounce pneumonic as "knew-monic"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
(Or rather, is there a story there I don't know?)
From:
no subject
If you tend to be overwhelmed in bad ways by disturbing scenes in books, I should warn you that Dunnett has several of them in different directions. (Though I thought she flinched from the really disturbing scenario at the end, after spending 6 books setting it up.) Let me know if you want more details.
From:
no subject
No, actually, come to think of it, I've been vaguely meaning to get around to reading Dunnett eventually, and while I'm not totally spoiler-phobic, I do like to explore books on my own.
So, thank you for /not/ providing details, in this case.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
You still win, though. Like the writer who confused "burro" and "burrow", your pneumonic/mnemonic writer cannot tell his or her ass from a hole in the ground.
From:
no subject
A good friend who edits textbooks immediately caught a mistake in this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/26/rita/index.html)a day or two ago. As she said,
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject