Author Bloopers?

[Liadin]

According to this site (information about the sky for spec fic writers), having multiple moons in the same phase at the same time is actually a goof.

[wolverine]

-As a geologist, I'm amazed at how little understanding of basic earth sciences that most authors have. Thankfully, few of these are big enough to really piss me off.

I don't think this is a generalization towards authors but more so towards the whole population. I am a teacher and there are massive misconceptions or complete lack of comprehension about math, sciences, history, etc.

About the orbiting moons question: I am pretty sure that moons can be in different phases. For one, not all moons would have the same phase length, just like planets around the sun don't. Ones closer or farther apart would, almost always be in different phases. Also they would not typically all revolve around the planet on the same plane. The phase of the moon depends on how much of the 1/2 of the planet that is lit you can see and if they have different orbital planes, which is almost certain, you would see different proportions of their half that is lit.

[wolverine]

SUN                                          PLANET          Moon A



                                                Moon B

Here's my take:

Assume an observer on the planet at midnight, i.e. directly opposite the position of the sun. To that observer, moon A would look full but moon M would look half. Thus, you can get different phases because even though the moons are lit from the same direction, they are viewed from different angles.

ETA: Stupid code tags!

Did not see this post before I commented but this is correct. Moon A you can see the entire half that is lit, but with Moon B you can only see half of the half that is lit making it a quarter moon.

[Lupigis]

According to this site (information about the sky for spec fic writers), having multiple moons in the same phase at the same time is actually a goof.

Great site! I loved this bit about the Martian moons:

The Martian day is 24 hours, 37 minutes.

The revolution period of Phobos is only 7 hours 42 minutes, whipping along only 3,700 miles above the Martian surface (6000 km). As a result, it acts more like our artificial satellites. Because of the short period, it does rise in the west (moons, unlike suns, can rise anywhere, including in the north or south, as suits their orbits). It is visible above the horizon only 4 hours and 18 minutes at a time. However, 11 hours will pass between risings. As well, because of its low orbit, it is only visible below 68º N & S on the surface. Closer to the poles, Phobos can't be seen.

Deimos has a period of 30 hours, which is so close to the rotation of Mars that once it rises (in the east) it is up for 66 hours. That's over two and a half Martian days. While crawling across the sky, it goes twice through its cycle of phases between new and full.

[Poobah]

I consider Cormac Mccarthy's refusal to use speech marks in The Road, the only work I've read of his and otherwise excellent, to be a massive authorial case of brain diarrhoea. I really don't care what his grammatical philosophy is, it's wrong and no amount of Pulitzer prizes is gonna make me like it any more.

[Stalker]

I respectfully disagree. As I understand it, the phase of the moon (meaning how it actually looks in the sky) is determined by the relationship between the sun, the moon(s), and the planet you're looking at them from. If you're seeing two moons in the same sky, lit by the same sun, from the same angle, they better look pretty much alike. Think of it as a lighting problem. How would you get opposing crescents from a single light source?

"from the same angle" That's just the thing: why would it be from the same angle? As separate bodies, one would imagine that they are in two separate locations. While it is possible for two bodies to be at the same angle from the observer, it isn't likely, and even less, necessary. If you will, imagine a circle on the night sky; that's the location of things that are at the same angle; every other location on the sky has another.

[Jon AS]

Well, I'm a huge McCaffrey fan, and there's little she does that I haven't loved, but her feeling like she needed to write out a novel length history of the Masterharper was one great cluster of ret-con that grates a little...though it hasn't stopped me from occasionally re-reading the story...

Jaxom: massively retconned, yes, and ludicrous, but are there glaring errors in it? Personally, I loved it just because of the subject matter - a Mozart/Beethoven biography in a fantasy world! Just a pity she wasn't more convincing when it came to the music.

I remember reading the book and thinking that the timeline and character ages (particularly Sebell IIRC) were royally screwed up, but I never bothered to do an indepth analysis of this. It was still the first thing that came to mind when reading the thread premise.;)

[Lichen]

I consider Cormac Mccarthy's refusal to use speech marks in The Road, the only work I've read of his and otherwise excellent, to be a massive authorial case of brain diarrhoea. I really don't care what his grammatical philosophy is, it's wrong and no amount of Pulitzer prizes is gonna make me like it any more.

I like it. It's just part of his no compromises / I simply don't care what you think / raw honesty attitude that is lacking in many other works/writers.

[Ran]

Min Donner,

The first one that springs to mind is a short story I read about some near-future folk with time-travel capability who rescue Captain Oates from Antartica and whisk him away to 2020 (or whenever it was).

Weird. I was thinking of that short story the other day, for no obvious reason.

