The Ethics of Typesetting

[Rand Brittain]

I've been making some ebooks out of very old, crumbling, and out-of-print paperbacks, and doing my best to make them as high-quality as possible, which has led me to an ethical/best practices question. How much editing of the text is advisable when you see something that appears to be an error? I've found several old books that don't seem to have as many commas as I think they should, and while some of this is stylistic I think some of it must be in error. I've also run into sentences that can't be right like "save a thousand a year in tax each year" and had to decide what to do with them. Then there's purely aesthetic changes, like taking letters that were previously simple paragraphs and expanding them to fully-formatted letters with headings.

With the authors permanently unavailable, how much leeway should an editor allow himself? (There's probably a professional standard but as an amateur pleasing himself I can't say that I know what it is.)

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Rand Brittain

(There's probably a professional standard but as an amateur pleasing himself I can't say that I know what it is.)

That's an important point: do you edit these books to publish them or just for yourself? If you're just "an amateur pleasing yourself" then please yourself and edit it in a way that you have the most pleasure reading these books.

To give a more general advise: be consistent. If you think there are too few commas then you may set them but set them in all cases they should be there. And decide if you want to be consistent to today's spelling or to the spelling of the time the book has been published first. Both is possible and is done.

I personally would correct any obvious typos because if the reader finds these typos he will blame you/today's editor and not the publisher of the first edition from long time ago.

And from a legal point of view: if these works are in the Public Domain you can do anything with them. It's more a moral/scientific obligation to honour the ancient authors and keep to the original.

[Rob Lister]

That is a very heady question. Very slippery slopes. It is one of the first things I learned upon volunteering for Distributed Proofreaders is DON'T CHANGE the original text...unless...

Unless...

Nobody agrees 100% on 'unless'.

Teh quick brown fox jumped over...

Their solution is that if you feel you absolutely must make a change...

TRANSCRIPTION NOTES:
pg 101: changed Teh/The quick brown fox. Typo

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

That is a very heady question. Very slippery slopes. It is one of the first things I learned upon volunteering for Distributed Proofreaders is DON'T CHANGE the original text...unless...

I agree. It's quite easy to get carried away with making what you may think are innocuous changes. Especially this:

I've found several old books that don't seem to have as many commas as I think they should,

I avoid "fixing" things like this at all costs. If only because I'll never get the ebook "done" otherwise. It's far too easy for me to go from format-shifting to re-writing otherwise. And I don't consider myself qualified/entitled to do the latter... no matter how often I delude myself into thinking I might be.

[Elfwreck]

I fix obvious typos on the assumption that the original author/proofreader would've wanted them fixed. Missing commas are more troublesome--those are a matter of grammar style shifts over time. If you're trying to recreate the original, leave them as-is; if you're republishing, fix them to current standards. (I fix typos even when I'm re-creating the original unless there's a specific reason to keep them, like fanfic zine archives that want to know what kinds of errors were common before spellcheck existed.)

For a historical archive, keep the scans. Run them through auto-OCR so they're at least somewhat searchable, and put those version away. You can do this in whatever format you prefer. I use searchable PDF & add bookmarks by chapter, and tag them as archive copies. Other options would include tifs and a csv load file that includes the OCR text and whatever metadata you cared to collect (begdoc & enddoc by chapter?), but how that would work depends on what program is reading them. Searchable PDF is simple. It's a pain to convert to other formats later--but it's almost certain it will be convertible with effort, and maybe later we'll find better formats for archiving.

[apbschmitz]

First, as noted above, there's the question of what you intend to do with these texts. Are you converting them for your own pleasure, or appropriating them for resale? If the latter, you've got bigger moral issues ahead of you than whether you add a few commas or not.

On the narrow comma issue, it seems to me that you have to assume that the usage of punctuation was a decision that the author either made or accepted. The work is by the author, not by you. It doesn't seem to me that you have much right to be tinkering with it beyond obvious typos.

Of course, if this is only for your personal pleasure, you should add punctuation in whatever amounts make you happy.

[Muckraker]

The micro-publishing company I started focuses on republishing and adding value to public domain material that was originally copyrighted between 1923-1963 and is in real danger of being forgotten.

I add content all the time. Usually the content showcases some benefit of digital text, such as word-frequency reports with poetry books, but I've also added supplemental stories and essays to books. I also always make new covers.

