[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by LuvReadin

Of course, but the issue here isn't about different languages, it's about the changes taking place over time within one language, and that, IMO, should be respected.

When the same word means two completely different things depending on the country you are in it is essentially a different language--for that word at least.

I disagree with your later comment that 'British English is another language' - American English is merely a subcategory of this one language, and to try to pretend, as Webster did, that there's a fundamental difference betweeen the two is to ignore the entire etymology of the language.

What I assume is that 350million potential American readers will get the wrong idea if I toss a faggot on the fire. Will my potential readers in England be completely baffled by me tossing a bundle of sticks on the fire?

I am a lover of language but I have no intention of writing something I know will transmit the wrong idea to the bulk of my potential readers just because I think other people should love the intricacies of language as much as I do.

If you consider this really would be a problem, then use footnotes, just as many publishers use for editions of classics such as Pride and Prejudice or Bleak House.

I did essentially that. I just offered the opt-in as the default option. I'll change the word to preserve the flow and if the readers of the young-adult fantasy novel want further information they have it. Keeping a word that breaks the spell and then further breaking the spell with a footnote in a kid's fantasy novel is not something I'm interested in doing. Readers can choose to go the original route by just reading the original novel.

I'm just completely staggered by this - you may think but changing the species and origin of a character is a minor change; I think it's enormous and completely unacceptable.

I didn't say it was a minor change. I said it was a major change to a minor detail. Saying "John saw a Ford Escort drive by," is a major change from "John saw a Chevy Malibu drive by." But it is a minor detail that does not affect the story.

If readers want to determine on their own whether my change majorly affected the original story then they have all the data there to make that determination. It's fully documented.

I've worked in publishing for over 20 years - I would never change an author's words without their permission; that's why proofs exist. Even a new author would never be ridden over roughshod by a publisher in this manner.

The quality of the work suffers then. If a sentence makes no sense to anyone that reads it, the writer is not there to confirm their intention, and you publish it as-is then you have just published an inferior product. The publisher correcting the mistake has created a product that is better than yours and better than the original. Why in the world should we perpetuate a mistake simply because it was already made?

No, because the author will have approved them. If the author is no longer around to do so, then it's quite simple - those changes should either not be made, or should be clearly marked and explained.

I agree that they should be clearly marked and explained. And I agree that making undocumented changes and passing the new work off as the original is unethical. I do not support either of those things.

In certain situations I support fully documented changes in books clearly marked as different editions.