Seeing how this section is titled "The Nitpicker's Guide to SWR" it seemed appropriate to create a section for general nits. To start us off:

on page 284 there is the line "...surround-sound ultra-sonic audio that only the person sitting directly in front of it could hear."

Err... they aren't hearing anything if it's ultra-sonic; that's well out of the hearing range of a mere mortal.

But apparantly, there are some vibrations that are detectable as sound under the right conditions. OK, maybe technically they are harmonics of the the ultra-sonic, but do we need a page or two of physics and exposition to detail it? Do you also pick nits with the sentence "The sun set at 6:17"?

On the other hand, this is Nitpickers' Central. Picking nits is what we do.

As Gilda "Emily Litella" Radner: Never mind.

I guess I just didn't read that sentence as meaning that the chief was talking about "directed sound". Oh well.

I have more though:

Chapter 1 of "Aftershock" (pg 349) mentions 12:00 AM, which doesn't exist (though usually it is understood to be midnight). Also, why are the Wind doing things at midnight? The Jewish day begins/ends at sun down, not at midnight.

Nick!

I'm not at home at the moment so I can't look it up but there is an inventor who has taken normal audio and wrapped it in ultrasonic frquencies so that you can't hear it unless you're standing right in front of the directed wave. (No joke. At some point I'll post a link to an article. It's pretty cool!)

As far as the Wind doing things: Just because the Jewish day begins at sundown doesn't mean the Wind has to do the same. Basically, the wind gets to do whatever they want, whenever, however!

Feel free to post a link, but I am already aware of the phenomenon; I just didn't make the connection when I read that sentence.

Sure the Wind can do whatever they want, but they followed the Jewish calendar (1260 days for 3½ years), so why wouldn't they follow the "day begins at sundown" part of it too?

Because the Wind can do whatever they want. ;-) When you finish the book, you might appreciate that phrase more...

I should probably nitpick the "they can do whatever they want" -- they are not invincible, as demonstrated by a young Elizabeth Michaelson (though I suspect the Wind knew she was going to do what she did and could have stopped her). In any event, they require an energy source that can be cut off.

Also, I speculate, but can not conclusively prove that they can be killed -- the Wind and the One prevented the nuclear weapons from being launched -- they did not withstand an attack from them -- and no bullet has ever made it to them, the gun is always made to misfire or the wielder is killed. This demonstrates a great ability to anticipate and prevent, but not an immortality or inability to be harmed.

[as of this post I am not yet done with the book]

Nick!

Hmmmm....I would keep reading....;-)

Page 395

September 26th shows up first as a Friday, and then in the next paragraph as a Saturday.

Machiko!

Ooops! Must be some time-warping thing going on. ;-) (Tried to be careful about the dates but these things happen.)

Phil

You can always blame Berman & Braga

Was there a reason that Shana first said that Mark Silverman committed suicide (other than to lie), then Judge Stone told Elizabeth that yes, he killed Mark Silverman, only to then have Shana remembering how SHE did it?

I got confused about who really killed Silverman.

I don't know if there was a reason, but Judge Stone never said he killed Mark, Elizabeth just assumed that he did. I glean that Shana said Mark killed himself to Avery so that he'd not panic about her true ruthlessness as well as to cover up the fact that the Wind knew exactly what he was doing.

You're quite correct.

On page 340, Elizabeth asks Stone if Mark is dead, and THAT'S what he said yes to.

Machiko! Nick!

There was a section in the backstory that dealt with this (The original manuscript was 1100 and I cut it down to 750.)

Shana does killed Mark.

This is going to be interesting. Nitpicking when the ultimate canonical source is there to anti-nit the nits!

Shana does killed Mark.

I don't think that clears it up, chief

Nick!

You want more detail or just better spelling! ('Cause the detail part I can handle. As for the spelling? Well...I type fast. That's why I need a proofreader. ;-)

Actually, I was just having a little fun given the corrections listed on the other board...

Page 585
The Wind simply had to be benevolent.
Yes. That's why they mercilessly slaughter people for no good reason.
(And no, 'disagreeing with us' & 'considering yourself our equal' are not good reasons to murder.)

Say, if someone went up to the Wind and slashed him with a knife and stole his wallet, would it be appropriate for a passerby happening on the scene to say, "Hey, who cut Wind?"

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

So here's an actual nit. I think. Dates in SWR are given as ADR, or "Anno Domini Reditus." To my Latin eye, this looks a mite incorrect. The perfect passive participle "reditus," used here as an adjective modifying "Domini", should agree with it in case, which it does not. ("Domini" being a second declension masculine noun in the genitive singular.) It seems like it should read "Anno Domini Rediti" instead, thereby translating properly as "In the year of the Returned Lord."

At least, I hope I'm right about that; otherwise I'll never get through my Latin final on Friday.

Matthew!

Sorry it took me so long to respond!! Been busy with other things and it's been quiet for a while on the board so I haven't checked!!

As for the Latin: That came from Mitzi Adams whose a Latin person and I just wrote down what she gave me! ;-)

By the way, over the next few weeks I'm going to be sending in all the typos that everyone was kind enough to log on the other topic and then updating the book so the copies that people have now will be a limited run! ;-)

Matt, you sound like the guard in "The Life of Brian", you know, Romani ite domum!

For the curious, I did in fact get through that Latin final on Friday. Still not sure if I was right about the proper declension of "reditus," though it still just looks to me like it ought to agree with "domini."

Congrats, Matt!

Matt, congratulations, too.

My fiancee says that "Anno Domini reditus" translates correctly, too, as "The year of the Lord's return" - reditus being a noun in that case (and genitive case, too.)

If the translation is to be "The year of the returned Lord", it should be "rediti", as you said, since the PPP is used adjectivly, and therefore, needs to be declined properly.

(I hope I translated that correctly from his german explanation - I've forgotten all my latin grammar stuff...)

Oh, true; the fourth declension genitive singular is identical with the second declension nominative singular (without long marks, which nobody writes and we can't express on this board anyway). A clearer word order to express that meaning might be "Anno Reditus Domini" so that the cascading nature of the relationships is preserved.