The Ethics of Typesetting

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Maybe you should become a Philologist! [nudge] I've had a bit of a hankering for it but I'm horrible with languages... *sigh*

Truthfully, I'm an utter schmendrick when it comes to most other languages, too. I have to read Mallarmé, Baudelaire and even Gide with a bilingual edition (something that desperately needs to be implemented in e-Readers once fold-out screens become the norm).

Perhaps I should have been a philologist because I find it incredibly fun and bristling to look at verse in English that's been translated into other languages -- particularly technophiliac verse translated into Greek and German, with its portmanteau vocabulary (my phrase insect seas became a single word in a translation of my poem "Nerventerminals"). I have no idea how to read Japanese translations of my poems, but I love trying.

[plib]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

All that is needed is to document that changes were made. Having an appendix that lists in detail what changes were made is going above what is needed. Whether you like it or not is a different matter. I haven't read the book, either in its original form or this adapted version, so I'm not commenting on the quality of it. If people want to read this version, they can read it. If it is priced too high, they won't buy it.

I agree that it is noted that changes were made. However I don't agree that the description fully characterizes the nature or extent of the stated changes, which the buyer isn't going to be able to review until he's already paid for the book. Plus I don't agree with the rationale for the changes in the first place.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I was actually thinking of more modern things. Eg, in the original Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books, they often use the then-common spelling of "clew", rather than "clue". Would you change that, or leave it as it is?

It's still in Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate. I'd leave it alone.

But I don't recall seeing the "clew" spelling in Nancy. The earliest title with the word "clue" is The Clue in the Diary, 1932. I don't see anything to indicate the spelling ever changed, at least in the U.S. editions.

One could always use the original spellings but add a glossary for the convenience of the reader.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

No. As I said, if you are faced with a choice of, oh, 10 versions of Silver Princess a year from now, none of them being from PG, how do you know which one to download if you want the undoctored original? Not conspiracy: confusion.

Download the scans. Or find someone who declares that they are replicating the original as much as possible.

You have no idea if a work was re-edited by the publisher or author, either. Readers who picked up the Nancy Drew books recently aren't told that those aren't the same ones their parents or grandparents loved as children. Poetry, especially, is subject to change; it's not always clear where the original line breaks were supposed to be, and which were added to fit on the paper used originally.

Those who value exact reproductions of a specific edition are always going to be a minority of readers. (I say this knowing full well that Han shot first, and I really wish we had good copies available of that version.)

While I'm not in favor of removing "icky content" from past books, I am in favor of keeping stories alive by making them more accessible to modern readers. There's never going to be a simple hard line that divides those activities; it's always going to be a matter of editorial judgment. I can't see any moral obligation to only do conversion work if one is willing to do an as-much-as-possible exact replica.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Download the scans. Or find someone who declares that they are replicating the original as much as possible.

Sure. Before I buy a book at Amazon or BN, I always conduct an extensive preliminary investigation and proofread the digital version against the printed version.

You have no idea if a work was re-edited by the publisher or author, either. Readers who picked up the Nancy Drew books recently aren't told that those aren't the same ones their parents or grandparents loved as children. Poetry, especially, is subject to change; it's not always clear where the original line breaks were supposed to be, and which were added to fit on the paper used originally.

I don't understand what's not getting through here. The creator and/or the copyright holder can do whatever the hell they please with THEIR book. Yes they can reedit, rewrite, revise, redact, refuse to sell. IT'S THEIR PROPERTY. This is not the issue. I don't like it as a rule, but IT'S THEIR PROPERTY. I can paint my walls eggplant purple with pink and green dots, and everyone else can think it's hideous but they're my walls. But I can't go to the reading room of the public library--public, paid for with my tax dollars--with a can of purple paint, because it's not my call.

Those who value exact reproductions of a specific edition are always going to be a minority of readers. (I say this knowing full well that Han shot first, and I really wish we had good copies available of that version.)

First off, you say this based on what? Second, who cares? It's not a matter of majority opinion.

While I'm not in favor of removing "icky content" from past books, I am in favor of keeping stories alive by making them more accessible to modern readers. There's never going to be a simple hard line that divides those activities; it's always going to be a matter of editorial judgment. I can't see any moral obligation to only do conversion work if one is willing to do an as-much-as-possible exact replica.

"Icky" is in the eye of the beholder.

It's really simple. Leave the text alone to stand or fall on its merits. If it's a great book, it doesn't need the tinkering. If it's not, if the nonPC-ness and old-fashioned sensibilities are so overwhelming a burden, let it be consigned to the trash heap.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's really simple. Leave the text alone to stand or fall on its merits. If it's a great book, it doesn't need the tinkering. If it's not, if the nonPC-ness and old-fashioned sensibilities are so overwhelming a burden, let it be consigned to the trash heap.

