The Ethics of Typesetting

[plib]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

I do too. So do many readers. But can you safely claim that the spell of the text--the suspension of disbelief--will remain unbroken when a young US reader encounters a "faggot tossed in the fire." Is it right to let new readers flounder when it is absolutely unnecessary?

I know the intended meaning but a line like that is still a hiccup in even my enjoyment of the text.

This really does display an astonishing contempt for your "target audience". Does it not occur to you that a reader, "young US reader" or not, will investigate if they don't understand a particular phrase. Or that parents can explain about changing social mores and their effects on language? That this is part of growing to maturity with an understanding of the world, history and society in which they live? A recognition that because this causes "a hiccup in even my enjoyment" that such a hiccup may not be universal, and may even be educational - which would actually advance your stated goals? Would a "young US reader" be better educated, a better citizen, make better democratic choices if all mention of black slavery were to be eradicated from books and novels?

You've been asked a number of times to identify the publishing house under which these are published. Given your continuing justification of this editing practice I cannot discern any reason why you should not identify it?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

@ Catlady, Elcreative, and LuvReadin

I understand and respect your positions. What I originally intended as a short voicing of my philosophy to further my procrastination has gotten too big for me to adequately address. So I'll just summarize.

I've published 18 books. I've made non-grammatical content changes in one of those books. I fixed two image printing errors in another. I've added extensive supplementary content and new covers to most. I am concerned with accessibility and even make it a point to release large-print editions when it's financially feasible.

The two books with changes have the changes extensively documented and the original text and images are included in their entirety. The books are titled as new editions and the sales blurb states that text was changed and added.

I don't believe I am a god or a genius. I am a reader and writer that also republishes rare and endangered books. The quality of my work and the appropriateness of a couple tough decisions I made will ultimately be determined by readers. I'm not trying to get rich or trick anyone.

I saw that obscure works from 1923-1963 were in danger of being lost due to copyright uncertainty and readers not knowing they existed in the first place. That bothered me. That's why I do what I do. Whether or not I'm qualified to do what I do will be determined by readers and the passage of time. If I'm unqualified then I'll ultimately be the one slipping away.

This has been a great learning experience reading all the differing perspectives. I have no wisdom to add to the topic itself. I just wanted to observe that the mitigating steps Muckraker summaries above, have been in his posts all along, yet he has been accused of making undocumented changes, deceiving readers, etc. Some of the posters defending the sanctity of the 'word' may not reading his words very carefully. ...just saying

A great discussion on the underlying principles though.

[HarryT]

I'm curious what the problem with the word "aeroplane" is? It's still the word that's used in the UK; is it really perceived to be "old fashioned" in the US?

[tompe]

Interesting page with ngrams for the words:

http://grammarist.com/spelling/aeroplane-airplane/

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by plib

This really does display an astonishing contempt for your "target audience". Does it not occur to you that a reader, "young US reader" or not, will investigate if they don't understand a particular phrase. Or that parents can explain about changing social mores and their effects on language?

It's very likely Muckraker has learned that common sense has nothing to do with the litigious nature of U.S. education in an age in which the enemies of controversial or political subject matter can get books pulled from the curriculum on a technicality, and both children and parents can have teachers fired or dismissed in an effort to avoid receiving lower grades and test scores. I personally know a teacher who was sued for "making a sexual move" while teaching. The man thrust his pelvis while making a point and raising one finger in the air.

There is no doubt in my mind that the word faggot, even when used to mean a bundle of sticks, could be litigious. And even though the PC spelling is now fagot, the very pronunciation of the word in class or at home could result in negative action.

* * *

I'm not a fan of changing the word gay in existing publications. I would also hesitate to buy a version of a previously published text in which the word had been changed by panicky or overly zealous editors.

However, I think it's unnecessary to berate Muckraker and vow never to buy any of the books s/he might publish. For one thing, there could be no other way to buy an e-book version of one of those books. For another, it's better to engage a publisher in a debate and allow them to learn from feedback than to treat every decision they've made until now as a reason to disqualify them in the future.

Let's just give Muckraker some needed feedback and say we're far less likely to buy a classic or frequently published text which has been altered in the ways that have been described.

Recently, I edited an interview with the late William Burroughs and made the decision to change the punctuation, but that's because the author is the person who submitted the transcription and not William Burroughs himself. The words are by Burroughs, but the punctuation is not.

We did not wish to change the actual language, of course, even though it would have been within our purview to eliminate the kinds of hemming and hawing that are routinely edited out in published interviews.

I also edited the bracketed explanations and omitted incorrectly spelled names in Allen Ginsberg's introduction to the interview. Again, these qualifying bracketed instances were the work of the person who transcribed that passage from Ginsberg's unpublished journal and not Ginsberg himself.

