The Ethics of Typesetting

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by Catlady

If a character enters a phone booth and uses a pay phone, do you change that to the character using a cell phone, because phone booths are archaic and a modern reader might say, What's a phone booth? If a character plays a record on a Victrola, do you change it to an mp3 on an iPod? I mean, if you're going to take it upon yourself to modernize, where do you draw the line?

If the meaning of "phone booth" changes and now commonly means "the porta-potty people use for anonymous sexual encounters," and young readers have never heard the archaic usage of the word, and the book was pulp fiction aimed at tweens then, yes, I believe there is a strong case for changing the word to something that accurately communicates the idea of "phone booth."

We are not talking about the evolution of technology. We're talking about old words having modern meanings that are confusing or distracting. Imagine you are reading the ultimate tear-jerker paragraph about a man lamenting the death of his five-year-old son and the last line of the paragraph says "and he was so gay." Now imagine reading that out loud to a group.

How important is that word? Important enough to nullify an otherwise powerful paragraph? Would the long-dead author and his descendents prefer we throw his work in the trash and forget his name because he chose to use one of those rare words that has a completely different meaning today and now causes people to laugh, be confused, or at best it just breaks the spell with a distracting hiccup?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I avoid "fixing" things like this at all costs. If only because I'll never get the ebook "done" otherwise. It's far too easy for me to go from format-shifting to re-writing otherwise. And I don't consider myself qualified/entitled to do the latter... no matter how often I delude myself into thinking I might be.

Punctuation is actually VERY commonly changed by editors. If you look at different 19th century editions of Dickens at "archive.org", for example, you'll see that they often have totally different punctuation. In the days of hand-written manuscripts, authors didn't tend to bother putting in much in the way of punctuation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I am horrified at the idea of anyone deciding to try to sanitize language to meet current standards of political correctness.

I have two different versions of Josephine Tey's 1929 novel "The Man in the Queue". The original 1929 text uses the word "dago" to refer to one of the main characters in the book. I have a 1960s edition of the same book in which "dago" has been changed to "Levantine". Does this really horrify you? I think of it as the job of an editor to make this type of change as a result of language changing. In the 1920s it was acceptable (in Britain) to refer to a person of Mediterranean appearance as a "dago"; by the 1960s it was not.

It's an editor's job to maximise the commercial potential of a book, not to regard a writer's words as "holy writ that must not be changed". Pretty much every book needs editing before publishing, and if it stays in print for decades, it may well need re-editing to account for societal changes. That's not "horrifying"; it's the editor's job.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think there are two very different approaches in conflict here.

The first is the PG approach, which is about preserving an exact edition of a work. It is the formation of a museum of books, and each oddity should be preserved as an artifact of the original book. Whether people actually enjoy reading the books is of secondary concern.

The second is that there are some old books out there with good stories that people might still enjoy reading. The aim is entertainment, not preservation. If there are obvious changes that make the book more entertaining, without distorting the original meaning, why not make them?

Both approaches are equally valid, and you can't judge either by the standards of the other.

I agree completely Murraypaul. My position changes depending on the material I'm working with. With a book of poetry, I was so anal about accurate reproduction of the original text that I counted spaces and measured the margins on each poem. But even in that case the book as a whole is not a mirror copy. I made a new cover. My book comes with a sixty-page word-frequency report.

The one book I did make some changes to was the 32nd in a 40 book children's fantasy series. It was the second to last book by a writer that contributed 19 books to that series. She made one bad choice that sticks out like a sore thumb and taints her legacy and the series. I made the very tough choice to modify the work. I clearly communicated my mental dilemma in the editor's note. I archived the original text for anyone interested in seeing it. And I made it crystal clear in the titling and sales blurbs that I made changes. I know I angered some fans--I fully expected to--but I also know readers now have more choices and the work is more accessible than it was before. People can read and enjoy the original book or they can read and enjoy my release.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

She made one bad choice that sticks out like a sore thumb and taints her legacy and the series. I made the very tough choice to modify the work. I clearly communicated my mental dilemma in the editor's note. I archived the original text for anyone interested in seeing it.

Are you able to say what that editing change was in the case you describe? I'd be interested to know.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I have two different versions of Josephine Tey's 1929 novel "The Man in the Queue". The original 1929 text uses the word "dago" to refer to one of the main characters in the book. I have a 1960s edition of the same book in which "dago" has been changed to "Levantine". Does this really horrify you?...

It does bother me on two levels.

One, the two words, at least in American English, refer to people of differing ethnic groups. The change isn't just a modern PC term that replaces the old now non-PC term.

Secondly, I question, due to a lack of knowledge, whether the term "dago" has really changed meaning or is it just that using it has changed in acceptability. Was "dago" a derogatory term in 1920s England as it is today and its use was simply acceptable? Or, on the other hand, was it considered simply a descriptive term with no denigration implied? If the former, it should not be changed as doing so changes to tone of the text. If the latter, it could be replaced, but if so using a proper replacement that doesn't change the character's origin.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dwig

It does bother me on two levels.

