The Ethics of Typesetting

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The title was not changed to 'And Then There Were None' in the UK until almost a decade after her death.

And the broader point it: There can be things which were acceptable when a book was published, but would make it unacceptable now. Should the book be essentially lost to mass-market consumption because of that?

It was changed for the U.S. publication in 1940.

[QuantumIguana]

If someone wants to write Fanny Hill Goes to Hell, go for it. If they attempt to pass it off as the original, if they attempt to use the adaptation to replace the original, that's a problem. but if it is documented as an adaptation, no problem. People may not like Pride and Prejuduce and Zombies, but there's nothing wrong with it. I haven't read this adaptation, so I can't comment on its quality.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ruth Plumly Thompson died in 1976. Her books are most assuredly not in the public domain anywhere.

Minor off-topic note: her first few books, published before 1923, are in the public domain in the US. The majority are not; they were renewed in the late 50's/early 60's.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

None of which changes anything.

So your view is that once the author is dead, that is it, nothing can ever be changed?

[DiapDealer]

So your view is that once the author is dead, that is it, nothing can ever be changed?

No. I would simply prefer nothing were changed after that. But once it's in the public domain, it can be changed anytime someone wants to. That's the way PD works. But I also think that those who have a modicum of respect for the work will clearly indicate they're taking personal liberties with the original—if they're planning on redistributing those works under the exact same title. Even though it may never be required of them to do so.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. Once it's in the public domain, it can be changed anytime someone wants to. That's the way it works. But those who have a modicum of respect for the work will clearly indicate they're taking personal liberties with the original if they're planning on reselling those works.

I think everyone in the thread has agreed that it should be made clear that (and where) changes have been made to the original text.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think everyone in the thread has agreed that it should be made clear that (and where) changes have been made to the original text.

Then we're square.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ruth Plumly Thompson died in 1976. Her books are most assuredly not in the public domain anywhere.

Due to the interesting US requirement of all copyrights between 1923 and 1963 having to have been actively renewed in their 28th year, many US works originally copyrighted in that 40-year window are actually in the public domain. The Silver Princess is one of those books.

My focus is completely on the more obscure books copyrighted in that window. They are in the greatest danger of being lost forever because it requires research to determine if they are indeed in PD.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And I struggle to see how people could have a problem with that.

Some people obviously do have a problem with it. The book is practically unheard of. Google it and you'll arrive at threads discussing the racism in the book and see posts by people saying they love Oz but won't read that book to their kids.

My edition is aimed at accessibility for all readers. I clearly identified the changes so people know what they are reading. I included the original text for people that want to read it as it was originally written. Readers now have choices they didn't have prior to my work on the project.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by Catlady

...My trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary, 11th edition, still defines "fagot" as a bundle of sticks, "gay" as happy, and "dago" as a person of Italian or Spanish descent, with the tag "usually offensive." There is no reason to change such words for the modern reader...

Agreed. It provides a chance for the modern reader ignorant of the terms' older and/or alternate meanings to learn and to improve their language skills.

BTW, my 1970s vintage Shorter OED agrees, indicating that "dago" was an American term originally indicating someone of Spanish origin (a bastardization of "Diego") and currently (read: in the 1970s) included Italians.

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Oh, OK, I guess I'm bilingual then: I'm fluent in American English and I get by in British English.

I do too. So do many readers. But can you safely claim that the spell of the text--the suspension of disbelief--will remain unbroken when a young US reader encounters a "faggot tossed in the fire." Is it right to let new readers flounder when it is absolutely unnecessary?

I know the intended meaning but a line like that is still a hiccup in even my enjoyment of the text.

Maybe what mattered to him wasn't the size of his audience but precision of language. Maybe he wanted just this specific shade of meaning, and not that other ever-so-slightly different meaning. Sometimes there are words in other languages that cannot be precisely translated. But it doesn't matter why--it only matters that he made the choices he did, and you are not allowed to change them because you don't approve.

If I was republishing Eliot would you approve of me adding footnotes with the translations of non-English lines? Because his intention was clearly to not provide such information. Is it wrong for me to make his work more accessible to readers of today even though accessibility was not his intention?

And if that is the case, how can we justify the translation of any public domain material? We don't know that the author would have wanted an Arabic edition of his book. I think it's safer to assume a writer would want a word changed if its meaning drastically changes than assume a writer wants their work translated into a different language. Translation, after all, is not an exact science. It can significantly alter meaning

Faithfulness to what the author originally wrote. Recognition that language is changeable. Appreciation of the beauty of words. Expansion of one's understanding of the past.

My main point is that words are not as important as the ideas they represent and not all readers read to expand their understanding of the past. Some people read solely for pleasure and when the common definition of a single word has changed so drastically I see no problem changing that word to represent the idea the original writer intended so as to not throw a hiccup of unnecessary confusion in that pleasure reading.

We can assume a writer using the word "gay" two hundred years ago had no intention what-so-ever of it meaning anything other than what it meant two hundred years ago.

You KNOW the author would want the change? Are you channeling the author? You know only that YOU want the change.

Yes. Because I know the original writer and editor were good at what they did. And no competent writer or editor today, creating books for world readers, would purposely and knowingly use a word that didn't represent the idea they were trying to convey. I believe the dead writers were competent and would release updated editions themselves if they were alive today. The burden of proof is on those assuming they would let the confusion stand.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

I do too. So do many readers. But can you safely claim that the spell of the text--the suspension of disbelief--will remain unbroken when a young US reader encounters a "faggot tossed in the fire." Is it right to let new readers flounder when it is absolutely unnecessary? I know the intended meaning but a line like that is still a hiccup in even my enjoyment of the text.

