Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaPrice
I guess my objection to the "updating" of archaic works is that there is no consent from the author possible. If an editor said to an author "this choice of words is problematic" the author has the choice to change it or not. Making these kinds of changes without permission of the author (or heirs) strikes me as hubris.
|
But do you consider translation of public domain material to be hubris? In translation there are more changes in meaning and challenging judgment calls than changing faggots into bundles of sticks.
The authors are long dead. The meaning of a particular word they used is long dead and now the word has a meaning that actually detracts from the quality of the text and decreases the reader's enjoyment. It's a problem we know the author would have fixed.
They can't consent to the change when they are dead but they also can't
request a change when they are dead. I'm an editor. I'm a writer. If I come across a problem I
know a fellow writer/editor would fix then I request the change on their behalf. I don't see how I can just ignore it when I
know the author would not ignore it.