Exactly. While I enjoyed the whimsy of the "Borat-like" letter one of our members posted, I believe Jason makes the point I was clumsily trying to make. Please understand that my WIP is involved with pinning down dates, reconciling between various sources and authorities. So, yes, to me it does matter, and, as Jason points out "errors could matter." By no means is my list of errors comprehensive--I'd estimate that there are 10-12 such errors in the book of 600 pages. Who cares if an event is off by a day or two (atomic clocks aside)? I suppose careful scholars do. Jason also makes the point that such errors erode credibility in the work, that we aren't sure if there are substantive errors as well. I agree. As for the Madonna/Metallica references--I understand this is a purely stylistic technique, but stand by the principle that using these as liberally as Powers does risks weakening the historical view. Many of these are one generations icons which may date the work in a few years. For me, they yank me from the historical narrative, jar my understanding rather than enlighten it. Was Adah Mencken truly a Madonna of her time? A red-hot momma? Or, was she more in that Bohemian school of thought and style that Sam Clemens swam in for a time? Analogies can help understanding--but they also risk an intellectual mud-wrestling contest, where the reader gives up on the work. My perspective is from a novelist as well as a historian's point of view, as one who has taught college English composition--so I realize others may disagree and find such parallels helpful. To each his own. There are some wonderful passages in Powers' book. Then too there are some that made me shake my head. As for blaming the errors on printers and editors, well, that's easy, but the author gets proofs, right? Sam himself was mortified at the errors that found publication in his first book, The Jumping Frog, because he did not examine proofs, a lapse he swore never to repeat. Journalism is the reason Powers work comes up short? Sam Clemens cut his teeth as a journalist. I'm sure he would hee-haw at the idea of using journalism as an explanation or excuse for such mistakes. I am fully aware of the beam in my eye. As Sam would say, being human is enough to know about a man--nothing could be worse. Presenting a work of this stature error-free of fact may indeed be an ideal, but it is an ideal worthy to aspire to. David H Fears