Dangerously e-books: How do I know if my ebooks have been altered?

[mrmikel]

If one is really concerned, then one should not use anything but scanned pdfs. It is possible to tinker, but not so easily.

The problem, as I see it, is taking any one book for the revealed truth. If you read enough on any subject, you will see what the major ideas or points of view are. If you read reviews of the work you are concerned about, they certainly would comment on how it differs from the author's previous point of view and offer suggestions why.

There are even multiple translations of the Bible. It is highly unlikely they will all be tinkered with.

[QuantumIguana]

If books posted on sites like Project Gutenberg were commonly altered, publishers would be pointing to such alterations in order to persuade people to buy public domain books from them instead of downloading the free version. Since we don't see this, either it's not a common phenomenon, or no one has noticed. It's possible that someone could maliciously upload an altered book, but either it's a popular book, and someone would notice, or it is an unpopular book and no one is reading it in the first place. It seems like a lot of bother to upload an altered book that no one is going to read anyway. There are scan errors in some PG books, if someone is concerned about avoiding malicious edits or scan errors, they can always buy a copy. A publisher would lose sales if they had a lot of errors, and malicious alterations could put them out of business. Pay or download the free version, it's your choice.

With works under copyright, the copyright holder can release an altered version and stop selling the original version. This is true whether the book is paper or e-ink. It's true that you can point to the paper version, but that doesn't do much if the only version on sale is the altered version. We don't have to like it, but there's not much we could do about it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It absolutely does. Unfortunately, it does not support your conclusion, that this is a problem.

As has been said before, if you just buy/download any random old e/book without actually checking it's validity.... well...
And, you can STILL do the same with pbooks, you know.

You kind of deserve anything you have coming to you as a result of this, if you are in the habit of accepting anything put in front of you on blind faith.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is the general "you" "people in general", not an accusation against anyone in particular.

So exactly how do you check its validity?

[hildea]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I recently uploaded The Queen of Hearts (a collection of novels written in the 1850s) by Wilkie Collins to the MR library. As well as changing 'gayety' to 'gaiety' and 'gayly' to 'gaily' I also changed 'gay' to 'light-hearted'. I did this because the English language has changed in the last 150 odd years. In our day 'a gay man' would almost certainly be read as 'a homosexual man,' and this is simply not what Collins meant - he would have used a different term if he had dared to mention a character's sexual orientation at all. I did add a note to the posting that I had updated spelling and hyphenation - I also changed 'to-day' to 'today' for example.

How does that grab you?

I think modernising spelling and selected vocabulary like you describe is fine. Sure, I can understand the old-fashioned spelling, but your changes make it easier to read. (I read some of Austen's unpublished works some time ago -- she consistently spelled "friend" as "freind". I was taken out of the story all the time, and it made me associate the narrator with constable Carrot in Ank-Morpork.)

You mentioned the changes in a preface to the book itself, that's also good. It would have been even better if you had gone a bit more into detail on changes in vocabulary, so that's my wish for your future contributions. It's interesting to see examples of how vocabulary changes. ("Making love" is something very different in 1930s Popeye than it is today.) (By the way, thanks for the preface! I really appreciate you taking the time to write a bit about who the author was.)

I read fiction for entertainment, and removing small linguistic stumbling stones helps that purpose. It'll also make old books more accessible to more people - people who read less easily, have less patience, and/or don't have English as their first lanugage. If I want to read Wilkie Collins to study the language of his time, I'd better check original editions anyway.

...and now I'm off to read "Queen of Hearts. Have you read Sarah Rees Brennan's parody of "The Woman in White"? Hilarious, and it made me discover Collins.

[doubleshuffle]

Hadn't looked in this thread for a few days because I didn't expect anything new to happen, and now this: an MR uploader quietly modernizes the vocabulary of a 19th century author. I really hadn't expected that, and of course it is not okay at all.

Of course it is any editor's prerogative to edit away to their heart's content, but they have to inform their readers of the fact. I can deal with modernized spelling - I wouldn't do it myself, but it's common practice and doesn't seriously change meaning (in most cases); but changing actual words is a whole different kettle of fish. As I said, any editor is entitled to change every single word of a text that is in the public domain - but they really really must inform potential readers of the fact - and of every single word that has been changed.

Unless, of course, you think the English of the 19th century is so far removed from its 21st century version that it needs translating; then you wouldn't have to inform about every single change but would have to put on the cover "translated from the Victorian English by AlexBell." Not sure if that would have me running for the hills or perversely interested, but at least I'd know what I was letting myself in for if I should decide to give it a try.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Unless, of course, you think the English of the 19th century is so far removed from its 21st century version that it needs translating; then you wouldn't have to inform about every single change but would have to put on the cover "translated from the Victorian English by AlexBell." Not sure if that would have me running for the hills or perversely interested, but at least I'd know what I was letting myself in for if I should decide to give it a try.

All of this.

Plus, "light-hearted" isn't even necessarily a good translation of 19th-century "gay". It's more of a sort of combination of "high-spirited/vivacious" and "showily/fashionably-dressed" and "likes to make merry/party". There were also connotations of "lewd/immoral" well and truly present by the 19th century, depending on context. So changing that all to a rather sanitised and vapid "light-hearted" really doesn't work, in my opinion.

[John F]

Now I'm worried.

I don't have a problem with changes, as long as there is a relatively clear indication it has been changed.

I hate to say it, but I'm going to remove MR as my source for classics. The one exception will be books by HarryT. I'm sure there are a lot of great, "true" contributions to MR, but I'd just assume gamble somewhere else.

[AlexBell]

It looks as though I need to stop and think, doesn't it. Let's see if there's any possibility of finding some common ground.

