Adams, Henry: Democracy. v1. 14 June 07

[Anais9000]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My standard practice, when I'm reading, is to "bookmark" any page on which I notice a typo. Then when I've finished the book, I go back to the source and correct the errors.

Certainly commendable, but not to be confused with proofreading. For instance, there are about a hundred errors, give or take, in your Kidnapped, most of which can't be seen at a glance, but do change the texture of the book. They're not obvious because they're plausible substitutions, transpositions, omissions, etc. which won't be detected unless you're comparing against a proof copy. The first error is a great example: our first estimate of David Balfour is as "'a canny goer; and I doubt not he will come safe, and be well lived where he goes.'"

This comes across as a bit of a jibe at poor David, who we might assume deals sharply and aspires to be of the petite-bourgoisie. Unfair, since what Stevenson actually wrote leads us to expect that David has other qualities that will make him one of the most heartily "well liked" characters in fiction.

[HarryT]

Oh no, I fully accept that what I'm doing certainly doesn't count as proofreading - just fixing the glaringly obvious faults which I happen to notice. I'm a lousy proof-reader anyway, because I'm a "speed reader" (not by choice); ie when I read I take in an "image" of the whole page, rather than read it line by line, and just completely overlook errors such as the one that you've just pointed out.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

Certainly commendable, but not to be confused with proofreading. For instance, there are about a hundred errors, give or take, in your Kidnapped, most of which can't be seen at a glance, but do change the texture of the book. They're not obvious because they're plausible substitutions, transpositions, omissions, etc. which won't be detected unless you're comparing against a proof copy. The first error is a great example: our first estimate of David Balfour is as "'a canny goer; and I doubt not he will come safe, and be well lived where he goes.'"

This comes across as a bit of a jibe at poor David, who we might assume deals sharply and aspires to be of the petite-bourgoisie. Unfair, since what Stevenson actually wrote leads us to expect that David has other qualities that will make him one of the most heartily "well liked" characters in fiction.

He is a steady lad,' your father said, 'and a canny goer; and I doubt not he will come safe, and be well lived where he goes.'"

That is the full sentence as it appears in the copy Harry T uploaded here and it is correct. Have a look here and here for two different scans from two different editions and you'll see that it is the same. So where you came up with that as an error, I have no idea.

[Anais9000]

Mathematically, where <> represents inequality
k <> v
liked <> lived
well liked <> well lived
and be well liked <> and be well lived

The remainder of the proof is left as an exercise for the reader...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

Mathematically, where <> represents inequality
k <> v
liked <> lived
well liked <> well lived
and be well liked <> and be well lived

The remainder of the proof is left as an exercise for the reader...

And what does that have to do with your being incorrect?

[Anais9000]

Harry's version says "and be well lived where he goes."
Both of the two scans you provide links to, say: "and be well liked where he goes."

They can't all be correct.

They aren't all correct.

The scans are correct.

Harry's version is wrong. (As Harry cheerfully admits.)

The fact that Harry's version is wrong is the point I originally made, and which you dispute.

If this isn't sufficiently clear, I'll be happy to go over it again. (Well, not really happy.)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

Harry's version says "and be well lived where he goes."
Both of the two scans you provide links to, say: "and be well liked where he goes."

They can't all be correct.

They aren't all correct.

The scans are correct.

Harry's version is wrong. (As Harry cheerfully admits.)

The fact that Harry's version is wrong is the point I originally made, and which you dispute.

If this isn't sufficiently clear, I'll be happy to go over it again. (Well, not really happy.)

Yes, you are quite right. I do apologize. I missed it completely. I just looked at the front bit and not the back bit. I tried to find the source used for the OCR/Proofreading and it's no longer online. Oh well.

[HistoryWes]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is one solution. Fix all the things that look incorrect to what looks correct. Some can be fixed by a simple search/replace.

The problem with this is, where to stop. Do you go back and "fix" Shakespeare?

[joefox97]

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

The problem with this is, where to stop. Do you go back and "fix" Shakespeare?

Absolutely not -- and JSWolf is off-base for recommending that we "fix" the stylings of prior authors. When he writes something worthy of reading generations and millenia later, he can decide if he wants someone from a completely different time and age to re-write that great work.

Until then, lay off the idiocy and bashing on the things that make great works great -- their idiosyncracies are as much a part of them as their storyline.

Joe