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

[speakingtohe]

Haven't many traditionally published books been altered, before publication by editing, reprints, some due to changing ethical, moral, or political views? I think Dickens wrote several different endings to one book IIRC because a friend didn't like the first one?

There are multiple versions of the Bible I believe, so which is the 'real' one?

Without a copy of the very first edition or the authors submitted manuscript how do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the book has not been modified.

Sure we have archival libraries, but how can they guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt their version is the original especially if a book was published and printed several times before they existed with handset type which was prone to errors.

I bought a new hardcover once with 3 pages missing. The paperback had the missing pages but it was the 2nd or 3rd printing I think.

Doesn't keep me up nights I'm afraid, although it might if it was a textbook for instance and I was student. Luckily they only change those annually and do include an edition number so you know to spend the big bucks again.

Helen

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Haven't many traditionally published books been altered, before publication by editing, reprints, some due to changing ethical, moral, or political views? I think Dickens wrote several different endings to one book IIRC because a friend didn't like the first one?

Not without changing edition number.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Not without changing edition number.

Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition_(book)

This article seems to say that edition numbers were not formalized till 1949, so it seems unlikely that Dickens even used them.

Small excerpt, not saying it is correct, but I do not think edition numbers were sacrosanct or even widely (ever?) used in Dickens time.

Please feel free to correct me with proof that Dickens or his original publishers did as you say.

Publishers use the term first edition for their own purposes, with little consistency. The "first edition" of a trade book may be the first edition by the current publisher, or the first edition with a particular set of illustrations or editorial commentary.

Non-fiction, academic and textbook publishers generally distinguish between revisions of the text, usually citing the dates of the first and latest editions on the copyright page. However, even this rule of thumb is sometimes bent. A new textbook with a different format, title, and authors may be called a "second edition" because a previous textbook is being counted as the first, despite being essentially a different book (sharing only the subject with the new one). This stretch of the definition is done for its marketing effect, because the new textbook may seem more authoritative to the potential buyer if it implies that there have been "previous editions".

Helen

[Catlady]

The issue isn't whether in the past publishers printed different editions, so indicated or not. The issue is that NOW anyone can easily change and upload those works without anyone knowing about it. A digital file does not have the same stability as a printed book.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition_(book)

This article seems to say that edition numbers were not formalized till 1949, so it seems unlikely that Dickens even used them.

Small excerpt, not saying it is correct, but I do not think edition numbers were sacrosanct or even widely (ever?) used in Dickens time.

Please feel free to correct me with proof that Dickens or his original publishers did as you say.




Helen

Well, but something else was probably different so you could see that the text might not be the same as the text or in another physical copy.

[GrannyGrump]

I've been lurking this thread for the longest, but just want to add one small comment about uploads to the MR library. Many of us do use Project Gutenberg's text as a starting point, but the interesting thing is that Gutenberg seldom identifies which edition they have transcribed.

In my own experience, I have seen drastic changes when comparing scans of different editions from Archive.org. Later editions often have lots of revised spelling and punctuation.

You would think that the first edition would be a safe bet, right? Not always.

In at least two books that I uploaded here, there were substantial differences between the American first edition and the British first edition (Tom Sawyer Abroad, and Following the Equator). In both of these cases, the British edition was more faithful to the author's manuscript (but both editions had revisions from the original manuscript - even first editions are "revised and edited".). Tom Sawyer Abroad was serialized in a magazine and "bowdlerized" for that publication, and the American first edition used those plates to print the book. But if 20th century researchers had not discovered and published that fact, I might have used the British editions without knowing the circumstances or annotating the fact, and could have been accused of "revising the book" by readers familiar only with the Amercan edition (or vice versa, of course.)

I do believe that some of the changes a reader sees in Public Domain books are simply due to the text being based on a different edition than the one the reader is familiar with. I hope this possibility might be taken into consideration before accusing fingers are pointed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Haven't many traditionally published books been altered, before publication by editing, reprints, some due to changing ethical, moral, or political views? I think Dickens wrote several different endings to one book IIRC because a friend didn't like the first one?

"Great Expectations". Dickens showed the manuscript to his friend Edward Bulwer-Lytton prior to publication, and he didn't like the ending at all, so Dickens changed it. The original ending was never published at the time.

Many modern editions (including the one I uploaded to the MR library) include the original ending as an appendix to the book.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by tompe

Not without changing edition number.

That's a matter for the publisher. Very minor changes have been made in IIRC new printings by Baen for example.