I think we've hit the main point of disagreement. I don't agree that books should be dropped from consideration because they have a few details that make them unreadable to most readers--or a few details that make them offensive to the only people who care about the story enough to convert it.

If it's agreed that it's not a "great book," but a good book with a few problems, some people would rather it got polished than thrown out.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I think we've hit the main point of disagreement. I don't agree that books should be dropped from consideration because they have a few details that make them unreadable to most readers--or a few details that make them offensive to the only people who care about the story enough to convert it.

If it's agreed that it's not a "great book," but a good book with a few problems, some people would rather it got polished than thrown out.

No, what I'm saying is that if it's a great book--or even a good book--overlook the "flaws"; don't try to fix them according to modern sensibilities. If you can't overlook them, just move on to something else.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by plib

My bolding on the quote. Really? Do you think this:

really informs the potential purchaser of your, rather expensive, book that it actually means

which, to my mind, completely changes the characterization of the character who

Forgive me if I disagree.

I did not put detailed explanations in the sales blurb and back-cover text. I did put extensive detail in the appendix of changes, though.

The $14.95 softcover pricing is the same or lower than all other new books in the back half of the series and $4.99 is not unreasonable for an eBook--especially when the copy I bought as source material set me back $150.

I worked extensively with this text for months and have been immersed in Oz lore for years. I felt that changing the black slaves did not affect the story or characterizations. The change also brought this book in line with Oz lore because nowhere else in the series is there a group of humans like that. Oz encounters are typically between individual characters and fantasy-oriented groups.

Anyone that wants to see how the changes affect story, character, or lore are free to do so. The appendix has each original line, new line, and the page number or hyperlink to where each change is located.

When I was reading the series for enjoyment I never had the opportunity to read that particular book because it was so rare it essentially did not exist--up until three months ago. I did not realize the book contained clear racism until I had already invested quite a bit of time and money in the project. At that point my options were to either change it or trash it because there was no way I was putting my name on it or trying to sell it as it was.

I understand and respect your concerns. I feel it is better for a book to be accessible but with documented changes I disagree with than for it to remain inaccessible and endangered.

[howyoudoin]

I have to agree with Catlady. If someone edits a book according to his tastes, he had better advertise that fact explicitly.

[Jovvi]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I have to agree with Catlady. If someone edits a book according to his tastes, he had better advertise that fact explicitly.

However, Catladys position seems to be that no other than the copyright holder can make any changes, even if the changes is made clear...

I could possibly have understood this position if it was only the acual author of the story that could make the changes, however with the copyright laws beeing what they are I think this argument falls... Say that someone (a grandchild or other heir) holds the copyright some 60 years after the author died and then publish a new "improved" version? They would then not even have to declare any changes were done and that would be ok? What is to say they have any better knowlege of the original authors wishes than anyone else?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

However, Catladys position seems to be that no other than the copyright holder can make any changes, even if the changes is made clear...

Well, that's plainly true as far as the legal position is concerned.

[Jovvi]

Yes, legally but the argument was that it was morally and etically wrong to make later changes, and then I think you have to chose, either it is wrong for anyone other than the original author to edit the text, or it is free for everyone to do so (the copyright holder when its under copyright and anyone if it has past to the public domain).

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Yes, legally but the argument was that it was morally and etically wrong to make later changes, and then I think you have to chose, either it is wrong for anyone other than the original author to edit the text, or it is free for everyone to do so (the copyright holder when its under copyright and anyone if it has past to the public domain).

You have excluded the middle. Usually I'm opposed to such fallacies but in this case I fall firmly on the DON'T CHANGE WHAT THE AUTHOR WROTE side of the fence. That goes for the copyright holder as well, unless said holder be the author.

I think my ground is firm; a rock really. You cannot say the work is 'by [insert author] if in fact it is not.

The exception would be in translation from one language to another with the translator's name front and center under that of the author (there are translators I follow!), but that does not extend to 'updating the language' for modern sensibilities; certainly not to 'updating the mores'. I find that hubris hideous.

I'm perfectly okay with changing the typesetters work. He had far too many liquid lunches anyway. And his HTML sucked.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I think my ground is firm; a rock really. You cannot say the work is 'by [insert author] if in fact it is not.

Of course you can do. Pretty much every commercially published book is edited. It's very rare indeed to find the editor's name on the cover.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course you can do. Pretty much every commercially published book is edited. It's very rare indeed to find the editor's name on the cover.

A collaboration between an editor and an author includes the author. The changes are owned by the author. If there is no collaboration, and I realize often there is not, then there should be no changes.

I did not say 'can't' be unauthorized changes. People can do as they please, or as they feel they can legally get away with. I will avoid those works to the greatest extent possible. Others can read what they want.

For me, the middle ground is so narrow it can barely contain a , or ~.