One, the two words, at least in American English, refer to people of differing ethnic groups. The change isn't just a modern PC term that replaces the old now non-PC term.

Secondly, I question, due to a lack of knowledge, whether the term "dago" has really changed meaning or is it just that using it has changed in acceptability. Was "dago" a derogatory term in 1920s England as it is today and its use was simply acceptable? Or, on the other hand, was it considered simply a descriptive term with no denigration implied? If the former, it should not be changed as doing so changes to tone of the text. If the latter, it could be replaced, but if so using a proper replacement that doesn't change the character's origin.

Here's an example of its usage in the book. A man has been stabbed with a stiletto and the police inspector is pondering the crime:

Idly he considered the type of man it would be. No thorough Englishman used such a weapon. If he used steel at all he took a razor and cut a person’s throat. But his habitual weapon was a bludgeon, and, failing that, a gun. This was a crime that had been planned with an ingenuity and executed with a subtlety that was foreign to an Englishman’s habit of thought. The very femininity of it proclaimed the dago, or at the very least one used to dago habits of life. A sailor perhaps. An English sailor used to the Mediterranean ports might have done it. But then, would a sailor have been likely to think of anything so subtle as the queue? He would have been more likely to wait for a dark night and a lonely street. The picturesqueness of the thing was Latin. An Englishman was obsessed with the desire to hit. The manner of the hitting did not habitually concern him.

This is the same paragraph from the 1960's version of the book:

Idly he considered the type of man it would be. No thorough Englishman used such a weapon. If he used steel at all he took a razor and cut a person’s throat. But his habitual weapon was a bludgeon, and, failing that, a gun. This was a crime that had been planned with an ingenuity and executed with a subtlety that was foreign to an Englishman’s habit of thought. The very femininity of it proclaimed the Levant, or at the very least one used to Levantine habits of life. A sailor perhaps. An English sailor used to the Mediterranean ports might have done it. But then, would a sailor have been likely to think of anything so subtle as the queue? He would have been more likely to wait for a dark night and a lonely street. The picturesqueness of the thing was Levantine. An Englishman was obsessed with the desire to hit. The manner of the hitting did not habitually concern him.

Perhaps you disagree, but I don't see the use of the word "dago" in the original as being intentionally derogatory, and it's been quite reasonably edited for the 1960s version, to my mind. You are of course correct in saying that "dago" and "Levantine" don't actually mean the same thing, but this is of no importance to the story.

[BeccaPrice]

I guess my objection to the "updating" of archaic works is that there is no consent from the author possible. If an editor said to an author "this choice of words is problematic" the author has the choice to change it or not. Making these kinds of changes without permission of the author (or heirs) strikes me as hubris.

and my biggest problem with the quotes cited in #37 above isn't the use of "dago" v. Levantine, it's the mysogeny. Where do editorial changes stop?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

and my biggest problem with the quotes cited in #37 above isn't the use of "dago" v. Levantine, it's the mysogeny. Where do editorial changes stop?

You mean the "a real man wouldn't use a stiletto" thing? That is a rather peculiar outlook on life, I agree, but Josephine Tey was a product of the culture in which she lived, as are we all. It's very difficult to analyse someone's motives in that situation. As the famous first sentence of L.P. Hartley's book says: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Oh please. Translating from one language to another is not the same thing at all.

British English is another language. Why should we ignore the fact that an untranslated word will unnecessarily confuse the target audience--kids all around the world? Writers won't use complex technical jargon in their children's books when there is another word that means essentially the same thing.

I don't like T.S. Eliot for this exact reason. He used multiple different languages in the same poem and provided no footnotes, translation, or explanation. What he was essentially saying to me--the reader--is that I'm not smart enough to read his poems. His intention was to filter out readers not in his target audience. If he had included footnotes with translations his target audience would have grown.

I don't think writers of children's books are interested in filtering people out though.

Words of more than three syllables confuse people too. Lots of people. Does everything need to be tailored for the lowest common denominator? You have no right to change the author's words.

Not knowing the meaning of a word is one thing. 95% of readers knowing the correct meaning of a modern word when the word was used for its archaic or foreign definition though...

If it's extremely distracting, like the words "gay" or "faggot," and the work in question is genre fiction for kids I don't see any benefits of leaving the word there. What are the benefits?

You cannot just willy-nilly decide that you know better than the author.

What I know is that I'm publishing obscure books today, for the enjoyment of readers today. And I know that the author, if he/she was writing the exact same book today, would not use that word in that way. I feel, in the cases I have noted, it is safe to assume they would have chosen the word that conveys the correct idea. To do otherwise would be to assume the writer lacked the skill to choose an appropriate word.

