Dangerously e-books: How do I know if my ebooks have been altered?

[susan_cassidy]

I think to get the flavor of the times, the wording should remain intact. If people can't take into account the time in which the book was written, and internalize the societal differences, they have no business reading in the first place. They are too stupid to be reading anything but the back of a cereal box.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

While I think censorship is wrong overall, I think discriminatory perjorative terms should in many cases be expunged. Not advocating this as they are often used to illustrate the true character of the bad guy in many books. Still I often find it disturbing.

I am not talking Huck Finn here, which does use the word as a noun? without a discriminatory or hate context IIRC and probably the Haggard series is the same.

Books are a product of their time. When I was growing up in England in the 1960s, the word "nigger" was an everyday, descriptive, non-perjorative word. Eg, consider Agatha Christie's book "Ten Little Niggers" - she was making use of an everyday British expression, not being a racist. The book continued to be published under that title in its British edition under the mid 1990s, at which time it first changed to "Ten Little Indians", and then to the US title of "And Then There Were None". Look on Amazon UK and you'll still find lots of copies of the book available under its original title.

We shouldn't censor books simply because language and cultural values change; simply accept the fact that they have changed.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by EbookNovice

But most of the e-books I'm reading are free and are only self-published on a very small level.



Right, I thought this too.



But most of the e-books I'm reading are free and are only self-published on a very small level.



Thanks, but that's only applicable for a book that's well known. What if the e-book I'm reading is from a self-published author? Even if it's a more popular e-book, it just seems so much easier to make changes without people knowing about it compared to a hard cover book.

As HarryT pointed out any book can be changed. Mostly it is non harmful overall (IMO only), just a language, terminology change, with maybe a correction thrown in. And abridged editions have been around for a long time. I was most upset when I found out that the Readers Digest books my grandmother subscribed to were digested (shortened considerably) Should have known that 6-12 books will not fit in 500 pages, but I was only 12 at the time

The best source of free books is a public library, although this does not guaranty complete integrity as to it being the very first published edition.

And with fiction how much harm is done as long as you enjoy the book or even if you don't. Not like it is a cookbook with all of the salt increased in the recipes so you can't eat them after slaving away in the kitchen or a self help book promoting dangerous alternative therapies.

Thanks for posting your reactions. I was just wondering yesterday if you were reading the replies and there you were replying

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Books are a product of their time. When I was growing up in England in the 1960s, the word "nigger" was an everyday, descriptive, non-perjorative word (eg consider Agatha Christie's book "Ten Little Niggers" - she was making use of an everyday British expression, not being a racist).

We shouldn't censor books simple because language and cultural values change; simply accept the fact that they have changed.

Then it was changed to ten little Indians which is now offensive to many. Next it could very well be Ten little Ethnic individuals which is hardly a catchy title. I don't think the Nancy Drew books were racist either but they have been changed.

I grew up in a small city with no blacks, and no aboriginals (Indians) and nigger was not considered a perjorative term anymore than Indian was, merely descriptive. But racial prejudice abounded. The population of the province was about 70% white with 30% aboriginal and, but not one of them lived in the capital city to the best of my knowledge. Probably a lot different in England way back when and perhaps even to this day?

Changing these words in books where they were innocently used is possibly a strictly commercial one in that the publisher feels they will sell better. Kind of like whitewashing your fence whether it needs it or not just in case.

Helen

[DiapDealer]

I take no issue with someone releasing a new, more culturally-appropriate version of a text in order to avoid alienating potential readers, but I cringe at the idea of "changing these words." There should be no attempt to expunge a historical account of the way people behaved and/or spoke simply because time and tide has altered the way that type of language might be perceived. History was. We should be able to read about it in the language of those who lived it and wrote about it, if we so choose.

So by all means; add more available editions, but don't replace any.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I take no issue with someone releasing a new, more culturally-appropriate version of a text in order to avoid alienating potential readers, but I cringe at the idea of "changing these words." There should be no attempt to expunge a historical account of the way people behaved and/or spoke simply because time and tide has altered the way that type of language might be perceived. History was. We should be able to read about it in the language of those who lived it and wrote about it, if we so choose.

So by all means; add more available editions, but don't replace any.

There is also a big problem with changing things. If you read an old book you will not have learned about how the language was used then since most books have been changed so you will mis-interpret things.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Then it was changed to ten little Indians which is now offensive to many. Next it could very well be Ten little Ethnic individuals which is hardly a catchy title.

The British publisher now uses the title the book always had in the US: "And Then There Were None".

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The British publisher now uses the title the book always had in the US: "And Then There Were None".

Ahh. Interesting little article on the song/rhyme.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...little-indians

I fear I have gone a tad off topic so I shall cease and desist.

Helen

[AlexBell]

Full disclosure:

I recently uploaded The Queen of Hearts (a collection of novels written in the 1850s) by Wilkie Collins to the MR library. As well as changing 'gayety' to 'gaiety' and 'gayly' to 'gaily' I also changed 'gay' to 'light-hearted'. I did this because the English language has changed in the last 150 odd years. In our day 'a gay man' would almost certainly be read as 'a homosexual man,' and this is simply not what Collins meant - he would have used a different term if he had dared to mention a character's sexual orientation at all. I did add a note to the posting that I had updated spelling and hyphenation - I also changed 'to-day' to 'today' for example.