Besides which, the person who transcribed the interview and journal passage is still alive and was available to us to consult. This was useful because the way in which Burroughs said things in the original recording might have led to certain decisions which seemed to us to be unnecessary or odd. We needed to confirm that such issues weren't in conflict with our corrections.

The trick is to catch real mistakes before they become enshrined, and to know the difference between standing and editable text. One can edit out things like unintended homonyms, but not instances of perceived untimely usage. The latter is something which a copy editor or editor suggests to the author pending approval. If an editor is assigned to a particularly disorganized or sloppy writer under contract (as they were in the case of Brett Easton Ellis's American Psycho, which was largely rewritten by editors), then a publishing emergency must be dealt with and that is a different story.

If I were Muckraker and still chose to make such decisions, I'd insert a disclaimer to that effect at the beginning of the book. I might also insert into attributions and advertisements a phrase such as "Newly edited by [the Honorable Dr. Emilio Y.] Muckraker [III]."

[rakulos]

A great thread with many interesting arguments, however I'm shocked no ones mentioned Mr Brains rather delicious faggots!



Sorry for the derail but I agree with the 'dont go randomly changing words' side of the argument.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

It's very likely Muckraker has learned that common sense has nothing to do with the litigious nature of U.S. education in an age in which the enemies of controversial or political subject matter can get books pulled from the curriculum, and both children and parents can have teachers fired or dismissed in an effort to avoid receiving lower grades and test scores. I personally know a teacher who was sued for "making a sexual move" while teaching. The man thrust his pelvis while making a point and raising one finger in the air.

Agreed. The US education system is in a desperate situation. They're already paying the price, and will continue to do so I think.

I was lucky enough to be educated by people whom some would call religious bigots but who were actually mostly very bright and had an unbending dedication to the development of critical thought. They had their agenda, but they never threatened brimstone and hellfire, however they would happily argue their case all night long on logical or theological grounds. They would delight in persuading someone, but they never threatened them and they never, ever censored any philosophy, belief or argument no matter how forcefully expressed, and sometimes that expression got fairly direct. (It probably helped that if I had suggested to my parents that they call a lawyer or complain to the headmaster they would have laughed at me.)

I don't subscribe to their beliefs any longer, haven't since teenage years, but I still respect them and their teaching attitudes greatly. One of their legacies, to me anyway, has been a strong dislike of any form of censorship and political correctness of any stripe, right or left. If I could benefit from that kind of tuition from the age of 11 upwards then it really annoys me to come across people stifling young minds because they're "thinking of the children". If you're going to think of the children then give them some respect, teach them, stretch them and leave your own repressions out of it. Both the children and the teacher will be better off for it.

[Jovvi]

Well, I think that for most part authors are storytellers that want to be heard (read) especially those that write for children. Therefore I see nothing wrong with making small changes to a book so that the story will be better understood by the target audience, provided of cause that its possibly to also read the original for those that prefer that. It could also be that reading the modernized version first could inspire intrest for the original and the changes could then be a interesting discussion point.

I´m Swedish and of cause have read a lot of those classic book in various translations and know firsthand how much the text changes sometimes, however I´m not horrified by this, it´s just the way it is.

I guess I´m in the camp that thinks that great stories deserves to be told, if they are told the may create an interest for more and then readers can go back to the originals if they want, or they may just have discovered a writer they never would have read had there not been an "easier-to-chew" modernized version.

Clara

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Well, I think that for most part authors are storytellers that want to be heard (read) especially those that write for children. Therefore I see nothing wrong with making small changes to a book so that the story will be better understood by the target audience, provided of cause that its possibly to also read the original for those that prefer that. . . .
I guess I´m in the camp that thinks that great stories deserve to be told, if they are told the may create an interest for more and then readers can go back to the originals if they want, or they may just have discovered a writer they never would have read had there not been an "easier-to-chew" modernized version.

Clara: In fact many stories for children have been updated and changed. It is a feature of certain new editions for the kiddies to contain updated language and to omit potentially risque words. I myself would rather set fire to my own pelvis than read or endorse such an edition, but they serve a purpose for many other people.

The difference here is that those editions are generally marketed as such. You don't buy them thinking you now have an exact copy of the hoary (and in some cases whory) old tome you've coveted ever since noticing it on the shelf of some stingy and forbidding luminary.

[Jovvi]

Of cause I am aware of the diffrence between the kind of abridged editons you are speaking of now and originals, however I think there is also a diffrence between abridged, shortend stories and carefully modernized, or "translated-to-modern" books that I think Muckraker and some others here speak of...