I make changes to the original text when I feel it's appropriate. I base my decisions on the original material and the target audience. When I work with "literature" I will only correct obvious errors--ones that cannot be confused for stylistic usage.

But when I'm working with genre fiction I am more liberal in my decision-making. For instance, I have no problem changing archaic usage of the word "gay" in genre fiction. It doesn't mean what it used to and the writers I'm republishing would not choose the word if they were writing the same books today.

I also consider the audience. If I'm working on a fantasy book aimed at grade-schoolers then I'm much more concerned with grade-schoolers enjoying the book than a sixty-year-old purist reading it for nostalgia. If the purist wants to read the original text then they can track it down and read that. I republish genre fiction for the same audience it was originally published for--and that is not detail-oriented, literary purists.

That being said, I've only actually made these types of changes in a few of the many books I've published. I rewrote some racist stuff in a kid's fantasy book but I left a three-page-quote, where the speaker uses the "n" word about a dozen times, in another book because it was appropriate to the setting. I clearly noted in the sales material and blurbs that the fantasy book had been changed. I clearly noted in the editor's note on the other book that there was racially sensitive material and I justified why I left it alone and why I felt the book was still worth republishing. I always include all the text I've changed in its original form in the appendix.

When I started my company I did have the whole "previously published work is golden" mindset. I don't think like that now though. Those writers, editors, and publishers were people just like me. I have confidence in myself as a writer, publisher and editor and I clearly communicate my decisions to readers. If a reader really wants a sci-fi novel where the aliens wear "gay" clothes then they are more than welcome to not read the books I republish.

If you strongly feel something should be changed then change it, justify your choices, and toss the unchanged lines in an appendix. The original editors would make changes if they were editing these works today. If you think they wouldn't then you are basically saying they are incompetent, and if you don't make changes you can strongly justify then you are basically saying you are unqualified to edit or publish work in the first place.

As I said, though, this is coming from someone who primarily republishes obscure genre fiction. And I haven't changed text in 95% of the books I've republished. But when I do change text I know I'm making the correct decision. Some people may ask, "who are you to say?" Well, I'm me--a writer, editor, and publisher that is good at what he does.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

But when I'm working with genre fiction I am more liberal in my decision-making. For instance, I have no problem changing archaic usage of the word "gay" in genre fiction. It doesn't mean what it used to and the writers I'm republishing would not choose the word if they were writing the same books today.

Then I won't read your stuff. Because even if word meaning has drifted through the years, I want to read what the author actually wrote. I'm intelligent enough to know when a writer used "gay" to mean "homosexual" and when they intended "happy and carefree".

Half the fun of reading old books is the archaic wording.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

But when I'm working with genre fiction I am more liberal in my decision-making. For instance, I have no problem changing archaic usage of the word "gay" in genre fiction. It doesn't mean what it used to and the writers I'm republishing would not choose the word if they were writing the same books today.

I also consider the audience. If I'm working on a fantasy book aimed at grade-schoolers then I'm much more concerned with grade-schoolers enjoying the book than a sixty-year-old purist reading it for nostalgia. If the purist wants to read the original text then they can track it down and read that. I republish genre fiction for the same audience it was originally published for--and that is not detail-oriented, literary purists.

That being said, I've only actually made these types of changes in a few of the many books I've published. I rewrote some racist stuff in a kid's fantasy book but I left a three-page-quote, where the speaker uses the "n" word about a dozen times, in another book because it was appropriate to the setting. I clearly noted in the sales material and blurbs that the fantasy book had been changed. I clearly noted in the editor's note on the other book that there was racially sensitive material and I justified why I left it alone and why I felt the book was still worth republishing. I always include all the text I've changed in its original form in the appendix.

When I started my company I did have the whole "previously published work is golden" mindset. I don't think like that now though. Those writers, editors, and publishers were people just like me. I have confidence in myself as a writer, publisher and editor and I clearly communicate my decisions to readers. If a reader really wants a sci-fi novel where the aliens wear "gay" clothes then they are more than welcome to not read the books I republish.

If you strongly feel something should be changed then change it, justify your choices, and toss the unchanged lines in an appendix. The original editors would make changes if they were editing these works today. If you think they wouldn't then you are basically saying they are incompetent, and if you don't make changes you can strongly justify then you are basically saying you are unqualified to edit or publish work in the first place.

