The Ethics of Typesetting

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Same storyline, yes, but nonetheless a rewrite by a different author.

Yeah, a rewrite that edited the racism and stereotying and old-fashioned wording out of the original material. That's exactly what some people think should be done to the classics, to make them accessible, isn't it?

In The Secret of the Old Clock, a trapped Nancy at one point says: "Archimedes didn't know what he was talking about when he said the world could be moved with a lever." Compare the revision: "That old Greek scientist, Archimedes, didn't know what he was talking about when he said the world could be moved with a lever."

Isn't that the sort of thing some folks want to do, so the little darlings who are reading the book won't have to stop and pull out a dictionary? Of course, that Nancy revision is more than 50 years old--probably today the whole passage would be deemed too arcane for the young'uns.

[Prestidigitweeze]

[Too much sensitive information. Might put some of the post back.]

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I'm guessing quite a few people here have read Hamlet, so I ask you, is this what you read?


That is the first folio text.

Or did you read something a little more comprehensible to a modern audience, like this:

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 does not seem to be a problem with the text...it seems to be a problem for the level of education of the reader. My education required me to read both the original and the modernized translations.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. I would simply prefer nothing were changed after that. But once it's in the public domain, it can be changed anytime someone wants to. That's the way PD works. But I also think that those who have a modicum of respect for the work will clearly indicate they're taking personal liberties with the original—if they're planning on redistributing those works under the exact same title. Even though it may never be required of them to do so.

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.


If I was republishing Eliot would you approve of me adding footnotes with the translations of non-English lines? Because his intention was clearly to not provide such information. Is it wrong for me to make his work more accessible to readers of today even though accessibility was not his intention?

And if that is the case, how can we justify the translation of any public domain material? We don't know that the author would have wanted an Arabic edition of his book. I think it's safer to assume a writer would want a word changed if its meaning drastically changes than assume a writer wants their work translated into a different language. Translation, after all, is not an exact science. It can significantly alter meaning


My main point is that words are not as important as the ideas they represent and not all readers read to expand their understanding of the past. Some people read solely for pleasure and when the common definition of a single word has changed so drastically I see no problem changing that word to represent the idea the original writer intended so as to not throw a hiccup of unnecessary confusion in that pleasure reading.

We can assume a writer using the word "gay" two hundred years ago had no intention what-so-ever of it meaning anything other than what it meant two hundred years ago.


Yes. Because I know the original writer and editor were good at what they did. And no competent writer or editor today, creating books for world readers, would purposely and knowingly use a word that didn't represent the idea they were trying to convey. I believe the dead writers were competent and would release updated editions themselves if they were alive today. The burden of proof is on those assuming they would let the confusion stand.

This is the problem - you are dumbing down the work. One of the ways that people learn is from the past. What you are saying is that the past is too much for teh little darlings and we must update for them. My mom's favorite response when I came to her about a new word? Handing me a dictionary. And the OED works wonders.

While I can understand your zeal...things like dumbing down literary works are one of the major reasons that there are not a lot of Philologists running around. Students don't even learn about things like word etymology until they've declared a major in college.

[QuantumIguana]

In The Secret of the Old Clock, a trapped Nancy at one point says: "Archimedes didn't know what he was talking about when he said the world could be moved with a lever." Compare the revision: "That old Greek scientist, Archimedes, didn't know what he was talking about when he said the world could be moved with a lever."

I agree that isn't a good change. For one, it's unnatural, who says "That old Greek scientist..."? And if the reader doesn't know who Archimedes was, informing the reader that he was an old Greek scientist doesn't give the reader useful information.

But it's an example of a change that the publisher demanded and the author went along with. It was the print world that brought this change. With a work under copyright, if a change is made, that's the only version that is going to be available. With public domain works, a changed work is going to be drowned out by the original version. If I go onto Amazon and look for a public domain book, the original version is going to be the version at the top of the search, priced at $0.00.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

...
When someone published a condensed version of a text, the condenser's name doesn't go on the cover.

But it should, or at least the cover should include "A Condensed Version".

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I can to on to Amazon and buy a condensed version of Don Quixote that is reduced from 1100+ pages to 300. The cover says "Don Quixote by Cervantes".

I see that as out and out commercial fraud if the fact that it's a condensed/abridged version is not emblazoned on the cover and in the description.

[QuantumIguana]

There might be small print on the front cover indicating that it had been adapted, either that or the statement will be on page one, but it is made clear enough to the reader. Either way, no adapter is going to pass off an adapted work as their own.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I agree that isn't a good change. For one, it's unnatural, who says "That old Greek scientist..."? And if the reader doesn't know who Archimedes was, informing the reader that he was an old Greek scientist doesn't give the reader useful information.

