First, in my @205 revised comments on the main part of Continuity Is *Toast*, I was STILL underestimating the size of Brust’s toaster. Progress on the word-repetition lists confirms that we definitely want to end up with a 12×12 configuration of intentional errors. Only, we’ll have to get there by some sort of pattern-governed process of elimination.

Second, turns out that discarding the 3rd “just wanted to” statement from the 14-item Brustian payback list @206 was a bad move. All 3 discards need to be “just to” statements.

Third, there are 5 more *Toast*-significant lists to be compiled in the word-repetition part of the game. Then, after pairing up the 6 shorter lists, we finish with 4 groups of 14 statements, or 14 and 4 => 144 => 12×12.

(*And this time, it IS a promise.)

Now I “just” hope others think so, too. Remember, everyone, I AM prepared to present a defense of my reasoning, if necessary.

After my last pair of yawners, I fully intended to join BFF miaveiledlady on the posting High Road, backing off and giving everyone else a nice long break from my Brustian Specialness. Good thing I didn’t make any rash promises to that effect, because I can’t resist passing along a couple of my favorite *Toast* game finds so far.

I’ve already said that certain words or phrases keep popping up in Iorich. Next step was to start making lists, two of which are particularly worth noting. Except, I’m pretty sure the first is only the backbone of a list, with more detail yet to be filled in. A low priority for me right now, but readers who’ve gone on to finish Tiassa might find themselves in an excellent position to figure out what Brust was Up To with the following sentences:

“There was probably a story there.” ( p. 17)
“Um. Sounds like there’s a story there.” (p. 35)
“No doubt there was a story there.” (p. 66)
“Long story, never mind.” (p. 97)
“Is there a story there?” (p. 120)
“Never mind. It’s a long story.” (p. 264)
“Long story.” (p. 306)

Iorich is the 12th of a planned 19 books in the main Taltos series, with 7 left to go. Does anyone seriously think these 7 “story” sentences ended up in the current story line by accident? (FYI, “story” gets 3 more Iorich uses: once as part of “two-story rooming houses,” and twice in the Prologue, as Vlad tries to sort out the story on Aliera—which is basically the backbone for his Iorich Vlad-venture.) But is the set a simple acknowledgment that there are indeed another 7 Vlad-ventures still locked inside Brust’s head? (Simple? Brust? Pfui.) Or are there real clues to future story lines in the sentences or paragraphs surrounding each reference? Or maybe (groan) elsewhere in the book, to be tracked down by playing with the numbers on each reference page. That’s where Tiassa readers have an edge: if you recall something Tiassa-flavored in Iorich, you can work backward to one of our target sentences. Only—PLEASE—take any Tiassa-specific discussion over to the Tiassa Spoilers thread. As much as I’d welcome a confirmation on the presence of future story line hints in Iorich, I don’t want anybody blabbing about exactly what they are. One last tip: remember the nature of this game. I’m guessing that anything you find will be about as reliable as the early intel Vlad gleaned on Aliera’s “story” (p. 20).

I’ve led everyone to expect something funny, though, haven’t I? That would be our 2nd list. In addition to word-repetition, I also mentioned Brustian payback in one of my earlier *Toast* posts. Now we’ve got Brust using one to fess up to the other in falling-down-funny Brustian style. Iorich is the House of Justice, right? “Just”-ice. (Ice? And what’s that line about a dish best served cold? Whatever, I’m too lazy to look it up.) The phrase “just to” appears 11 times in Iorich, and 9 of them make our list (with “just to save herself” and “it hurt just to walk” as no-brainer discards). The phrase “just so” shows up 3 times, all early in the book, and all ending up on our list—they were what first caught my eye. Finally, “just wanted” gets 3 uses, 2 of which fill out the list; the sole exclusion, “just wanted to see you,” was also the only phrase I waffled on while compiling the list. Ultimately, that’s why it lost out: the other list candidates were all fairly clear, and the obvious point of the whole exercise was one of 2 refs on page 147; after omitting the single problematic item, The Point becomes the 7th of 14 statements on the list. On page 147. Which seems pretty damn Pointed to me. I’ve shuffled 5 statements out of their strict order of appearance, “just” because it seemed Brust was prodding me to do so. I don’t want to bore everyone with unnecessary explanations, but I’m happy to defend my decisions if challenged. Note that #1, #2, and #10 are actually double sentences—or near as dammit—thus not only replacing our 3 discards but also transforming our 14-item set into a Mystical Dragaeran 17:

