Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I did read it, and found it aggravating. Not the letters, per se, which cound be wonderful, but the organization.
Ginny seemed determined to enshrine Bob as a plaster saint (which I think he'd be the first to protest he wasn't), so they were edited and excerpted to omit things that might have reflected unfavorably on him.
They were also arranged by general topic, with nio regard to chronological order or thread of conversation. I wanted to get two copies, and cut and paste them into a different order.
I'd love to see a real collection of his correspondence, but doubt I ever will.
______
Dennis
|
Organization is
always a big headache for printing letters. There is no perfect answer. James Branch Cabell's are organized by correspondent, then by time. Tolkien's were purely chronologically. Heinlein's were by topic, then time. Each way has strengths and weaknesses. Truthfully, letters would be best served by a e-book, with various ways of accessing the letters done with multiple TOC's and links. That way you could read on subject, or by correspondent, or by straight chronological flow. Your choice...(Might be a good way to set up large poetry collections, which have similar issues. Hmmm...)
As for editing. <Shrug.> I can't say what would be gained or lost by the complete letters. My opinion is that nothing was gained by the uncut versions of his books. As far as Heinlein being set up as a plaster saint, I smile and re-read Cabell's The Silver Stallion.