The Ethics of Typesetting

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

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?

You could put a brief explanatory glossary in the front with a note that language changes, people used to use terms differently, and here's what they really meant when they said X instead of Y that we would say today.

It would be educational and added-value, IMHO.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

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?"

How about just using [sic] after the 1816 date? That is what I would do. This indicates to the reader that, Hey, it's a mistake, and the mistake was in the original, not introduced in the latest edition.

I would probably correct the most obvious simple spelling error--something like the aforementioned "Teh" for "The"--without adding [sic]. If a comma or other punctuation was absolutely needed for clarity, I would include it in brackets, to indicate that it was not part of the original.

I am horrified at the idea of anyone deciding to try to sanitize language to meet current standards of political correctness.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

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.

Then they should not read Trixie Belden. Either deal with the fact that language changes over time, or read only current books.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by elcreative

stuff micro-managed by over-picky editing that comes over as arrogant as well...

This is the mindset I'm talking about. I disagree that it is arrogant for a modern editor to identify and change a problem with a previously published work. Problems don't get a free pass simply because they made it through a publishing sieve sixty years ago. We're not talking about the founding fathers here--just people doing their jobs back then and people doing their jobs today.

I am quite capable of interpreting older fiction and non-PC styles for myself...

You do not represent the majority of pleasure readers though. Most up-and-coming readers have never heard the archaic usage of "gay" and "faggot." Coming across those terms will distract and confuse many readers, not entertain them.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

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?

OK, my family is probably strange: one of the games we played with my kids when they were little was reading the dictionary. And if they're not familiar with how a word is used, they look it up.

seriously, I do understand your point, but I still think it's wrong to re-write an old book to modern sensibilities. When does that stop being editorial discretion and start being a new creation?

I can see justifying an ebook with various editions (did he really mean 1816 or was it a typo for 1861?), but I also believe that preserving authorial intent is important.

[BeccaPrice]

Muckraker, do you then approve of the re-writing of Harry Potter for American v. British audiences? after all, calling a sweater a jumper might confuse the little dears, and we couldn't have that, could we?

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by dwig

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.

I absolutely agree. The rare changes I make are fully explained in the pre-purchase blurbs and documented in the appendix. My print editions note the corresponding page numbers while my eBooks link directly to it. Readers can then opt to read the original lines if they prefer.

Making changes and not communicating that the book has been altered is unethical.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

This is the mindset I'm talking about. I disagree that it is arrogant for a modern editor to identify and change a problem with a previously published work. Problems don't get a free pass simply because they made it through a publishing sieve sixty years ago. We're not talking about the founding fathers here--just people doing their jobs back then and people doing their jobs today.

You do not represent the majority of pleasure readers though. Most up-and-coming readers have never heard the archaic usage of "gay" and "faggot." Coming across those terms will distract and confuse many readers, not entertain them.

Well, let's see. If a character enters a phone booth and uses a pay phone, do you change that to the character using a cell phone, because phone booths are archaic and a modern reader might say, What's a phone booth? If a character plays a record on a Victrola, do you change it to an mp3 on an iPod? I mean, if you're going to take it upon yourself to modernize, where do you draw the line?

I think what you're doing is absolutely horrible. I would like to know what books you publish so I can avoid them like the plague.

[murraypaul]

I think there are two very different approaches in conflict here.

The first is the PG approach, which is about preserving an exact edition of a work. It is the formation of a museum of books, and each oddity should be preserved as an artifact of the original book. Whether people actually enjoy reading the books is of secondary concern.

The second is that there are some old books out there with good stories that people might still enjoy reading. The aim is entertainment, not preservation. If there are obvious changes that make the book more entertaining, without distorting the original meaning, why not make them?

Both approaches are equally valid, and you can't judge either by the standards of the other.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

This is the mindset I'm talking about. I disagree that it is arrogant for a modern editor to identify and change a problem with a previously published work. Problems don't get a free pass simply because they made it through a publishing sieve sixty years ago. We're not talking about the founding fathers here--just people doing their jobs back then and people doing their jobs today.


You do not represent the majority of pleasure readers though. Most up-and-coming readers have never heard the archaic usage of "gay" and "faggot." Coming across those terms will distract and confuse many readers, not entertain them.

Then you are not transcribing, you are translating. The very title of the book should indicate such.

