Dangerously e-books: How do I know if my ebooks have been altered?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nothing terrible HAS happened. The note AlexBell put in his edition is simply not indicative of all the changes that were made. That's all. It's insufficient.

Make it crystal clear what you're changing and everyone will be able to make their own decisions about reading or avoiding. Simple. Everyone's happy (or at least informed).

Totally agreed. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making editorial changes in books, as long as it's made clear what's been done. That's what editors do!

[jhowell]

I think that we are not going far enough! Most of the discussion has been about updating text from 19th century English to the 20th century. This is still going to be difficult for the young 21st century reader. I recommend converting all public domain classics to SMS text-speak using a tool such as transl8it! to preserve literature for the next generation.

(JK LOL)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by jhowell

I think that we are not going far enough! Most of the discussion has been about updating text from 19th century English to the 20th century. This is still going to be difficult for the young 21st century reader. I recommend converting all public domain classics to SMS text-speak using a tool such as transl8it! to preserve literature for the next generation.

[susan_cassidy]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

That's an extreme example of course, but I think the same thing applies in books; I get jarred out of my involvement in the book by words which just don't fit - like gayety, when I'm expecting gaity.

Similarly in Little Novels by Wilkie Collins which I'm working on now there is a story in which one of the protagonists is falsely accused of stealing a diamond bracelet from the wife of a rich nobleman. She had sold it to cover her debts without telling her husband. The original text describes the protagonist as 'the man who had innocently bought the jewel of her agent'. In the nineteenth century it might have been quite clear to readers that the man had bought the jewel off (or from) her agent, but I think that in the 21st century the reader would have to stop and think firstly whether it was the Lady's jewel or the agent's jewel, and secondly who the protagonist had bought the jewel from. It is this having to stop and think which I want to avoid; I think spoils one's enjoyment of the story. Is it really so disgraceful to change Wilkie Collins' word from of to off?

I never get "taken out of the story" by antique spelling variations, word usages, etc. If I'm "in" the story, I am in that time period, and understand perfectly what the meaning(s) are.

I definitely prefer to see the original spelling and word usage, untouched by an "editor".

[RHWright]

While I think there is a place for editions that make older works more accessible to modern readers, they do need to be clearly marked and annotated when major changes are made. Personally, I prefer editions that footnote obscure terms or usages that have changed over time to ones that sub in modern language. I'm willing to leave that as a personal preference as long as the options are clear and available.

Originally Posted by AlexBell

For example, I walked out of a production of Tosca some years ago because the stage director had Scarpia do a simulated sexual assault on Tosca in the scene where she kills him. The threat of violence is certainly heard in the music, but the actual violence was not in the libretto or in the opera that Verdi saw.

I think this helps to prove the opposite of Alex's point and is precisely why some people may be outraged by what he's done. Alex, you were not happy that the opera was altered from what the composer and librettist originally set out. You seem to feel if Verdi had intended to overtly portray the assault, he would have written it that way, and the director should not change that in the staging. Similarly, others here seem to feel that if Collins had wanted to use "light-hearted" instead of "gay," he would have.

Personally, I think there is more latitude in the staging of a play or opera than there is in editing a novel. Various productions, for example, modernize Shakespeare; Branagh's Hamlet modernizes the settings and is brilliant, IMO.

But if you want to do the same with a novel, I think it requires more than bringing the punctuation and some vocabulary up to date. I think it needs to be a transformed work that is wholly made modern, credited to the new author as a "modern retelling" of so-and-so's earlier work.

Just my 2 cents. I'm not bashing on anyone else's. But the bulk of opinion seems to be against altering.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RHWright

While I think there is a place for editions that make older works more accessible to modern readers, they do need to be clearly marked and annotated when major changes are made. Personally, I prefer editions that footnote obscure terms or usages that have changed over time

That's exactly what editions of the classics such as "Penguin Classics" and "Oxford World Classics" do, and is one reason that I buy them.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by RHWright

I think this helps to prove the opposite of Alex's point and is precisely why some people may be outraged by what he's done. Alex, you were not happy that the opera was altered from what the composer and librettist originally set out. You seem to feel if Verdi had intended to overtly portray the assault, he would have written it that way, and the director should not change that in the staging. Similarly, others here seem to feel that if Collins had wanted to use "light-hearted" instead of "gay," he would have.

But I did make the point that the word 'Gay' now has an entirely different meaning than it had when Collins used it, a meaning that was unknown to him, and that he is very unlikely to have used to describe his character. In fact in the book the story describes the growing affection between a man and a woman.

