Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBell
That's an extreme example of course, but I think the same thing applies in books; I get jarred out of my involvement in the book by words which just don't fit - like gayety, when I'm expecting gaity.
Similarly in Little Novels by Wilkie Collins which I'm working on now there is a story in which one of the protagonists is falsely accused of stealing a diamond bracelet from the wife of a rich nobleman. She had sold it to cover her debts without telling her husband. The original text describes the protagonist as 'the man who had innocently bought the jewel of her agent'. In the nineteenth century it might have been quite clear to readers that the man had bought the jewel off (or from) her agent, but I think that in the 21st century the reader would have to stop and think firstly whether it was the Lady's jewel or the agent's jewel, and secondly who the protagonist had bought the jewel from. It is this having to stop and think which I want to avoid; I think spoils one's enjoyment of the story. Is it really so disgraceful to change Wilkie Collins' word from of to off?
|
I never get "taken out of the story" by antique spelling variations, word usages, etc. If I'm "in" the story, I am in that time period, and understand perfectly what the meaning(s) are.
I definitely prefer to see the original spelling and word usage, untouched by an "editor".