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

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

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.

I really appreciate your intentions, but, IMHO, you underestimate most readers. Even non-native speakers are not very likely to misinterpret "gay" as "homosexual" in a 19th century novel, because if they've read other novels from that time period they'd know that most traditional 19th century English novels simply don't contain overt references to sexual orientation.

I'd go with HarryT's suggestion. I.e., leave "gay" and add a footnote.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

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.

Frankly, I do suspect the MR library and hesitate to use it. This is not the first time an uploader has mentioned taking some "artistic license." And since so many people here are taking a "hey, whatever, what's the big deal" attitude about changes to text, I wonder how many uploaders share that attitude and never mention the "minor" changes they make.

The works here may be nicely formatted, but if the trade-off is changes to text, no thanks. It's too bad that everything gets tarnished with the same brush.

[pynch]

There have been some people here showing the “whatever” attitude you mention, but only very few (one?) of the regular e-book uploaders did ...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pynch

There have been some people here showing the “whatever” attitude you mention, but only very few (one?) of the regular e-book uploaders did ...

Yep. Most of us take great care with our books. As I said earlier in this thread, what I do personally is to meticulously proof-read against an "academic" printed edition, such as Penguin Classics, or Oxford World Classics.

[4691mls]

I don't care if someone makes a modernized version of a book as long as it's clearly labeled as such so I could avoid it.

I personally would rather read a book with the original language. Footnotes for any particularly obscure words work for me.

[AlexBell]

We've seen several expressions of opinion in this thread. But opinions, even fiercely held opinions, do change over time - like those about slavery, child labour, women's suffrage, and many other subjects.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to set up a set of guidance notes for the future which (after reasonable discussion) could be published. I haven't seen such guidance on the forum, or engraved in stone on Mount Sinai either.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

We've seen several expressions of opinion in this thread. But opinions, even fiercely held opinions, do change over time - like those about slavery, child labour, women's suffrage, and many other subjects.

Comparing folks opinions expressed in this thread about altering the text of books with the topics you singled out above, as if those are on par with each other, is insulting.

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Perhaps it would be a good idea to set up a set of guidance notes for the future which (after reasonable discussion) could be published.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I haven't seen such guidance on the forum, or engraved in stone on Mount Sinai either.

Continuing with extreme symbolism doesn't help your point.

[doubleshuffle]

Easy:

I. Thou shalt not change text without acknowledging it.

[Junnier]

I'm surprised that a conversation in which there are proponents of taking 'artistic liberties' with texts is something that would even happen in a venue like this. Surely, as readers, we respect the authors (and the language) more than that.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

We've seen several expressions of opinion in this thread. But opinions, even fiercely held opinions, do change over time - like those about slavery, child labour, women's suffrage, and many other subjects.

Doctor Ohh has already said that this is insulting, so I wanted to let it pass. But the more it sinks in the angrier I get, because in your comparison people of my opinion are compared to slavers, child exploiters and male chauvinists, while you, who breaks out in a rash when you encounter a word that makes you think of homosexuality, would be the advance guard of freedom and justice. I mean, really.

[Yapyap]

I don't doubt that there are both very young native speakers and non-native speakers who aren't familiar with the changes in certain words' meanings over time, but frankly, I'd expect anyone who shows active interest in downloading and reading 19th century works (especially such which aren't likely to be part of any compulsory reading list in schools) to have some considerable experience with, well, reading books, and with the concept of older vocabulary existing as well as words changing in meaning.

Besides, when I come across with a word that I am either unfamiliar with or that seems odd in context (in the meaning that I know), there are such things as dictionaries.

In general, I'm not opposed to very minor updating (when noted as such in the preface) - specifically in spelling, either for internal consistency in the text or for consistency with modern usage (in particular such cases that might be mistaken for typos otherwise, e.g. freind -> friend); to-day -> today would also not bother me but at the same time I'm familiar with to-day and find it pleasantly quaint, part of the overall feeling and atmosphere of reading an older book.

Actual vocabulary changes though... I'd really prefer it if that didn't happen. I suppose I see why they happen in children's books modernised for today's sensibilities, but in older works more likely to be read by people over ten years old, definitely not. Footnotes (leaving the original word and adding a footnote explaining its usage or giving a modern equivalent) are a much better way to go about any obsolete or potentially confusing words, IMHO.

(I started reading 19th century English literature - printed, not particularly modernised editions - when I was about 17-18, as a non-native speaker. This was before the era of Internet and before using English actively in my daily life. Yeah, it was a bit of a struggle for the first few months, but dictionaries exist and it gets easier the more you read.)

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

In general, I'm not opposed to very minor updating (when noted as such in the preface) - specifically in spelling, either for internal consistency in the text or for consistency with modern usage (in particular such cases that might be mistaken for typos otherwise, e.g. freind -> friend); to-day -> today would also not bother me but at the same time I'm familiar with to-day and find it pleasantly quaint, part of the overall feeling and atmosphere of reading an older book.