== Ashes of Victory by David Weber ch 43
Silverman's had wanted the flight deck in its "traditional" place, which meant the approxiate center of ass, because their designers were traditionalists and that was where flight decks were supposed to be.
==

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Unless you are willing to post a cash bond of at least us$25,000,000 for the legal defence of MobileReads, me, you, and anybody else that participates in this thread, I won't name names here.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I smell a dodge.

My guess would be one of a couple religious organizations with reputations for changing their doctrine/literature to suit the current situation and being fairly litigious about anyone trying to reference or use said doctrine/literature.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

That's a matter for the publisher. Very minor changes have been made in IIRC new printings by Baen for example.

== Ashes of Victory by David Weber ch 43
Silverman's had wanted the flight deck in its "traditional" place, which meant the approxiate center of ass, because their designers were traditionalists and that was where flight decks were supposed to be.
==

Now, that is the last place I would expect to find a flight deck!

I'm not one to pick on typos, but when it's funny, I can't resist.

[Pulpmeister]

The differences between UK and USA editions of popular books can be quite marked, if the book was originally written in UK.

The easiest place to see this in full swing is in Agatha Christie's books, which are everywhere. I've just been comparing a US paperback edition of The Clocks with the UK Fontana paperback, and am amazed at how much has been cut from the USA version. Somewhere around 10,000 words is my guess.

What's worse, much of it is in the dialogue, and as everybody knows, the red herrings, and the carefully buried clues, are almost always in the dialogue. Agatha Christie read the proofs from the UK publisher with great care, and her mantra was that the publisher's editors must not change a letter, comma, or spelling "mistake" in her dialogue. It all had a purpose, even the seemingly pointless and confused ramblings of some old lady.

A good example is A Murder is Announced where a part of the solution lay in a dithering speech by an old lady who sometimes said "Lettie" and sometimes "Lottie" when talking of her friend. If an editor casually harmonised the spelling of the name, a key clue would be lost.

Yet in The Clocks, whole blocks of dialogue have been omitted, including sections from one interview which, in the UK edition, provided a certain amount of intentional confusion and tension and left a character as a potential suspect until quite late in the book, while in the US edition that character is effectively diminished as a possible suspect. (And no, the character wasn't the murderer.)

Christie books are not particularly long-- this one is about 80 thousand words-- so it can't have been to save paper. It must have just been "routine" editing although why I can't imagine.

An obvious clue as to which you're reading is the spelling. US publishers quite naturally use US spelling in their editions of UK authors' books. And title changes.

But on the OP's specific point that a modern digital edition you buy might not be the same as the author wrote or intended, and that anyone can monkey with the text, is true enough. Some people digitizing a book themselves might easily be tempted to edit to some degree or another as they go. Or they might like to change things for subtle propaganda purposes. Short of buying and proofing against a known reliable original, you'll only find out by accident.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Great Expectations". Dickens showed the manuscript to his friend Edward Bulwer-Lytton prior to publication, and he didn't like the ending at all, so Dickens changed it. The original ending was never published at the time.

Many modern editions (including the one I uploaded to the MR library) include the original ending as an appendix to the book.

I did know the original ending was not published. Was an example of books being changed before publication, which may have nothing to do with the current discussion, but IMO it has.

My contention is that the original text and even the author's original story in older works, may have been altered significantly. Perhaps even the bible and Shakespeare's plays are not identical to the 'first edition'. In fact I am pretty sure they have been and the world hasn't ended.

Perhaps even Oscar Wilde has been censored/edited at some point in time.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The issue isn't whether in the past publishers printed different editions, so indicated or not. The issue is that NOW anyone can easily change and upload those works without anyone knowing about it. A digital file does not have the same stability as a printed book.

I missed the post where the official issue was defined, Sorry.

Still I don't think the reading public at large is noticeably stupider then they were when we were all reading paper.

In fact I think that it is easier to notify the public of possible malicious changes in documents than it was in the pre internet years.

Helen

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

The differences between UK and USA editions of popular books can be quite marked, if the book was originally written in UK.

The easiest place to see this in full swing is in Agatha Christie's books, which are everywhere.

All of the Harry Potter books also suffer from this. I remember bookmarking a website with an exhaustive list of the changes...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

All of the Harry Potter books also suffer from this. I remember bookmarking a website with an exhaustive list of the changes...

Speaking of which, there is no such stinking thing as a "Sorcerer's Stone".