It may well be that ebook enthusiasts in this thread may be familiar with 19th century English, and be instantly able to change the meaning in their mind. I still think that most readers would have read 'Gay' and thought 'homosexual.' And that is not what Collins meant.

This most useful suggestion I've come across so far is to use a footnote giving the original word.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

This most useful suggestion I've come across so far is to use a footnote giving the original word.

Or the other way around: If you are afraid that readers aren't aware of the change in meaning (which I can't really imagine), why don't you make a footnote that explains what "gay" used to mean in Collins' time?

The way you suggest it would also be okay, I guess. What really shocked me was that you originally made that change without acknowledging it, which is totally unacceptable.

[DoctorOhh]

First, AlexBell, Thank you for contributing books to the Patricia Clark Memorial Library.

Originally Posted by AlexBell

But I did make the point that the word 'Gay' now has an entirely different meaning than it had when Collins used it, a meaning that was unknown to him, and that he is very unlikely to have used to describe his character. In fact in the book the story describes the growing affection between a man and a woman.

But it doesn't have an entirely different meaning just an added meaning. I should think folks 45 years old or older, reading The Queen of Hearts, would have quickly if not automatically read the word as intended. Personally I would have preferred the original spelling of gayety as well.

Originally Posted by AlexBell

This most useful suggestion I've come across so far is to use a footnote giving the original word.

A footnote might be a cleaner solution, but the suggestion seemed to be different than your interpretation. As I read the suggestion, the idea is to leave the original word in place and use the footnote to provide clarification. Either way you use footnotes at least there would be clarity of the original text.

Additionally, I agree with others that the alteration of words should have been clearer in the very nice Preface you provided and in the informative post you included where you attached the book.

Thank you again and I hope you continue providing these editions to the library.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

This most useful suggestion I've come across so far is to use a footnote giving the original word.

No, please do it the other way around - leave the original and explain its 19th-century usage in a footnote.

[DiapDealer]

"Don we now our light-hearted apparel
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la, la, la."

Seriously though... do whatever you want in the text. Just clearly state in your front note that you're modernising certain words whose meanings you feel have evolved enough over time to cause confusion.

I think you're drastically underestimating the capabilities of your potential readers to be able to translate for themselves (you were certainly able to ascertain what Collins meant without help, after all), but that's beside the point. If you stand by your editorial decision, then clearly document that decision in your note and move on.

[AlexBell]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

[speakingtohe]

I too think you should do what you want. Even without an explanation I am not shocked, offended,outraged or even mildly miffed.

Even in ebook land I have bigger concerns than a modernization of language. And hopefully most of us here could quickly tell if an older book had been modernized just by the usage of present day expressions and/or spellings and the absence of older more obscure ones. Probably not in all cases, but pretty sure in most.

I admire those who do this type of work pro bono as it were, and perhaps a smidge of artistic license while keeping the meaning intact is not inexcusable.

Helen

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I admire those who do this type of work pro bono as it were, and perhaps a smidge of artistic license while keeping the meaning intact is not inexcusable.

Sorry, no. I'm in total disagreement. The only place for artistic license in the preparation of an ebook is in its design, not in the text. For the text, you can take all editorial liberties that you like, but you have to acknowledge them. An ebook that is supposedly by Wilkie Collins but has light-hearted where Collins wrote gay, without informing the reader of the change, is an utterly horrible thing.

If uploading books with unacknowledged textual changes were common practice here on MR, no, worse, if people just got the suspicion it might be done here occasionally, the whole MR library would be pointless and worthless. Am I to tell my friends that they can get nicely designed classics here for free, but, hey, the uploaders may perhaps have taken a smidge of artistic license with the texts? Good grief.

[pynch]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Sorry, no. I'm in total disagreement. The only place for artistic license in the preparation of an ebook is in its design, not in the text. For the text, you can take all editorial liberties that you like, but you have to acknowledge them. An ebook that is supposedly by Wilkie Collins but has light-hearted where Collins wrote gay, without informing the reader of the change, is an utterly horrible thing.

If uploading books with unacknowledged textual changes were common practice here on MR, no, worse, if people just got the suspicion it might be done here occasionally, the whole MR library would be pointless and worthless. Am I to tell my friends that they can get nicely designed classics here for free, but, hey, the uploaders may perhaps have taken a smidge of artistic license with the texts? Good grief.

Exactly!