But it's an example of a change that the publisher demanded and the author went along with. It was the print world that brought this change. With a work under copyright, if a change is made, that's the only version that is going to be available. With public domain works, a changed work is going to be drowned out by the original version. If I go onto Amazon and look for a public domain book, the original version is going to be the version at the top of the search, priced at $0.00.

Nancy Drew books were farmed out to ghostwriters by the Stratemeyer Syndicate. Those original writers were handed an outline, turned in the book, and had no say and no ownership. After she took over the Syndicate, Harriet Stratemeyer Adams decided to update the books in the late '50s/early '60s. There was never a question of needing author approval--the Syndicate was the effective author.

It's not an exact parallel to the discussion of changes to public domain works, simply a real-world example of books that were deemed in need of modernization. The life was sucked out of them.

[Jovvi]

Ok I really apologize if I sounded as if I thougt everyone in US where fundamentalists, I do not believe so! However I have read In several threads here on mobileread and also in other places about schools that forbid certain books in the library because of religious, moralistic or political believes. This baffles us in Sweden because such a thing is very very rare, frowned upon by both the goverment and the public. As I said in Sweden most people are sekular even if they belong to a church, most of us do not attend very often. However here we have other groups that think they know the way. The problem with some people knowing the way is that they want everyone else to go in the same direction. I belive everybody should be allowed to chose for themselfs, if they chose wrong hopfully they will learn something.

I think the same about this discussion. If you chose to only read stories that are original, word by word by what the author wrote, even if that was several hundred years ago and some of the words have a totally different meaning today, thats fine! But if there is someone that really liked this story and would like others to read and love the story to but see that maybe lots of more people would read and understand if those words with the new meaning were edited to conwey the meaning better, I think they have the right to publish such a version provided they clearly state it is a modernized version. When the story is read and understood (maybe loved) the original would be easier to understand too.

If I could write this in swedish I could probably come across clearer but I hope you understand me anyway, some things are just very hard to express in a language not your own.

[elcreative]

Jovvi, thanks for the reply but you might also remember that there are a lot of people on here that aren't from the US... after all you're from Sweden...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Jovvi, thanks for the reply but you might also remember that there are a lot of people on here that aren't from the US... after all you're from Sweden...

I actually assume that people are from the US if they have no location given. Maybe that is a bad assumption.

[Freeshadow]

Well I'm no english native either and understood what she meant. She properly adressed the US as point of her assumptions, and expressed her belief that said country in general suffers a great variety of fanatical maniac groups without accusing nobody here of actually being such one.
Have heard about enough strange (from my POV) stuff happening over there in terms of public reactions and decisions I understand such beliefs, altough I know that many other countries have their own fundamentalist nests.

Dear Jovvi I hope you won't hold yourself back from further participation in the forums, since you do it polite and understandable. Not everyone does and some don't have the excuse of being non-native speakers. (I speak in general hefe not aiming at specific post or users above.)

[plib]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

My mom's favorite response when I came to her about a new word? Handing me a dictionary. And the OED works wonders

Hello kindred soul!

My favourite definition of a word for my kids? "Look it up". (though they had to go get the dictionary themselves).

[plib]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

If anyone is truly interested they can track back to me by Googling "racism in oz,"

Well in that case you're either the author of the single search result thrown up which is even halfway relevant (one two year old thread on a Tor forum which appears to have attracted a dozen comments), or you live in Australia. So this is obviously a matter of burning concern to the world.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

If you chose to only read stories that are original, word by word by what the author wrote, even if that was several hundred years ago and some of the words have a totally different meaning today, thats fine! But if there is someone that really liked this story and would like others to read and love the story to but see that maybe lots of more people would read and understand if those words with the new meaning were edited to conwey the meaning better, I think they have the right to publish such a version provided they clearly state it is a modernized version.

Note that the bolded text means you and I do not disagree. I've been saying this all along: preexisting works which have been changed in terms of actual substitutions and deletions are warranted as long as the editing work is noted and attributed prominently.

But I'm also of the opinion that, when a book is rare and therefore unavailable to most readers, a reissue or format-converted edition should follow the original text as faithfully as possible.

What seemed a divergence of ideas might only have been confusion as to wording.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

One of the ways that people learn is from the past. What you are saying is that the past is too much for teh little darlings and we must update for them. My mom's favorite response when I came to her about a new word? Handing me a dictionary. And the OED works wonders.

My mother taught English, and every dinner with the family became part of an ongoing discussion on usage. People were always running to the dictionary in the middle of our meal until, finally, my mother bought a stand for Webster's International and put it next to the table.

To this day, I have a collection of dictionaries of various languages, disciplines, regions and vintages -- partly because I like to write in old-fashioned idioms. I've also helped to name books and bands by exploring the OED. (Two examples: Distorture and The Saqqara Dogs.)