1….“Just so you don’t get the wrong idea—may the gods keep me from ever conveying a false impression.” (p. 19)
2….“[J]ust so you don’t get confused. I wouldn’t want you to get confused.” (p. 36)
3….“Just to be clear.” (p. 288; also “I really should learn not to bait”)
4….“[J]ust to be contrary and because turning [people’s] bait is always fun.” (p. 285)
5….“Just wanted to let you know.” (p. 120)
6….“[J]ust wanted…the…pleasure of seeing you jump.” (p. 147)
7….“[T]his whole thing…was concocted just to get [people]back.” (p. 147)
8….“[J]ust to beat you.” (p. 182)
9….“[J]ust to be unpredictable.” (p. 216)
10…“Just so you know … I just said it to annoy.” (p. 68; also “she glared”)
11…“[J]ust to be contrary and because I was in a mood to glare back.” (pp. 217-218)
12…“[J]ust to taunt.” (p. 25; also “you need to *be sure of* where to *find your target*”)
13…“[J]ust to find out.” (p. 167)
14…“[J]ust to see who reacted.” (p. 295)

I was cackling like a crazy person by the time I hit #7, but I suspect the shot of Brustian Attitude may net me a mess of cold pricklies from oversensitive readers who’d rather believe I really am nuts (as if that matters). I’ve been wondering if the long form of #3 was intended as a side message to early-solving readers: “Just to be clear, if [you] figure out what [I’ve] done, and I don’t see how to prevent that, you might become a target.” I could offer an added link tying all 14 statements together. Probably boost my credibility with anyone who thinks I’m reading my own expectations into a collection of random statements. Definitely get me into even deeper crap elsewhere, though, by tearing the lid off a different can of worms. So, never mind.

Okay, maybe 25+ years of dealing with unimaginative nit-pickers who “just” don’t get his iconoclastic spin on continuity errors HAS made Brust a wee tad cranky on the subject. Who wouldn’t be? Don’t let his “Just”-ian How Now Hissy-Cow put you off the Continuity Is *Toast* game. He invested a lot of time and ingenuity in crafting its bazillion parts and pieces; reader and author both lose out if all that twisted creativity is left unexplored. Even the game’s most basic series trivia is not always as straightforward as it seems. (How many books does invented-for-Dzur “Adrilankha River” contradict? “Just” 1, it turns out: Taltos, with 2 “Sunset River” uses. But counting the books that give us some other version of “sun” instead of or along with “Furnace” is way trickier.) Plus, he’s taken a “Fractured Fairy Tales” approach to many of the game’s larger “errors,” as he also does with the entire Deleted Scenes collection for the separate, SM&S-related game installment—in every case, we vaguely recognize the story, but the details are all bent out of shape. (Flintway, pp. 144-145? See Lower Kieron Road: Yendi, map and pp. 28, 40, ignoring the added error of Vlad’s office relocation between Iorich p. 144 and p. 145, since the two street descriptions are our focus here; Teckla, pp. 56-57; Dzur, pp. 52-53, 218-219.) Then there are the ever-present jokes, beginning almost literally on page 1. (According to The Cycle as represented on p. 9, the defining characteristics for House Tiassa are “Catalyst & Inspiration.” But what defines the lives of the hapless Tiassa nobles in the Whitemill area on p. 18? Heh: Orca-controlled Canals & Irrigation.)

In fact, that’s the most important rule in the whole game: be ready to laugh at whatever you find. Especially if you got righteously punk’d by it on first reading.