When I go to the opera and when I read a book I like to sink into the music and action on the one hand, and the text on the other, and be entranced. I do not like to be jarred out of that that state by something that breaks the spell. For example, I walked out of a production of Tosca some years ago because the stage director had Scarpia do a simulated sexual assault on Tosca in the scene where she kills him. The threat of violence is certainly heard in the music, but the actual violence was not in the libretto or in the opera that Verdi saw.

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.

Some of this is because I also do proof reading from time to time. In one of grannyGrump's excellent ebooks Mark Twain (to the best of my memory) described how he and his mule train walked up a canon. This was in the original text. I hope you would agree that it was perfectly appropriate to change Mark Twain's word to canyon, which was what he obviously meant. There was no possibility whatever of making any sense of canon in the original text, and I think it does Mark Twain no honour to leave the word unchanged.

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?

We could also go on for a while about whether it is appropriate to ask a 21st century reader to plow through the amount of hyphenation that Wilkie Collins used in the 19th century; but I'll leave that for another time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

In one of grannyGrump's excellent ebooks Mark Twain (to the best of my memory) described how he and his mule train walked up a canon. This was in the original text. I hope you would agree that it was perfectly appropriate to change Mark Twain's word to canyon, which was what he obviously meant. There was no possibility whatever of making any sense of canon in the original text, and I think it does Mark Twain no honour to leave the word unchanged.

Actually, Alex, there's a much simpler explanation. The word "canyon" comes from the Spanish word "cañon", and in 19th century books - especially American books - it's far more common to see the original Spanish spelling than the English variant. It seems pretty clear that what happened in the case of the book that you're referring to is that the tilde accent had been lost (most early PG books didn't have any accents at all). Personally I would have restored the accent, not changed the spelling.

This is an example of why it's important to have done extensive reading within the canon of literature (pun intended ) which one is proof-reading, to allow one to recognise this kind of thing when one comes across it.

Of course editors can - and do - make this type of editorial decision, but my personal preference is to see the original spelling and punctuation.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually, Alex, there's a much simpler explanation. The original English spelling of the word was "cañon" (from Spanish). It's far, far more likely that the source text had lost its tilde accent than lost a "y", especially when one considers that the spelling variant with a "y" didn't enter common usage until the 20th century. Personally I would have restored the accent, not changed the spelling.

Of course editors can - and do - make this type of editorial decision, but my personal preference is to see the original spelling and punctuation.

Thanks, Harry. But if you add the tilde you've changed the spelling. The tilde is an integral part of the word - it obviously changes the meaning.

[John F]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

It looks as though I need to stop and think, doesn't it. Let's see if there's any possibility of finding some common ground.

When I go to the opera and when I read a book I like to sink into the music and action on the one hand, and the text on the other, and be entranced. I do not like to be jarred out of that that state by something that breaks the spell. For example, I walked out of a production of Tosca some years ago because the stage director had Scarpia do a simulated sexual assault on Tosca in the scene where she kills him. The threat of violence is certainly heard in the music, but the actual violence was not in the libretto or in the opera that Verdi saw.

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.

Some of this is because I also do proof reading from time to time. In one of grannyGrump's excellent ebooks Mark Twain (to the best of my memory) described how he and his mule train walked up a canon. This was in the original text. I hope you would agree that it was perfectly appropriate to change Mark Twain's word to canyon, which was what he obviously meant. There was no possibility whatever of making any sense of canon in the original text, and I think it does Mark Twain no honour to leave the word unchanged.

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?

We could also go on for a while about whether it is appropriate to ask a 21st century reader to plow through the amount of hyphenation that Wilkie Collins used in the 19th century; but I'll leave that for another time.

I see it as a slippery slope, and your doing cart wheels down the slope.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Thanks, Harry. But if you add the tilde you've changed the spelling. The tilde is an integral part of the word - it obviously changes the meaning.

You're right, of course. Just saying that I would have personally made the editorial decision to restore the original spelling, not switch to a spelling variant that Twain himself would almost certainly not have chosen to use.

[cadele]

I prefer non-tinkered-with versions, personally. I could probably put up with corrected spelling but wouldn't be happy with completely changed words.

I am currently scanning and (painfully) proofing some favourite old books that aren't available as digital copies. I am leaving the endless hyphens and what is now rather old-fashioned punctuation, as they are of the era and that is fine by me.

An example of "modernisation" that I find truly appalling is the changing of the language in Enid Blyton's Famous Five books to make them ostensibly easier to understand and more politically correct.

When I first read those books as a young child, many years after they were first published, I read the original editions without any trouble at all (and without the benefit of Google, gasp). A large part of their charm was destroyed by modernisation. A sacrilege in my opinion.

[Billi]

First of all, AlexBell, thank you very much for all your uploads here. I have the impression that this is a little bit forgotten with all the harsh remarks in the last pages of this thread.

And please all you critics what so terrible has happened? We have now two versions of "The Queen of Hearts" here, one by Patricia with the original spelling, one by AlexBell with a slight modernisation. Is this really so bad?

One general problem with digital books of the classics is that they seldom contain an imprint which has the information about the print version they used as a master. That would be the right place too to inform about all the modifications.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Billi

And please all you critics what so terrible has happened? We have now two versions of "The Queen of Hearts" here, one by Patricia with the original spelling, one by AlexBell with a slight modernisation. Is this really so bad?

Nothing terrible HAS happened. The note AlexBell put in his edition is simply not indicative of all the changes that were made. That's all. It's insufficient.

Make it crystal clear what you're changing and everyone will be able to make their own decisions about reading or avoiding. Simple. Everyone's happy (or at least informed).