Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckraker
I do too. So do many readers. But can you safely claim that the spell of the text--the suspension of disbelief--will remain unbroken when a young US reader encounters a "faggot tossed in the fire." Is it right to let new readers flounder when it is absolutely unnecessary? I know the intended meaning but a line like that is still a hiccup in even my enjoyment of the text.
|
Sorry, I just don't accept this argument at all. I think this is actually being quite insulting to the intelligence of the reader. If they're old enough to read Trixie Belden, they're old enough to use a dictionary, or even ask their parents. And TBH, I think that the fact that it's a hiccup for you is more down to you than the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckraker
If I was republishing Eliot would you approve of me adding footnotes with the translations of non-English lines? Because his intention was clearly to not provide such information. Is it wrong for me to make his work more accessible to readers of today even though accessibility was not his intention?
|
Possibly not, but footnotes are far less intrusive than rewriting a text, and actually, they can be quite informative. Even, dare I say it, interesting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckraker
And if that is the case, how can we justify the translation of any public domain material? We don't know that the author would have wanted an Arabic edition of his book. I think it's safer to assume a writer would want a word changed if its meaning drastically changes than assume a writer wants their work translated into a different language. Translation, after all, is not an exact science. It can significantly alter meaning
|
Sorry, that's a fallacious argument. Any translation makes it clear that it isn't the original, and the original is almost always available to read instead, should one wish to do so. The sort of tinkering you describe presents a text that purports to be the original (or at least very close to), without being any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckraker
My main point is that words are not as important as the ideas they represent
|
Exactly! And you're tinkering with those ideas. Writers spend hours, days, maybe months, choosing exactly the words that will convey the meaning they want to convey, and you believe that you can do better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckraker
Yes. Because I know the original writer and editor were good at what they did. And no competent writer or editor today, creating books for world readers, would purposely and knowingly use a word that didn't represent the idea they were trying to convey. I believe the dead writers were competent and would release updated editions themselves if they were alive today. The burden of proof is on those assuming they would let the confusion stand.
|
They might well do. That isn't for you to decide. Even were they do so, you have no way of knowing that they'd choose the same form of words you've decided upon. Don't you find your assumption that you can do as well as them even the tiniest bit arrogant?