Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* The book is famous for printing the word ''House'' always in blue, regardless of what language it appears in (i.e. the German ''Hause'' is also blue). This is even flaunted at the reader in the Index, as it lists "House (Blue)" with lots of pages, and then "House (Black)" with DNE ("Does Not Exist"). ''BUT''... Footnote 146 [[note]]The pages-long footnote listing buildings of a certain architecture.[[/note]] contains the Dutch word "Scheepvarthuis" of which the "huis" part is the Dutch word for "House" and it's the only occurence of the word "House" in the book not printed blue![[note]]Paperback '2000 edition: page 122[[/note]] This must have been a conscious decision by the author, seeing how carefully he handles the many foreign languages; also, just preceding it there's another Dutch example but that one has been translated to / is listed in English, and ''IS'' blue (it's listed as: Schröder House, instead of Schröderhuis). Also, Scheepvarthuis is spelled wrong: it really is ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheepvaarthuis Scheepvaarthuis]], with two A's (again, the author must have misspelled this deliberately, but why?)
to:
* The book is famous for printing the word ''House'' always in blue, regardless of what language it appears in (i.e. , the German ''Hause'' is also blue). This is even flaunted at the reader in the Index, as it lists "House (Blue)" with lots of pages, and then "House (Black)" with DNE ("Does Not Exist"). ''BUT''... Footnote 146 [[note]]The pages-long footnote listing buildings of a certain architecture.[[/note]] contains the Dutch word "Scheepvarthuis" of which the "huis" part is the Dutch word for "House" and it's the only occurence of the word "House" in the book not printed blue![[note]]Paperback '2000 edition: page 122[[/note]] This must have been a conscious decision by the author, seeing how carefully he handles the many foreign languages; also, just preceding it there's another Dutch example but that one has been translated to / is listed in English, and ''IS'' blue (it's listed as: Schröder House, instead of Schröderhuis). Also, Scheepvarthuis is spelled wrong: it really is ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheepvaarthuis Scheepvaarthuis]], with two A's (again, the author must have misspelled this deliberately, but why?)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why is the index so inconsistent with names? Sometimes it will give a full name like a real index, but sometimes it'll just give a single name. EG Chad's entry just reads "Chad" instead of "Navidson, Chad". Just a mistake?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
* How can anyone in Navidson's universe consider the Record a fake? What do they think happened to Tom, Leeder, or Holloway? And wouldn't the testimony of a well-respected university professor or the local sheriff convince them? And some researchers evidently had access to medical records of the survivors, given some build an entire hypothesis around their inexplicable illnesses and subsequent recovery. Unless they think Sherrif Axnard gave himself a stomach ulcer and that three men faked their own deaths for years for either minimal personal gain or outright demonization in Holloway's case, how can anyone begin to think it's a set-up?
to:
* How can anyone in Navidson's universe consider the Record a fake? What do they think happened to Tom, Leeder, or Holloway? And wouldn't the testimony of a well-respected university professor or the local sheriff convince them? And some researchers evidently had access to medical records of the survivors, given some build an entire hypothesis around their inexplicable illnesses and subsequent recovery. Unless they think Sherrif Axnard gave himself a stomach ulcer and that three men faked their own deaths for years for either minimal personal gain or outright demonization in Holloway's case, how can anyone begin to think it's a set-up? Edit: granted, there are a lot of idiots who refuse to accept blatant evidence, even in academia (EG David Irving) but you'd think this line of inquiry would at least be brought up for Zampano to argue against.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Then there's the theory that Johnny is the Minotaur, the "deformed" son of Zampano (who may actually be Navidson) and Pelafina (who may actually be Karen) and Zampano is trapping ''him'' in the maze for some reason. It's complicated.