Oh, I so underestimated exactly how big a toaster Brust was using. Refused to believe he’d go that far. Here I am, though, not yet halfway through my Iorich notes, and I’ve already got 4 or more between-books “oops”-es apiece for several titles. In fact, I’ve started rereading the whole book, picking up a bunch of items I was able to rationalize away on the first pass, because I’m finally forced to concede that we really are looking at a classic Brustian 9+3 DOZEN intentional errors.

I’m standing rock solid on an expected total of 3 dozen Phoenix-related cock-ups. I’m also still liking the 2-to-1 ratio of Iorich-only flubs to between-book slips for any of the ten remaining titles, but the gaming ground is a little shakier with those quotas pushed up to 18 and 9. Since Iorich can’t use any of the specifically multi-book-based oopses (like Adrilankha River, for example), my newest assumption is that the missing/surplus “a”s (and other dropped, added, or incorrectly substituted words) actually count toward the internal-to-Iorich error total instead of simply flagging the “real” game items.

Heh, Brustian payback, that’s what this game is. He’s being every bit as anal as his worst continuity critics over the years. (Don’t look at me; like I said above, I’m totally cool with giving a free pass to anything that might possibly have a logical explanation. I do draw the line, however, at flat-out defying either the basic rules of good storytelling or the established Brustian workarounds thereto.)

Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure we were all forewarned. Wasn’t it in a blog shout-out for any past-book information on House Iorich colors that Brust said something along the lines of “If I’m going to contradict myself, I want to know I’m doing it on purpose”? Then, in the prologue to Iorich itself, we have Vlad rationalizing away a piddly—and flamboyantly unlikely—detail in the jug-room scene: “a large knife, just lying there—almost certainly the knife the innkeeper used to cut fruit to put in wine punch, but that’s the sort of thing an assassin notices.” Off-season, frou-frou wine punch? In a “rural inn”? Nah. It’s all about professionals, putting to good use the tools of whatever trade they ply. Only, now I’m wondering, does Brust’s “punch” also deliver [“a”] hidden toast?

On account of—*hel*-lo: second game. Same book. Main story line this time. Not 100% SM&S-free, But I haven’t yet seen anything that would stop you from playing this one, even if you’ve never read SM&S and never hope to.

Best of all for the numerically-challenged among us—including me—I won’t be getting into any headbanging numbers-gaming talk here. Just a few general parameters to give everyone an idea of what we’re looking for.

I’m calling it the Continuity Is *Toast* game. I mean, Brust pointedly thanks Alexx Kayy for “continuity checking” in the front-end acknowledgments, then hands us a continuity-busting mess like this? Correction: NOT a mess—there are several fairly clear patterns to guide us along, if we pay sufficiently close attention. What we’ve got in Iorich is a whole pantload of subtly-patterned *intentional* “oops”-es.

Although I’m only about a third of the way into my detailed note-compiling for Iorich, I can already see enough to put high odds on finding a total of 6 (or possibly just 4) dozen “off”-to-varying-degrees references: a full 3 (or possibly just 1) dozen for Phoenix alone—that being, after all, our SM&S game-related match for Iorich—plus another 3 “off” references apiece for each of the other books in the Taltos series to date. Since Iorich is only the 12th book, this tally will leave us 3 refs short of our 3-dozen non-Phoenix quota. I can think of several strategies Brust might have used to fudge in the missing 3, and I’m trying to keep all options in play for now, but my gaming instinct says we’ll most likely find 6 “off” refs with both ends in Iorich, then 3 apiece for the remaining 10 non-Phoenix books.

