[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by LuvReadin

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.

Or they can skip over it or become confused or form an incorrect definition they will carry with them. All readers are different.

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!

I agree. I often include extensive supplementary material in what I publish. But we don't know the author would have supported that--like with T.S. Eliot.

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.

This is no different. The original text is available on its own in old editions and is also included in its entirety in the tinkered-with edition. It's made very clear that racially insensitive material was changed and that mine is a different edition.

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?

I believe I can identify when a word no longer means what it meant at the time the original author chose it. In a case like that we know the author did not intend its current meaning because its current meaning did not exist.

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?

I also have no way of knowing if the writers would have wanted to be republished in the first place. Perhaps they didn't like the attention. Perhaps they became embarrassed by what they wrote. When we republish public domain content we assume all sorts of things. One of the assumptions I choose to make is that professional writers would not use words that no longer express the ideas they want to communicate. Another assumption is that a writer would prefer I fix a clear error instead of perpetuating it.

I have another example for you to consider. There was a printing error in the first edition of a book I published. Two of the drawings had big white bars through the middle of them--wiping out 1/3rd of each image. Every printing of the book since then has retained that error. Every available copy of that book contained those errors. That is until I republished it. I drew in what I thought was probably intended for those missing sections. I tossed the original images in an appendix so people could compare the two. I clearly indicated that I had modified the images and that if anyone knew of a copy of the book that had the original images intact I would appreciate they contact me so I could update my book.

Is what I did wrong? Should I have left the errors alone and accepted the fact that readers would be disappointed and confused by a clear mistake in their brand new book?

I take great pride in my work and I give all my attention to works and/or writers that have otherwise been written off by the world. The only people who could give me permission to do anything I do are dead. If it is arrogant to keep their legacies alive, republish their work, bring new life to it through supplementary content, and attempt to make the work accessible to modern readers when warranted then I am guilty as charged.

The readers are the ones who will decide if I am qualified to do what I do, just as Thompson's readers decided if she was qualified to write about things that Baum created. If I'm not qualified and my work is bunk then the people who read it will publicly rip me to shreds and potential readers will steer clear and choose 1938 copies instead. I would prefer to think I'm qualified and accept my fate then not do the work in the first place out of fear I'm unqualified. And I would like to think the dead writers I republish are happy I'm giving their overlooked and under-appreciated work some love.