[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

I support Harry Potter being translated into Hindi. Shouldn't people that speak different languages be allowed to read the books as well?

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.

Originally Posted by Muckraker

=It's not that "jumpers" and "fags" could confuse people, they will confuse people--lots of people--and if we are going to ignore that fact to preserve the sanctity of the text then we shouldn't bother translating anything in the first place.

I'm afraid I have very little sympathy with this view. Europeans are deluged with US-made books and TV dramas, and we don't insist on those being translated for our market. Americans are no less intelligent, but unfortunately, their own publishers and TV moguls seem to enjoy perpetuating the myth that they are. 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.

Originally Posted by Muckraker

We are not talking about the evolution of technology. We're talking about old words having modern meanings that are confusing or distracting. Imagine you are reading the ultimate tear-jerker paragraph about a man lamenting the death of his five-year-old son and the last line of the paragraph says "and he was so gay." Now imagine reading that out loud to a group.

How important is that word? Important enough to nullify an otherwise powerful paragraph? Would the long-dead author and his descendents prefer we throw his work in the trash and forget his name because he chose to use one of those rare words that has a completely different meaning today and now causes people to laugh, be confused, or at best it just breaks the spell with a distracting hiccup?

Sounds to me like an opportunity than any decent teacher should welcome to discuss the changes that occur in language and attitudes. 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.

Originally Posted by Muckraker

I didn't want to remove illustrations so I instead tried to move them to a different context. This is a bit different than what we've been talking about with words like "faggot" in that I did change the intended meaning. Instead of black human slaves that could have been dropped into the US and fit right in picking cotton, I made them humanoid slaves made of black stone.

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.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I
It's an editor's job to maximise the commercial potential of a book, not to regard a writer's words as "holy writ that must not be changed". Pretty much every book needs editing before publishing, and if it stays in print for decades, it may well need re-editing to account for societal changes. That's not "horrifying"; it's the editor's job.

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.

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is what editors do, DD; it's their job. They use their professional judgement to decide what changes to make to a book to make it more commercially saleable. They don't as a rule, include in the book a detailed list of precisely what changes they've 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.