That really isn’t as many as it may seem. Eric @ 53 has already found one of the bigger no-brainers. (And Brust actually confirmed the correction @ 54. That’s part of the no-brainer: it ALWAYS pays to be deeplysuspicious whenever The Author starts giving information away.) “I still have most of what I got for Laris” (Vlad, p. 128). A single sentence, and it yields 3 different continuity errors. Vlad shined Laris in Yendi, but didn’t get paid for it. Got a hefty purse in Jhereg, but that was for Mellar. And spent most of it to buy out Herth at the end of Teckla. Boom. Then we have items like “the Adrilankha River” (p. 20); a mere 3 words, and how many books does that contradict?

Of course, not all refs are quite so obvious. I’ve pinned down one that’s borderline evil. Brust does, however, give us a few helpful side-cues. For instance, I’ve spotted 3 distinct words or phrases that keep popping up in close proximity to continuity-busting statements. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a pattern of occurrence emerge there as well, but it isn’t clear to me yet, beyond my strong expectation that those same 3 cues will be used to mark the entire collection. Well, with 1 addition. Subtraction, really. Remember Mark Mandel @ 183 gently ribbing Brust about “having a fire sale on the letter ‘a’ ”? Turns out the joke is on Mr. Mandel, because there are way more MISSING “a”s throughout Iorich than there are surplus, and those little suckers *mean* something. They’re—what’s miaveiledlady’s phrase?—Brustian red flags.

I admit, 3 dozen refs for Phoenix does sound a tad high, even to me. I already know I can nail the 1st dozen, though. And my gaming instinct keeps insisting that 3 dozen makes a more Brustian pattern. A lot will depend on how I decide we’re supposed to deal with “multiples” like “princes” and “Council of Princes.” We know it should be “heirs” and “Council of Heirs,” but do we count each separately? What about every individual use? And do we base our final tally on the count in Iorich or in Phoenix? My current strategy is to work out the other 3 dozen first, then see what I can learn from the patterns there.

All other suggestions are welcome. As are corrections or refinements to my quota assumptions. I’m a long way from finished with this one.

But leave the Hungarian name joke-telling to me, m, okay? Just a gentle, BFF-like suggestion. Others may be less kind.

Also, heads-up to all, re miaveiledlady@200: “Zelazny reference citations have all been chapter-only.” Poor–uh, make that a BFF-ly correct “imprecise”–choice of words by m. The citations have been chapter-*generalized* as opposed to page-*specific*, but they aren’t chapter-*only*, especially here in Iorich. Remember, our Zelazny source is the entire combined 1st and 2nd Chronicles of Amber–10 different books to keep straight from reference to reference.

Ahh, more feedback. Bless you. As long as we’re not driving you “out of the pool,” around the bend, or up the walls to hang from the chandelier and gibber like…well, like one of us, I’m content with the thought that we’ll suck you in eventually.

Credit knob_e for some of the more interesting *Jhegaala* posts. That book takes more effort to penetrate than *Iorich*, what with the whole Fen-garian Name Game going on, but it’s well worth a second read for those who didn’t realize on the first run-through that the not-like-anything-else-in-Fenario Merchants Guild is in fact an unaccredited foreign branch of House Jhegaala, or that Brust squeezed a whole chapter on the history of Europe into a few carefully chosen names, or that he snuck so many jokes into a few others. (Or, heh, what really happened to Vlad’s pinkie.)

I’m always happy to get more readers into *SM&S* for any reason, although I’ll also always think the game is the best part of it.

Tiny *SM&S* Hungarian name joke–*probably* not entirely intentional, but I try never to assume too much where Brust is concerned. Just out of curiosity, I entered Greg’s last name, Kovacs, in an online translation database, and did a double-take when I not only got an answer, but it turned out to be “forger.” Took me a while to realize: not forger as in falsifier of art works, but forger as in one who uses a forge. His name is Greg Smith.

Well, *I* thought it was funny.

I wanted to say Thanks – you got me to re-read Jhegaala, and I appreciated it a lot more on the second reading. Also, you got me to finally buy a copy of SM&S, which I’ve avoided over the years due to Steve’s own description of it, but am now enjoying a great deal.

I’ve also been enjoying the numbers gaming conversation (although I am admittedly too lazy to join in).

But Thanks again!