And I did not notice that particular goof. Heh.

kcf,

... you can't have two POVs in one paragraph

There goes Bester's "Fondly Fahrenheit", I guess? Doh. ;)

[Vrana]

I'm currently reading Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, a space Odyssey, and I am annoyed that he uses the term centrifugal force instead of centripetal. I just put the book down briefly and I haven't read further, so it might be he comes back to this, but as far as I've understood it the centrifugal force is a "false" force stemming from a faulty point of reference and the correct term would be centripetal force.

I am in no way educated in physics beyond my own interest in the subject and having read on my spare time, but I get easily irked by such things, do correct me if I'm wrong, physics is a personal interest but not something I have studied full-time.

[Alexia]

This is probably a silly thing to be irritated about but when I was reading The Lions of Al-Rassan, "Doña" was misspelled as "Dona." I didn't understand why, either, given that he used the "ñ" pretty frequently throughout the story.

[Jon AS]

I'm currently reading Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, a space Odyssey, and I am annoyed that he uses the term centrifugal force instead of centripetal. I just put the book down briefly and I haven't read further, so it might be he comes back to this, but as far as I've understood it the centrifugal force is a "false" force stemming from a faulty point of reference and the correct term would be centripetal force.

When using the term "centrifugal force" people are usually referring to the effect of inertia of any object forced into a rotating motion by a centripetal force. I'd hazard a guess that Clarke uses the term when describing how "artificial gravity" is created in a spaceship by rotation. Within that frame of reference it makes sense to speak of centrifugal force.

[Vrana]

When using the term "centrifugal force" people are usually referring to the effect of inertia of any object forced into a rotating motion by a centripetal force. I'd hazard a guess that Clarke uses the term when describing how "artificial gravity" is created in a spaceship by rotation. Within that frame of reference it makes sense to speak of centrifugal force.

Ah, I was wondering if it was premature of me to say anything, since I had to put the book down right after I had read that part and haven't gotten back to it yet. That does make sense since the guy is currently in orbit around the moon. Thanks.

[loathsome warg]

This is probably a silly thing to be irritated about but when I was reading The Lions of Al-Rassan, "Doña" was misspelled as "Dona." I didn't understand why, either, given that he used the "ñ" pretty frequently throughout the story.

Ha, I'm reading Lions of Al-Rassan for the first time right now, and that bothered me too. My first thought was, 'is she a gift?' :P

[Jaxom 1974]

McCaffrey retcons or gets things wrong a lot, particularly character ages.

And names. There's that one character Varena/Varina/Vanira that gets all three names listed in the glossary, cos McCaffrey evidently failed to note down which one she's actually used in each book.

Smaller items, like names, don't usually bother me. Sure, technically the editors should have caught something like that after the fact, but it doesn't change the fact that she goofed to begin with.

Jaxom: massively retconned, yes, and ludicrous, but are there glaring errors in it? Personally, I loved it just because of the subject matter - a Mozart/Beethoven biography in a fantasy world! Just a pity she wasn't more convincing when it came to the music.*

I remember reading the book and thinking that the timeline and character ages (particularly Sebell IIRC) were royally screwed up, but I never bothered to do an indepth analysis of this. It was still the first thing that came to mind when reading the thread premise.;)

The general timeline of the charcater and the arc works for the most part, up to the introduction of Sebell and there it goes completely off the tracks. It's actually hard to get through the last bit of that book because of it.

[Alytha]

Something that bugs me is blatant mistakes in foreign language passages in otherwise English books. For example, I read Diana Gabaldon's story in Legends II, and pretty much every single German sentence was completely wrong. Would it be that hard to find somebody who has some kind of knowledge of the language you want to use? Or did the editors believe that nobody outside Englishspeaking countries would read the story in its original version anyway?

[Daeric]

An awesome one I can think of is from Raymond .E. Fiests Serpent War Saga, where one of the characters Erik Von Darkmoor gets married and goes to elborate lengths to sneak her out of the city, and then a couple of books later after a time skip and Eriks an old man it turns out he had never married :dunce:

[Xalinor]

Crossroads. Of. Twilight.

[Wastrel]

An awesome one I can think of is from Raymond .E. Fiests Serpent War Saga, where one of the characters Erik Von Darkmoor gets married and goes to elborate lengths to sneak her out of the city, and then a couple of books later after a time skip and Eriks an old man it turns out he had never married :dunce:

Citing Feist is cheating!

My theory is that all books after Rage of a Demon King, even those seemingly in series, are actually set in subtly different alternate dimensions from one another...

[Lupigis]

When using the term "centrifugal force" people are usually referring to the effect of inertia of any object forced into a rotating motion by a centripetal force. I'd hazard a guess that Clarke uses the term when describing how "artificial gravity" is created in a spaceship by rotation. Within that frame of reference it makes sense to speak of centrifugal force.

I have nothing to add but this xkcd comic:

http://xkcd.com/123/