Actual vocabulary changes though... I'd really prefer it if that didn't happen. I suppose I see why they happen in children's books modernised for today's sensibilities, but in older works more likely to be read by people over ten years old, definitely not. Footnotes (leaving the original word and adding a footnote explaining its usage or giving a modern equivalent) are a much better way to go about any obsolete or potentially confusing words, IMHO.

(I started reading 19th century English literature - printed, not particularly modernised editions - when I was about 17-18, as a non-native speaker. This was before the era of Internet and before using English actively in my daily life. Yeah, it was a bit of a struggle for the first few months, but dictionaries exist and it gets easier the more you read.)

Hear hear to all that. Hell, my kid knew that "gay" in old books didn't mean homosexual by the time he was about seven. 'Cos we read Enid Blyton, and I explained it. It's really not that hard.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

I really appreciate your intentions, but, IMHO, you underestimate most readers. Even non-native speakers are not very likely to misinterpret "gay" as "homosexual" in a 19th century novel, because if they've read other novels from that time period they'd know that most traditional 19th century English novels simply don't contain overt references to sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I don't doubt that there are both very young native speakers and non-native speakers who aren't familiar with the changes in certain words' meanings over time, but frankly, I'd expect anyone who shows active interest in downloading and reading 19th century works (especially such which aren't likely to be part of any compulsory reading list in schools) to have some considerable experience with, well, reading books, and with the concept of older vocabulary existing as well as words changing in meaning.

Besides, when I come across with a word that I am either unfamiliar with or that seems odd in context (in the meaning that I know), there are such things as dictionaries.

I am one of those non-native speakers who like to read classics to get a feel for the culture and for what society could be like in those times. Even if the wording is challenging at times it doesn't drive me away from the classics. If what I wanted was something easy to read, I would go for translated versions.
Actually the same applies to classics in every language. Earlier this year I was reading Jules Verne's first book. The story is set in Africa so, as you can expect, the n. word is quite common. Well, as it happens *I* didn't expect that, but it helped me put things in perspective. Now I can appreciate how for instance, with all the knowledge available nowadays, we don't presume other people to be savages just because they are different.
So I'd like the stories to remain as they were written, but I'm not opposed as some improvements as long as this is clearly stated somewhere. The footnotes are a great idea too.

[Billi]

I can only speak for German properly. As much as I like our classics for their old wording, especially the use of the verbs, I really don't need to read them in the old spelling. If I have a choice I prefer old wording/modern spelling (best that until 1996).

[Prestidigitweeze]

Alex:

I take it you won't be creating an edition of the collected works of John Gay.

Others' point about not changing the wording of standing text is a crucial one, but they have made it several times already. Instead, I'd like to offer this:

Even the language of especially offensive texts must be preserved to show historical and/or artistic context.

Let's proceed by degrees from the significance of offensive ideas to that of offensive language.

We know that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document of an imaginary attempt by imaginary Jewish people to dominate the world. But if someone tried to sanitize that text in the name of decency, then anyone who read it would not feel the full impact of its viciousness and so might not understand what it meant when Hitler claimed the book was a legitimate document, nor be as shocked that it was published and promoted by people as prominent as American industrialist Henry Ford. To omit language or passages from the book could potentially excuse proponents like Ford in readers' minds, since they could conclude that antisemitism in that time was not as disgusting and extreme as it proved to be.

To use a less obvious example, Sade's Philosophy in the Bedroom contains many offensive premises (cf. that the strength of the individual determines right action, therefore a person who can be forced into sex by a stronger person should be obligated to perform it) which the author develops alongside far more reasonable ones. If an editor decided to purge the book of such ideas, then the reader might not understand the outrage they provoked in Sade's time and long after. Sade might be seen as a libertine who merely fought against things like class disparity, the concentration of wealth and the arbitrary privileges of royalty.

The nature of Sade's offensive ideas is reflected in his offensive language:

120 Days of Sodom contains page after page of what can only be called abstract and dehumanizing sexual equations. Though these equations use pornographic language even as they propose excruciating self-negating acts, they would probably not be considered erotic by anyone including the author. Rather they show Sade's technique of proposing the most alienating ideas possible in order to outrage the reader, which foregrounds the act of reading in a way that would be explored by critical theorists and experimental novelists in the coming centuries (as it were). The offensive ideas are reflected in the offensive language in which they're expressed.

Or to use a second famous example of necessary offensive language:

Purging the diction of Huckleberry Finn of racist epithets would mutilate the effect that Mark Twain intended, which was to illustrate how even a brutally uneducated racist may come to respect the humanity of the people he'd been taught to despise. Without the use of certain words, the effect of Jim's example on the narrator's mindset would be far less apparent, and Finn's ultimate declaration that he would gladly lay down his life for Jim would prove less effective.

The seemingly inept style of the book also satirizes the supposed superiority of certain people in Twain's time, who were stupid enough to dismiss an entire race of human beings as stupid. To purge this seemingly crude style of crude language would only undermine Twain's intentions.

The point in every case is the same:

Change even offensive content -- whether it be an idea or a word -- and you might undermine the significance of the book.