As I said, though, this is coming from someone who primarily republishes obscure genre fiction. And I haven't changed text in 95% of the books I've republished. But when I do change text I know I'm making the correct decision. Some people may ask, "who are you to say?" Well, I'm me--a writer, editor, and publisher that is good at what he does.

Have to agree with BeccaPrice about avoiding stuff micro-managed by over-picky editing that comes over as arrogant as well... would appreciate knowing name of micro-publishing company to ensure I avoid like the plague... I am quite capable of interpreting older fiction and non-PC styles for myself... do I want them screwed with - NO - if the material isn't good enough for the reader to bypass possibly inappropriate material without problems then I don't want to bother with it at all...

[ATDrake]

Quarantining gratuitous old-timey casual racial slurs to an appendix is one thing, but changing simply outdated but not otherwise derogatory language seems kind of like overkill. (Or just plain bowdlerization.)

Either way, if there are any changes made, I would like it to be noted in the product description and the front of the book, and preferably some kind of more detailed indication as to what is changed and why at some point, and perhaps a pointer to an "original" unchanged version somewhere (online text, scans, unexpurgated edition, whatever), which I appreciate is being done in the case described upthread.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

Quarantining gratuitous old-timey casual racial slurs to an appendix is one thing, but changing simply outdated but not otherwise derogatory language seems kind of like overkill. (Or just plain bowdlerization.)

Either way, if there are any changes made, I would like it to be noted in the product description and the front of the book, and preferably some kind of more detailed indication as to what is changed and why at some point, and perhaps a pointer to an "original" unchanged version somewhere (online text, scans, unexpurgated edition, whatever), which I appreciate is being done in the case described upthread.

I agree completely.

In addition, nothing should be done to hide or destroy information about when the work was originally published. This is particularly important as there changes in the language over time and you need to know when the work was created to know the meaning intended.

If any edits are deemed necessary, they need to be noted and credited. I want to see the editor's name so I know who to blame for any poor judgment. I you won't take personal credit for the changes you shouldn't make any.

[heeby]

Leave it alone. All of it. Not your work and you don't have permission from the author to edit theirs. What starts out as fixing typos turns into a new book.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Then I won't read your stuff.

I'm going to ditto that.

Originally Posted by ATDrake

Quarantining gratuitous old-timey casual racial slurs to an appendix is one thing,...

And also a bad thing.

[Rob Lister]

Consider the publishing process...

1. the author writes it.
2. the editor modifies it.
3. the copy-editor corrects it.
4. the typesetter sets it.
5. the presses print it.

Errors occur at each phase of the process. When I transcribe a meat-work into an electronic format, I take on the role of publisher. I'm going to find dozens if not hundreds of errors and inconsistencies; typos, misspellings, incorrect usage, missing words, misplaced punctuation, inconsistent natural hyphenation, end-of-line hyphenation, factual errors, orphaned footnotes, the list goes on and on and will drive you mad if you don't have a philosophy set in stone; at least soap stone if not granite.

Unlike the original publisher, I don't have the luxury of asking the author if he really meant to write that the civil war started in 1816 as opposed to 1861. What do I do with that factual error? Or is it just a typo? Did the typesetter have a liquid lunch?

Some might change it and include a transcription note.

Others might leave it as written and include a note, as if to say "I saw that too!"

A third type will leave it as is without a note, shrugging at those who might later criticize.

A diligent forth might research other editions of the work to see if it is 'corrected' in those editions, and then correct it, with a note, only if so.

I personally fall in the third and forth type category, depending on mood. I have no qualm with those that fall in the second. I have a bit of qualm with those that fall in the first. I did not even mention the zero-type, for that type is unworthy.

...

Now, about that other line that reads, "When the Civil War ended in 18 5"

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Half the fun of reading old books is the archaic wording.

Is this true of young readers or ESL readers? Is it fun to confuse them about word-meaning just to preserve an authorial intention that never existed?

Children aren't going to enjoy Trixie Belden more if she gaily kicks a faggot back in the fire (hypothetically). It's going to confuse them and upset the parents and probably result in the kids not being allowed to read the book in the first place.