I still think that for most authors the important thing is to be read and and understood by the target audience. I know that if I was an author I would want the people reading my book to understand the story, if so simple a thing as a word had to be changed so that the story would be understood I would have wanted someone to change it. However I would also have wanted the person doing the change of word do so after careful concideration, and I would probably want that the the original was around to be read for those that wanted to. Still I think the story is most important....

I was also unaware that anyone on this thread suggested tossing the original, I can´t understand the indignation that some people express over the fact that someone wants to make great but endangered stories popular with a few modest changes to make them more readable for readers today. If you don´t want to read this modernized versions, don´t, but that doesn´t meen that others should not be allowed to. Mayby someone will discover a great story that they would not have understood if they had to read the original.

Also consider those of us that do not have english as a first language (british english or american english), that may want to read those stories. I consider myself as a fluent reader of english (its much harder to write of cause) but the english of today and the english of a hundred years ago is not the same... So okey, I read a lot and for the most part I can understand even unfamilliar words form the context, however if the context have changed over the years it makes it harder to understand. Yes I could use a dictionary, and I probably would if I was aware that I would be reading a book with language from a century ago, however that would not make me enjoy the story as much, it would feel like work/school. I guess I´m a lazy reader that are more concerned with the story and the ideas presented than original language, grammer and spelling.

[Prestidigitweeze]

As a long-term editor of literary magazines, small press novels and major press anthologies, I can tell you that most authors I've dealt with will fight to the death for their original wording. Besides which, it's a mistake to invest dead authors with imagined behavior unless you're writing about them as characters.

As an author who's published a fair bit, I can tell you I'd be incredibly annoyed at those kinds of substitutions after going through thirty-seven drafts to get the rhythm and diction just right.

Glad we agree that people who call for Muckraker's public shaming and boycott the vast publishing empire in his garage might be overreacting.

The honest thing to do is to add a disclaimer showing you've changed the language if in fact that's what you've done. If you're publishing Lewis Carroll but have changed a few words, then be good enough to tell us that.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by plib

You've been asked a number of times to identify the publishing house under which these are published. Given your continuing justification of this editing practice I cannot discern any reason why you should not identify it?

I've been reluctant to say because it's apparent some people are not reading my posts but are still enthusiastically responding to them. I would prefer that such enthusiastic response not shift over to negative reviews for books they also haven't read.

If anyone is truly interested they can track back to me by Googling "racism in oz," reading earlier parts of this thread, or PMing me. I'm confident that people willing to take that extra few minutes have also taken the extra time to read through my posts and recognize that I am not a megalomaniacal, deceptive, book-burning opportunist.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm curious what the problem with the word "aeroplane" is? It's still the word that's used in the UK; is it really perceived to be "old fashioned" in the US?

Yes. It's a clear indicator that either:

• This book takes place in a Foreign Country, and therefore the main characters are not People Like Me, or
• This book takes place A Long Time Ago, and therefore etc.

It doesn't ruin a story, but it does spoil the option of self-immersion, the ability to visualize the story in a familiar enough setting to not require constant translation effort.

It's not a bad effect, but it does anchor the characters to a particular time and/or place; it becomes definitely *not* an "everyman" story and instead a period/location showcase. Some stories are improved by that; others are not.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Isn't it better not to start on that slippery slope? Leave the damn "aeroplane" alone, leave all of it alone to stand or fall on its own merits.

I'm late, but I want to talk about the slippery slope in the Trixie Belden context.

The Trixie Belden books were edited for offensiveness/updatedness in between when I and my youngest sister (nine years younger) read them. Where Jim's term of endearent for Trixie was "moll dick" in my editions, that was altered to "schoolgirl shamus" by the time my sister got to them. A full skirted party dress was changed to a mini-dress with green trim, but Mrs. Belden still forced Trixie into a girdle before she got into it. Despite changing the world to circa 1970 when the "Uglies" were released, Mart still needed to plug in his reel to reel tape player, and most absurd of all, Trixie still thought she would buy that horse on an allowance of $5/week, poor dear. I think she's still saving up for it, perhaps in a few more decades.....

My point is that words and situations are an integral part of a book's structure. Once you start tinkering, you create an avalanche of necessary changes to remain coherent and cohesive and it's never entirely successful.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

As a long-term editor of literary magazines, small press novels and major press anthologies, I can tell you that most authors I've dealt with will fight to the death for their original wording. Besides which, it's a mistake to invest dead authors with imagined behavior unless you're writing about them as characters.

As an author who's published a fair bit, I can tell you I'd be incredibly annoyed at those kinds of substitutions after going through thirty-seven drafts to get the rhythm and diction just right.

Editing is what editors do. That's why they are called - well, er, "editors". They edit things.

One would expect a professional editor to have a much better idea of what changes are required to make a book commercially successful than the average author does.