How does that grab you?

Just in case it's necessary: I make no judgement of any kind on anyone for his or her sexual orientation. It's none of my damn business.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Full disclosure:

I recently uploaded The Queen of Hearts (a collection of novels written in the 1850s) by Wilkie Collins to the MR library. As well as changing 'gayety' to 'gaiety' and 'gayly' to 'gaily' I also changed 'gay' to 'light-hearted'. I did this because the English language has changed in the last 150 odd years. In our day 'a gay man' would almost certainly be read as 'a homosexual man,' and this is simply not what Collins meant - he would have used a different term if he had dared to mention a character's sexual orientation at all. I did add a note to the posting that I had updated spelling and hyphenation - I also changed 'to-day' to 'today' for example.

How does that grab you?

I think that it's a horrible violation of the author's work and a disservice to readers. How is it up to you to decide what Collins meant? Yes, the language has changed, but Collins had plenty of words to choose from when he wrote what he wrote--including "light-hearted"--and he rejected them in favor of "gay." But you just overrode his choice.

I don't know what the context was, but if it wasn't clear enough how Collins was using the word, and you felt an overpowering need to explain, why not simply add an annotation of some sort when the word appeared?

As far as changing spelling, why? Is there any chance of confusion? How could a reader not get that "to-day" means "today"?

This is a perfect example of how people decide on their own to "improve" a book. You say "light-hearted," another uploader might decide "gay" means "happy," and another might decide to change it to "carefree," etc.

Why not change "gayly" to "light-heartedly" rather than simply changing the spelling? Mightn't some poor benighted reader think "gayly" also referred to sexual orientation, even if you spell it "gaily"?

I think it's outrageous.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Full disclosure:

I recently uploaded The Queen of Hearts (a collection of novels written in the 1850s) by Wilkie Collins to the MR library. As well as changing 'gayety' to 'gaiety' and 'gayly' to 'gaily' I also changed 'gay' to 'light-hearted'. I did this because the English language has changed in the last 150 odd years. In our day 'a gay man' would almost certainly be read as 'a homosexual man,' and this is simply not what Collins meant - he would have used a different term if he had dared to mention a character's sexual orientation at all. I did add a note to the posting that I had updated spelling and hyphenation - I also changed 'to-day' to 'today' for example.

How does that grab you?

Just in case it's necessary: I make no judgement of any kind on anyone for his or her sexual orientation. It's none of my damn business.

I would not read such a version. I would also be very annoyed if these changes is not declared in a very visible way in the book so that I do not read it without knowing about them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Full disclosure:

I recently uploaded The Queen of Hearts (a collection of novels written in the 1850s) by Wilkie Collins to the MR library. As well as changing 'gayety' to 'gaiety' and 'gayly' to 'gaily' I also changed 'gay' to 'light-hearted'. I did this because the English language has changed in the last 150 odd years. In our day 'a gay man' would almost certainly be read as 'a homosexual man,' and this is simply not what Collins meant - he would have used a different term if he had dared to mention a character's sexual orientation at all. I did add a note to the posting that I had updated spelling and hyphenation - I also changed 'to-day' to 'today' for example.

How does that grab you?

Not at all favourably, I'm afraid. I want to read what the author originally wrote, not what a later "editor" has changed at a whim. Sorry, Alex - your library upload is appreciated, but speaking personally I'm not at all in favour of this type of arbitrary editing.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Full disclosure:

I recently uploaded The Queen of Hearts (a collection of novels written in the 1850s) by Wilkie Collins to the MR library. As well as changing 'gayety' to 'gaiety' and 'gayly' to 'gaily' I also changed 'gay' to 'light-hearted'. I did this because the English language has changed in the last 150 odd years. In our day 'a gay man' would almost certainly be read as 'a homosexual man,' and this is simply not what Collins meant - he would have used a different term if he had dared to mention a character's sexual orientation at all. I did add a note to the posting that I had updated spelling and hyphenation - I also changed 'to-day' to 'today' for example.

How does that grab you?

As long as you make it abundantly clear that this is a new, modern adaptation of Collins' collection--and not his original work--I take no issue. I wouldn't want to read it or anything, but as long as you don't try to pass it off as the original, I remain unaffected by your interpretation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

As long as you make it abundantly clear that this is a new, modern adaptation of Collins' collection--and not his original work--I take no issue. I wouldn't want to read it or anything, but as long as you don't try to pass it off as the original, I remain unaffected by your interpretation.

It's extremely important in this case that a note to that effect is added inside the book, because uploads made to MR inevitably get copied elsewhere (I find copies of my uploads all over the place).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's extremely important in this case that a note to that effect is added inside the book, because uploads made to MR inevitably get copied elsewhere (I find copies of my uploads all over the place).

Completely agree.