Page Number Correction

[Ted]

The hardcover edition of The Emerald Lie published by Mysterious Press on 26 August 2016 is 352 pages, not 256.

See Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0...

Library Journal
http://reviews.libraryjournal.com/201...

[Codex]

The following (GR) acceptable sources all say 256 pages for The Emerald Lie (ISBN 9780802125460):

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...
WorldCat: http://www.worldcat.org/title/emerald...
Book Depository: http://www.bookdepository.com/The-Eme...

[Ted]

Ted wrote: "The hardcover edition of The Emerald Lie published by Mysterious Press on 26 August 2016 is 352 pages, not 256.

See Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0...

Library J..."

Ted wrote: "The hardcover edition of The Emerald Lie published by Mysterious Press on 26 August 2016 is 352 pages, not 256.

See Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0...

Library J..."

Ted wrote: "The hardcover edition of The Emerald Lie published by Mysterious Press on 26 August 2016 is 352 pages, not 256.

See Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0...

Library J..."

Codex wrote: "The following (GR) acceptable sources all say 256 pages for The Emerald Lie (ISBN 9780802125460):

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080......"

Codex wrote: "The following (GR) acceptable sources all say 256 pages for The Emerald Lie (ISBN 9780802125460):

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080......"

Codex wrote: "The following (GR) acceptable sources all say 256 pages for The Emerald Lie (ISBN 9780802125460):

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080......"

They're wrong. There's 352 pages.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Changed to 352.

[Codex]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Changed to 352."

Please refer to my earlier response (#2)—this has no weight?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Book in hand outweighs all other sources.

[Codex]

rivka wrote: "Book in hand outweighs all other sources."

Not to argue, but if another reader comes along—with “book in hand”—claiming the page count is 256, would the page count be changed yet again? Whose claim would be right, then?

Please also note that the original poster did not provide an ISBN.

The likelihood of three independent sources—all listed as acceptable GR sources—being incorrect is highly unlikely.

[Ted]

My suggestion? Go to a book store and check the book out for total pages. All three GR sources were wrong as highly unlikely you might think. Publishers Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0...

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Ted, do you actually have the book in hand?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Codex wrote: "The likelihood of three independent sources—all listed as acceptable GR sources—being incorrect is highly unlikely."

For page numbering? Sadly, no.

[Ted]

I do actually have the book in hand and it is not 256 pages, it's 352.
In my original correspondence, the reference sites I provided for Publishers Weekly and Libraryjournal each cite the ISBN number and the number of pages in this book -352.

[Codex]

rivka wrote: "Codex wrote: "The likelihood of three independent sources—all listed as acceptable GR sources—being incorrect is highly unlikely."

For page numbering? Sadly, no."

My question at the start of message #7 remains unanswered.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

There are occasional books where that happens, usually ones with multiple printings. It's one of the reason's it's important to check librarian logs. In this case, the only edits to the book's page count are the original data (pre-publication) from our import, and this edit.

[Ted]

Too much time has been spent on this subject. I would only add, when in doubt, go to your local bookstore or library and check out the book.