The Gay Faggots by Morgan Oldwords
Translated into modern American politically correct English by Muckraker

Let there be NO doubt...so at least I can avoid it.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

...The aim is entertainment, not preservation. If there are obvious changes that make the book more entertaining, without distorting the original meaning, why not make them?...

That's fine as long as the reader is told that it is not the original text BEFORE the book is selected/purchased. Putting any such changes in an appendix without making any other notice is evil.

There should be a preface with an explanation of the changes and some tagline on the cover and title page. The reader should not be duped into reading the book without prior knowledge that they are not reading the author's original words.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Muckraker, do you then approve of the re-writing of Harry Potter for American v. British audiences? after all, calling a sweater a jumper might confuse the little dears, and we couldn't have that, could we?

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

I'm reasonably sure that Rowling wants to entertain people. I don't think she intends to punish and confuse 95% of potential world readers simply because they don't speak her native language. 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.

Writing is mostly about human communication--and most humans are not linguists. The purpose of translation is to make works more accessible. Sometimes accessibility is not important or is actually counterproductive, like in legal documents, technical manuals, and secret codes. But most of the time writers want to successfully communicate with all the readers interested in their work. Most writers would be ecstatic if someone wanted to translate their work. I wouldn't think much of a writer that demanded their work not be translated.

Remember the political aide who had to resign because he used the word "niggardly?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...district27.htm

Speaking of aides, remember the South Park episode when Jared from Subway said the primary reason he lost all his weight was because he had aides?

I believe words represent ideas and the purpose of communication is to exchange ideas. Confusion forced that resignation. Confusion makes the South Park episode funny. I'll only smoke fags when I'm trying to be confusing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

seriously, I do understand your point, but I still think it's wrong to re-write an old book to modern sensibilities. When does that stop being editorial discretion and start being a new creation?

I think it's fine to make changes as long as you notify readers at the start--"typographical errors have been corrected, and some archaic grammar and phrasing has been changed to be more enjoyable for modern readers."

If there are substantial changes, rather than the occasional word or a change in punctuation, it should be labeled as a derivative or other notably different work.

In either of those cases, the converter is taking on the job of "editor." I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "I'm converting this book so people can enjoy reading it today, not so they can marvel at the literary standards of a century ago"--it just needs to be said before someone reads or pays money for the book.

(Disclaimer: I'm involved in a project to do this professionally, so my judgment is biased. We're taking Victorian-and-earlier erotica works, and updating them drastically. Dialogue, for example, wasn't always "one line per speaker," so we're breaking up long paragraphs and arranging them the way they'd be published today. We want these books to be readable; we figure archive copies are widely available elsewhere.)

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I think it's fine to make changes as long as you notify readers at the start--"typographical errors have been corrected, and some archaic grammar and phrasing has been changed to be more enjoyable for modern readers."

If there are substantial changes, rather than the occasional word or a change in punctuation, it should be labeled as a derivative or other notably different work.

This.

And it needs to be totally clear upfront that these are derivative works, not the original.

[Catlady]

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?

Oh please. Translating from one language to another is not the same thing at all.

I'm reasonably sure that Rowling wants to entertain people. I don't think she intends to punish and confuse 95% of potential world readers simply because they don't speak her native language. 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.

Words of more than three syllables confuse people too. Lots of people. Does everything need to be tailored for the lowest common denominator? You have no right to change the author's words.

Writing is mostly about human communication--and most humans are not linguists. The purpose of translation is to make works more accessible. Sometimes accessibility is not important or is actually counterproductive, like in legal documents, technical manuals, and secret codes. But most of the time writers want to successfully communicate with all the readers interested in their work. Most writers would be ecstatic if someone wanted to translate their work. I wouldn't think much of a writer that demanded their work not be translated.

Again, you're conflating translation and ... whatever you're advocating--sanitization, dumbing-down. The words ARE the book. The book is not the plot--there are only a limited number of plots. It's the author's use of words that are the essence of the book. You cannot just willy-nilly decide that you know better than the author.

Remember the political aide who had to resign because he used the word "niggardly?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...district27.htm

Speaking of aides, remember the South Park episode when Jared from Subway said the primary reason he lost all his weight was because he had aides?

I believe words represent ideas and the purpose of communication is to exchange ideas. Confusion forced that resignation. Confusion makes the South Park episode funny. I'll only smoke fags when I'm trying to be confusing.

What's your point here? We need to cater to idiots don't know how to look up "niggardly" in a dictionary? We need to avoid not only "bad" words but words that sound similar to those "bad" words?