The Ethics of Typesetting

[Jovvi]

Ok, maybe I´m wrong, maybe authors don´t want to be read by as many potential readers as possible, maybe they rather people don´t read their books unless they read the exact same words 300 years later or maybe the authors don´t care if those that do want to read the book really understands them or not...

Not that I think that so many books really needs to change for political reasons, to me it seems that you on the other side of the pond have a bigger problem with this, mostly (it seems to me) with various fundamentalistic groups that want to preach their way of life on others... In Sweden those questions are still kind of new and people with overly exprissive religious way are considered "odd" by most swedes (we are a very sekular country) however there are plenty of political groups that try to preach to the rest of us... I can see a problem with having words in a book that have had their meaning change drastically. I work as a childrens librarian and I see this a lot. There is for example a series of books thats called "Kulla-Gulla"-books in Sweden. I love them, and of cause we have them att the library... The problem is that it is getting harder and harder to get the kids to read those books, not because the story is not still going strong (it is) but because the author uses a lot of dialect, dialect from around 1900 or so and for the target audience (10-13 year olds) that does become a problem. I want newer generations to read those books, not because of the language but for the story. I would not weep if someone carefully adapted the language in the books, and I would keep the originals if someone wanted to read them.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

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

<snip>

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.

I read only a few Trixies, but I have read Nancy Drew in both the original and the modernized, sanitized versions. The stereotyping and racism were removed in the great purge, but so were the liveliness, the recklessness, and the excitement, not to mention Nancy's sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the rights of suspected wrongdoers. Of course, Nancy was a Stratemeyer Syndicate creation and they could do what they wanted with their product, but there is not one volume that was improved in the updating.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I read only a few Trixies, but I have read Nancy Drew in both the original and the modernized, sanitized versions. The stereotyping and racism were removed in the great purge, but so were the liveliness, the recklessness, and the excitement, not to mention Nancy's sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the rights of suspected wrongdoers. Of course, Nancy was a Stratemeyer Syndicate creation and they could do what they wanted with their product, but there is not one volume that was improved in the updating.

The same is true of the "Hardy Boys" books, but both of those were examples of a total rewrite by a different author, merely retaining the original title. Very different to what's generally considered "editing".

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I've said it before and I'll say it again--do what you want with a classic, but put your name on it and title it as a retelling, a condensed version, a PC version, a zombie version; whatever. Don't pretend it's the real thing.

If someone did make changes and slap their name on it, that would be plagiarism. If the person discloses that changes were made, then they aren't pretending it is the same as the original. When movies come on TV, they often have a disclosure statement that the movie has been edited for content or time. People may not like the changes, but they have been informed of them.

And again I'll say that this is why e-books are a bit frightening. Anyone can change any text, for any reason, upload it somewhere, and it's suddenly out in the wild, being confused for the real book.

It's no different than with paper. Paper copies that have been changed from the original aren't anything new.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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. ...

I have exactly the opposite opinion. I want the old/foreign spelling to be retained to serve as a queue that I need to consider everything else in light of difference between then/there and now/here. When the story is set in a real world setting such clues are essential. Even when the setting is imaginary (fantasy, SF, ...) they can still be very valuable as clues to the writer's viewpoint.

Originally posted by JOVVI:
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.

While I agree that other should be allowed to read modernized/altered versions, they should NOT be allowed to read them without the knowledge that they are not reading the author's original words. Notice that it an altered (edited, censored, modernized, ...) work is essential.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone did make changes and slap their name on it, that would be plagiarism. If the person discloses that changes were made, then they aren't pretending it is the same as the original. When movies come on TV, they often have a disclosure statement that the movie has been edited for content or time. People may not like the changes, but they have been informed of them.

So it's apparently OK to change and twist an author's words and meanings but not to steal them outright?

Geez, read between the lines. The zombie books seem to have both the original and zombificationer's names on the book. They don't have only the original author's name.

It's no different than with paper. Paper copies that have been changed from the original aren't anything new.

It is entirely different from paper. Most of us don't have personal publishing houses and printing presses and the money to print thousands of copies of "new and improved" classics and distribute them. But I can dig up some PG title and re-edit it to my liking, upload it and link to it, and pollute the Internet with it. And so can anyone else who feels like it. And if the PG headers remain, people will think they're getting a legit version.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But I can dig up some PG title and re-edit it to my liking, upload it and link to it, and pollute the Internet with it. And so can anyone else who feels like it. And if the PG headers remain, people will think they're getting a legit version.

You can't do this with a PG book - at least not legally. From the PG License Agreement:

Using the Project Gutenberg Trademark

If you want to use the name Project Gutenberg anywhere in the ebooks you distribute or on the distribution medium or in advertising you have to obey these rules:
...
you may only distribute verbatim copies of the ebooks. No changes are allowed to the ebook contents. (Though reformatting the ebook to a different file format is considered okay).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The same is true of the "Hardy Boys" books, but both of those were examples of a total rewrite by a different author, merely retaining the original title. Very different to what's generally considered "editing".