If I had written "I hate fags" in a sci-fi novel decades ago, and then died, I would prefer it be corrected. I would prefer people give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I did not intend a definition that did not exist when I wrote the word.

What's your point here? We need to cater to idiots don't know how to look up "niggardly" in a dictionary?

We don't. Neither did the guy that got fired. But he still got fired.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

If I had written "I hate fags" in a sci-fi novel decades ago, and then died, I would prefer it be corrected.

A modern British reader would simply assume that you were expressing your dislike of the filthy habit of smoking, and would probably applaud your opinion.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I guess my objection to the "updating" of archaic works is that there is no consent from the author possible. If an editor said to an author "this choice of words is problematic" the author has the choice to change it or not. Making these kinds of changes without permission of the author (or heirs) strikes me as hubris.

Part of the purpose of the public domain is to allow use of the text without permission of the author.

and my biggest problem with the quotes cited in #37 above isn't the use of "dago" v. Levantine, it's the mysogeny. Where do editorial changes stop?

Was there misogyny in one excerpt and not the other? The point of the change wasn't "to remove discrimination," but to change a no-bigotry-intended passage to one that still showed no overt racial bigotry.

The assumption that women can't or won't use a "man's weapon" is still widespread; the fact that it was a much more acceptable notion in the 20's doesn't mean the passage should be updated. However, a different editor might've replaced the word "feminine" with "cowardly" or "pathetic" to remove the implication that women, specifically, are incompetent with some weapons.

Whether to remove insulting implications from text where they *were* intended is a different issue from removing implications that only exist because of language shifts that happened after original publication.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you able to say what that editing change was in the case you describe? I'd be interested to know.

Outside of that particular chapter in the 32nd book, readers never come across groups of characters that could be confused for real-world characters in any of the other 39 books.

Then, out of the blue, this wizard has a legion of "black slaves." They are called "the blacks" all over that chapter and the adjective black is sprinkled in all over the place--"the black boy," "he raised his black hand," etc. There are also a couple illustrations showing them in the stereotypical caricature style from the 1930's.

I didn't want to remove illustrations so I instead tried to move them to a different context. This is a bit different than what we've been talking about with words like "faggot" in that I did change the intended meaning. Instead of black human slaves that could have been dropped into the US and fit right in picking cotton, I made them humanoid slaves made of black stone.

I searched the entire 40-book series to make sure the change fit with the lore and I tried to come up with any possible reason the slaves needed to be regular black humans. I couldn't. What I knew was, aside from these slaves, non-white people never show up in the entire series--not as heroes or villains or anything. The series had no connection to religion, politics, race, or any of the unpleasantries of real life. It's a light whimsical place accessible to readers of all races, religions, and ages. That's why I made a major change to one very minor detail.

A young reader goes through 31 books in this magical land. Their imaginations are running wild. They get to the end of the 32nd book and maybe they wind up in a talk about "reality" with their parents. Maybe their parents make them skip that book. The worst thing in my mind, though, is a non-white reader hitting book 32, heads full of fantasy and thinking of all they'd do if they were in the magical land, and then finding out that there are actually people that look just like them in the book. And those people are slaves. And then maybe that non-white reader isn't so keen on adventuring in a land where the only other people like him are slaves.

Anyhow, an entirely accessible series had one unnecessary sliver of inaccessibility. I pulled that sliver and gave parents and readers another option. The one minor detail made the book a black-eye on the whole series and on that writer's body of work. It's akin to reading 39 books in a series, getting to the end of the 40th book, and having a main character in the otherwise completely neutral series say, "don't be such a Jew."

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I guess my objection to the "updating" of archaic works is that there is no consent from the author possible. If an editor said to an author "this choice of words is problematic" the author has the choice to change it or not. Making these kinds of changes without permission of the author (or heirs) strikes me as hubris.

But do you consider translation of public domain material to be hubris? In translation there are more changes in meaning and challenging judgment calls than changing faggots into bundles of sticks.

The authors are long dead. The meaning of a particular word they used is long dead and now the word has a meaning that actually detracts from the quality of the text and decreases the reader's enjoyment. It's a problem we know the author would have fixed.

They can't consent to the change when they are dead but they also can't request a change when they are dead. I'm an editor. I'm a writer. If I come across a problem I know a fellow writer/editor would fix then I request the change on their behalf. I don't see how I can just ignore it when I know the author would not ignore it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by dwig

There should be a preface with an explanation of the changes and some tagline on the cover and title page. The reader should not be duped into reading the book without prior knowledge that they are not reading the author's original words.

The Agatha Christie book 'And Then There Were None' is actually the third title that it has been published under, and there have been changes made to the text. The original title became unacceptable, and was replaced by another, that in turn became unacceptable.
I see no indication on the Amazon page for the book that this has taken place.
Should I be outraged by that?