“This NYT correction just gets better and better”
Corrections and clarifications have long been a fairly reliable source of low-key entertainment, particularly where the error is one that clearly should never have happened.
In an article about the recently married couple, actor and playwright Kate Hammill and fellow actor Jason O’Connell, the New York Times made some careless typos …and one humongous and inexplicable mistake.
This is how they shred the corrections at the end of the article.
“Bram Stoker …not Jane Austen.”
Writer Laura Hankin spotted the fantastic correction, and her tweet of a screenshot has had over a thousand retweets in a matter of hours.
This NYTimes correction just gets getter and better pic.twitter.com/OJYRiKiyJn
— Laura Hankin (@LauraHankin) January 27, 2020
People have been buzzing off the glaring error, and these are some of the things they’ve been saying about it.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 28, 2020
Also, the 21st President of the United States was Chester A. Arthur, not Willow Rosenberg.
— P Nielsen Hayden (@pnh) 27 January 2020
I would definitely read a Jane Austen version of Dracula.
— Leah (@settleprecious) 27 January 2020
Romantic hijinks ensue among the Harker sisters and their friends when an eligible bachelor with a foreign-sounding name purchases Carfax Abbey…
— Markku Ylipalo (@TheRealMarkku) 27 January 2020
The mistake might turn out to have been quite a happy accident, if David Jón Fuller‘s prediction comes to pass.
I predict an entire genre blossoming out of this error. I humbly submit for the record (and for @premeesaurus) Herman Melville's Dracula:
"Call me Jonathan. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse…" https://t.co/cOOCjVZBYu
— David Jón Fuller (@DavidJonFuller) January 27, 2020
We’d read the hell out of that.