Some of the Nancy Drew books were complete rewrites that kept only the title--The Secret of Shadow Ranch and the The Clue of the Broken Locket come to mind--but most of them retained the basic storyline of the original.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I read only a few Trixies, but I have read Nancy Drew in both the original and the modernized, sanitized versions. The stereotyping and racism were removed in the great purge, but so were the liveliness, the recklessness, and the excitement, not to mention Nancy's sense of entitlement and utter disregard for the rights of suspected wrongdoers. Of course, Nancy was a Stratemeyer Syndicate creation and they could do what they wanted with their product, but there is not one volume that was improved in the updating.

Yup. And one more thing: the updated versions have fewer pages, catering to a perceived shorter attention span. Sentences also are shorter and have less complex structure. Sometimes only title remains: In The Clue of the Broken Locket was originally about two abandoned babies who are adopted without any involvement by officialdom. Can't have that, so the revised version is about separated twin sisters and two missing children. That's where the slippery slope gets you.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So it's apparently OK to change and twist an author's words and meanings but not to steal them outright?

You can change a public domain text to your hearts content. It doesn't make it your work, which putting your name in it would imply. If someone is making changes and trying to pass it off as the original, that's a problem. But people aren't talking about that, they are talking about texts that are clearly marked as being edited.

Geez, read between the lines. The zombie books seem to have both the original and zombificationer's names on the book. They don't have only the original author's name.

But even the zombificationers don't just put their name on it, they put the name their name and the original author's names. The zombificationers have made major changes to the text. I don't know if I would want to read a book that was edited for content, but that is not as major a change as the changes the zombificationers make.

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

It is entirely different from paper. Most of us don't have personal publishing houses and printing presses and the money to print thousands of copies of "new and improved" classics and distribute them. But I can dig up some PG title and re-edit it to my liking, upload it and link to it, and pollute the Internet with it. And so can anyone else who feels like it. And if the PG headers remain, people will think they're getting a legit version.

But publishing houses DO publish paper versions that are altered from the original, whether edited for content or to produce a condensed version, it isn't at all uncommon. The shelves of bookstores as as "polluted" as are web pages.

I can go to Project Gutenberg and get the original. If I go to an e-book retailer, people aren't likely to even notice the altered version exists.

[QuantumIguana]

From the PG license agreement:

"If you strip the Project Gutenberg license and all references to Project Gutenberg from the ebook, you are left with a public domain ebook. You can do anything you want with that."

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Ok, maybe I´m wrong, maybe authors don´t want to be read by as many potential readers as possible, maybe they rather people don´t read their books unless they read the exact same words 300 years later or maybe the authors don´t care if those that do want to read the book really understands them or not...

Not that I think that so many books really needs to change for political reasons, to me it seems that you on the other side of the pond have a bigger problem with this, mostly (it seems to me) with various fundamentalistic groups that want to preach their way of life on others... In Sweden those questions are still kind of new and people with overly exprissive religious way are considered "odd" by most swedes (we are a very sekular country) however there are plenty of political groups that try to preach to the rest of us... I can see a problem with having words in a book that have had their meaning change drastically. I work as a childrens librarian and I see this a lot. There is for example a series of books thats called "Kulla-Gulla"-books in Sweden. I love them, and of cause we have them att the library... The problem is that it is getting harder and harder to get the kids to read those books, not because the story is not still going strong (it is) but because the author uses a lot of dialect, dialect from around 1900 or so and for the target audience (10-13 year olds) that does become a problem. I want newer generations to read those books, not because of the language but for the story. I would not weep if someone carefully adapted the language in the books, and I would keep the originals if someone wanted to read them.

Wow, how about being totally and incredibly insulting to people taking part in a formerly rational discussion concerning bowdlerising/"editing" and otherwise changing books... getting fundamentalistic, preach, odd and political groups in one comment...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Some of the Nancy Drew books were complete rewrites that kept only the title--The Secret of Shadow Ranch and the The Clue of the Broken Locket come to mind--but most of them retained the basic storyline of the original.

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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

From the PG license agreement:

"If you strip the Project Gutenberg license and all references to Project Gutenberg from the ebook, you are left with a public domain ebook. You can do anything you want with that."

Yes, that's perfectly true, but we were discussing redistributing it as a "PG" book; you can't do that if you edit it in any way.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

Yup. And one more thing: the updated versions have fewer pages, catering to a perceived shorter attention span. Sentences also are shorter and have less complex structure. Sometimes only title remains: In The Clue of the Broken Locket was originally about two abandoned babies who are adopted without any involvement by officialdom. Can't have that, so the revised version is about separated twin sisters and two missing children. That's where the slippery slope gets you.

If I remember correctly, the revised books all had exactly 180 pages. I once compared a sample chapter of one of the Nancys in the original and revised versions--the Flesch-Kincaid reading level of the original was 6.3, of the revision, 4.5. That's a lot of dumbing-down!