The Ethics of Typesetting

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Andy_T

Maybe not totally fitting here, but what bugs me to no end about the German translation of the Harry Potter books, is that they have changed the name "Hermione" to "Hermine" in German - which is a rather dull name of German origin more befitting of a grandmother who died in 1970 as opposed to an extravagant name for a witch of Greek origin.

Now, the translation sucks in more than one way (mainly as it is nowhere as funny as the original), but this one change struck me as blatant.

Not nearly as blatant (or irritating) as the one from Philosopher to Sorcerer.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How do you feel about all the many any varied different productions of Shakespeare plays? Should theatre companies only produce a work that is as faithful as can possibly be to how they were originally staged?

A play is not a book. It's not meant to be static words on a page; it's meant to be performed, and the director, actors, etc. are all bringing something to the table. Every production is different--heck, every performance is different; it's the nature of the beast.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Catlady

A play is not a book. It's not meant to be static words on a page; it's meant to be performed, and the director, actors, etc. are all bringing something to the table. Every production is different--heck, every performance is different; it's the nature of the beast.

And more to the point, everyone knows (and it is usually conveyed overtly anyway), that it is an adapted work.

My mind boggles at the hubris exhibited by some in this thread. Hopefully such corruption will not see wide distribution.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ruth Plumly Thompson died in 1976. Her books are most assuredly not in the public domain anywhere.

Assuming the U.S. copyright was renewed in 1966.

[Catlady]

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.

It's their job BEFORE the book is published, in collaboration with the author and/or the author's representatives. It's NOT their job when they're taking an existing previously published book and deciding that they know better than the original author, editors, and publishers.

[murraypaul]

So would it be wrong for someone to publish a modern English version of:

Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,

That slepen al the night with open yë,
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages):
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
(And palmers for to seken straunge strondes)
To ferne halwes, couthe in sondry londes;

And specially, from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The holy blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke.

If it were properly described as a modern version, rather than the original text?

Again, there are two separate things, preservation and entertainment.
They are in conflict.
I see no problem with an entertainment-focused version of a book, provided it is correctly described, and doesn't hurt the availability of a preservation-focused version.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So would it be wrong for someone to publish a modern English version of:

If it were properly described as a modern version, rather than the original text?

Again, there are two separate things, preservation and entertainment.
They are in conflict.
I see no problem with an entertainment-focused version of a book, provided it is correctly described, and doesn't hurt the availability of a preservation-focused version.

emphasis obviously mine.

If your disclaimer is large, bold, flashing, and utterly obvious, do what you will. I somehow doubt you'll improve it.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So would it be wrong for someone to publish a modern English version of:

If it were properly described as a modern version, rather than the original text?

Again, there are two separate things, preservation and entertainment.
They are in conflict.
I see no problem with an entertainment-focused version of a book, provided it is correctly described, and doesn't hurt the availability of a preservation-focused version.

This is really a red herring. We are talking about public domain works from the past century or so, and the propriety of changing words that have acquired new shades of meaning over the years, but are still perfectly recognizable and accessible. My trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary, 11th edition, still defines "fagot" as a bundle of sticks, "gay" as happy, and "dago" as a person of Italian or Spanish descent, with the tag "usually offensive." There is no reason to change such words for the modern reader.

Now, if someone wants to include annotations and footnotes defining such words in an older work and/or explaining that meanings have shifted, that's fine. But that is a far cry from changing the author's words after the fact.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is really a red herring. We are talking about public domain works from the past century or so, and the propriety of changing words that have acquired new shades of meaning over the years, but are still perfectly recognizable and accessible. My trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary, 11th edition, still defines "fagot" as a bundle of sticks, "gay" as happy, and "dago" as a person of Italian or Spanish descent, with the tag "usually offensive." There is no reason to change such words for the modern reader.

Should And Then There Were None be published under its original UK title?
Including the text of the original rhyme inside the book?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Should And Then There Were None be published under its original UK title?
Including the text of the original rhyme inside the book?

What does the author say?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Should And Then There Were None be published under its original UK title?
Including the text of the original rhyme inside the book?

Christie was alive when the change was made, and I presume she had input into the decision. It's not the same as someone on the outside deciding to make a change decades after the fact for his or her own purposes.

[murraypaul]

The title was not changed to 'And Then There Were None' in the UK until almost a decade after her death.

And the broader point it: There can be things which were acceptable when a book was published, but would make it unacceptable now. Should the book be essentially lost to mass-market consumption because of that?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The title was not changed to 'And Then There Were None' in the UK until almost a decade after her death.

And the broader point it: There can be things which were acceptable when a book was published, but would make it unacceptable now. Should the book be essentially lost to mass-market consumption because of that?

Did they have prior editorial consent? If not, then it should not have been changed. A tu quoque argument doesn't make it right.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Did they have prior editorial consent? If not, then it should not have been changed. A tu quoque argument doesn't make it right.

In this case they were the publisher who owned the copyright.
In other cases we have been discussing, the work is in the public domain.
In either case, the author is dead.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In this case they were the publisher who owned the copyright.
In other cases we have been discussing, the work is in the public domain.
In either case, the author is dead.

None of which changes anything.