Sorry, I just don't accept this argument at all. I think this is actually being quite insulting to the intelligence of the reader. If they're old enough to read Trixie Belden, they're old enough to use a dictionary, or even ask their parents. And TBH, I think that the fact that it's a hiccup for you is more down to you than the text.

Originally Posted by Muckraker

If I was republishing Eliot would you approve of me adding footnotes with the translations of non-English lines? Because his intention was clearly to not provide such information. Is it wrong for me to make his work more accessible to readers of today even though accessibility was not his intention?

Possibly not, but footnotes are far less intrusive than rewriting a text, and actually, they can be quite informative. Even, dare I say it, interesting!

Originally Posted by Muckraker

And if that is the case, how can we justify the translation of any public domain material? We don't know that the author would have wanted an Arabic edition of his book. I think it's safer to assume a writer would want a word changed if its meaning drastically changes than assume a writer wants their work translated into a different language. Translation, after all, is not an exact science. It can significantly alter meaning

Sorry, that's a fallacious argument. Any translation makes it clear that it isn't the original, and the original is almost always available to read instead, should one wish to do so. The sort of tinkering you describe presents a text that purports to be the original (or at least very close to), without being any such thing.

Originally Posted by Muckraker

My main point is that words are not as important as the ideas they represent

Exactly! And you're tinkering with those ideas. Writers spend hours, days, maybe months, choosing exactly the words that will convey the meaning they want to convey, and you believe that you can do better?

Originally Posted by Muckraker

Yes. Because I know the original writer and editor were good at what they did. And no competent writer or editor today, creating books for world readers, would purposely and knowingly use a word that didn't represent the idea they were trying to convey. I believe the dead writers were competent and would release updated editions themselves if they were alive today. The burden of proof is on those assuming they would let the confusion stand.

They might well do. That isn't for you to decide. Even were they do so, you have no way of knowing that they'd choose the same form of words you've decided upon. Don't you find your assumption that you can do as well as them even the tiniest bit arrogant?

[Muckraker]

Originally Posted by LuvReadin

Of course, but the issue here isn't about different languages, it's about the changes taking place over time within one language, and that, IMO, should be respected.

When the same word means two completely different things depending on the country you are in it is essentially a different language--for that word at least.

I disagree with your later comment that 'British English is another language' - American English is merely a subcategory of this one language, and to try to pretend, as Webster did, that there's a fundamental difference betweeen the two is to ignore the entire etymology of the language.

What I assume is that 350million potential American readers will get the wrong idea if I toss a faggot on the fire. Will my potential readers in England be completely baffled by me tossing a bundle of sticks on the fire?

I am a lover of language but I have no intention of writing something I know will transmit the wrong idea to the bulk of my potential readers just because I think other people should love the intricacies of language as much as I do.

If you consider this really would be a problem, then use footnotes, just as many publishers use for editions of classics such as Pride and Prejudice or Bleak House.

I did essentially that. I just offered the opt-in as the default option. I'll change the word to preserve the flow and if the readers of the young-adult fantasy novel want further information they have it. Keeping a word that breaks the spell and then further breaking the spell with a footnote in a kid's fantasy novel is not something I'm interested in doing. Readers can choose to go the original route by just reading the original novel.

I'm just completely staggered by this - you may think but changing the species and origin of a character is a minor change; I think it's enormous and completely unacceptable.

I didn't say it was a minor change. I said it was a major change to a minor detail. Saying "John saw a Ford Escort drive by," is a major change from "John saw a Chevy Malibu drive by." But it is a minor detail that does not affect the story.

If readers want to determine on their own whether my change majorly affected the original story then they have all the data there to make that determination. It's fully documented.

I've worked in publishing for over 20 years - I would never change an author's words without their permission; that's why proofs exist. Even a new author would never be ridden over roughshod by a publisher in this manner.

The quality of the work suffers then. If a sentence makes no sense to anyone that reads it, the writer is not there to confirm their intention, and you publish it as-is then you have just published an inferior product. The publisher correcting the mistake has created a product that is better than yours and better than the original. Why in the world should we perpetuate a mistake simply because it was already made?

No, because the author will have approved them. If the author is no longer around to do so, then it's quite simple - those changes should either not be made, or should be clearly marked and explained.

I agree that they should be clearly marked and explained. And I agree that making undocumented changes and passing the new work off as the original is unethical. I do not support either of those things.

In certain situations I support fully documented changes in books clearly marked as different editions.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

What I assume is that 350million potential American readers will get the wrong idea if I toss a faggot on the fire.

That's a faulty assumption. You're free to make it, of course... but just don't make the mistake of thinking your assumption equals justification. You've made a personal decision regarding the work; don't pretend that it benefits anyone other than yourself... because you're the only one you're qualified to speak for on this matter.

[elcreative]

So this is for 350 million potential American readers??? Considering the number of functional illiterates, children too young to read and the substantial number of non-English speakers/readers, this is a considerable overstatement of a possible audience and, if the American English minority are too lazy to understand original works then why not leave them alone for the far greater number of English readers in the rest of the world...

Alternatively, as you KNOW you're right in what you do, how about cementing your arrogant confidence by giving us some more examples of your amazing work then we can make our minds up with hard evidence as to whether we're maligning a genius or confirm our view that we're disagreeing with a butcher...