I know we've had these threads before, but I read a book last night with a blatent logic flaw and it always just drives me crazy.  In the book, the woman had been widowed for 2 years and there were reference to things she and  her husband had done to the house, some items he had stored in the attic, him building a tree house with the son, other memories, etc. 

But yet an important premise of the book was that she and her son hadn't lived there long enough to meet anyone and form friends.

Sometimes I read really fast, so I thought maybe I skimmed too much and they were talking about another/previoius house.  But a key point was over some belongings (including a suitcase full of cash) that hubby had stored in the attic and she knew nothing about. So he definitely lived THERE with them.

Hello!, if your husband has been dead 2 years and you had times to build up some memories with him in that house, you've been there well over 2 years. That's not enough time to meet any neighbors, make friends???

I understand the writers get to the point they can't proof themselves.  But what the heck are the editors doing?

Yeah, Jo, logic often fails to make an appearance in our books, doesn't it?  Of course, just a little stray into the Current Events realm, logic doesn't seem to make many appearances in our real world these days, either, does it?

Just had a major logic fail in a recent book, too.  It was an audio book I picked up a couple weeks ago for a road trip.  An older book about lovers who broke up and are reunited years later.  He, of course, is rich, a CEO of a major corporation, in a major city.  She, is an owner of a small horse breeding operation, as in one trainer, one horse, in a rural area of another state.  Love reunited, he sets about moving his corporation, his entire operation, employees, headquarters, facilities, everything from its current location to be near her in her state.  Absolutely, makes sense to shut down an entire operation and move it and all your employees, and their families, all your resources and company assets from one state to another in the name of love and to save the proverbial one-horse operation.  Makes perfect sense to me - not. 

Always a bit of a awkward situation for an author, isn't it?  This two lovers meet, one lives far, far away, who has to make the move for them to make the leap into happily ever after? 

I read one a couple years back where a secondary character committed suicide and the older brother mentioned anguish of seeing his bother's lifeless body hanging. Except the older brother wasn't there when the body was discovered. He was in another town and told by phone, so he never saw the body.  (In the scheme of plot points, the brother's death was fairly minor, it wasn't the focus.)  Anyway I ended up emailing the author telling her how much I enjoyed the book and mentioning that one small logic flaw.  She was so sweet!  She emailed me back thanking me and explaining that she had re-written the ending several times and originally the brother did discover the body.  But then they changed it and later in the book when he mentions the reaction, she forgot.

It's absolutely understandable the authors would get to the point where they can't proof their own work. Too much of the story is in their head. But it just seems like editors should catch more.

Makes you wonder if the editor re-read the book in its entirety before sending it to press.  Obviously not!