You know something I thought of recently when reading the most recent Q&A by Christopher Poalini? How some authors can really think of everything and make minimal contradictions (i.e in the IC) and others (like EC) just go on changing things as they go, and how I really don't care about it. As long as they're minimal little things, such as grammer and a few small contradictions it really doesn't change how much you enjoy the book itself.
But I guess it's also nice when you can over-anaylze everything an author says becuase you know it's going to have some sort of importance.
Good call there, I agree. (: Unlike JK Rowling, I don't think Eoin Colfer had the AF series in its entirety planned when he was working on book 1. I know in my own experience writing that I find that pretty limiting when I start getting later on in the story and I start getting better ideas than what I had at first, but I think Colfer's work is pretty amazingly consistent in that respect, such as in the continuous buildup of various themes. And sometimes there will be something in the book that I thought was an error, but then come to realize it actually does make sense if I work to understand it.
I think it's great that we like this series so much that we're analyzing it to this extent; although glitches are problematic for fanfiction writers... When your getting into a description, do you go with an earlier detail or a later one?
Anyway, btw, this is a typo I found in TTP (american edition, I think, pg 143):
Holly smiled, feeling a little embarrassed "Artemis. You're okay. [...]"
Punctuation mark is missing after 'embarrassed.'