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

[doubleshuffle]

"More nauseous and foolish cant was never chattered than that which would deride the memory or depreciate the merits of Bowdler. No man ever did better service to Shakespeare than the man who made it possible to put him into the hands of intelligent and imaginative children." - Swinburne

I propose opening the Bowdler Swinburne Library for Intelligent and Imaginative Children. I'll start it with an upload of Lady Chatterley's New Best Friend.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

"More nauseous and foolish cant was never chattered than that which would deride the memory or depreciate the merits of Bowdler. No man ever did better service to Shakespeare than the man who made it possible to put him into the hands of intelligent and imaginative children." - Swinburne

A friend of mine, who is an English teacher, made that very point to me a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about Shakespeare, and she said that it was Bowdler who was largely responsible for his popularity in the 19th century, by producing an edition of his work which could be taught in schools. In my schooldays in the 1970s, we certainly had "school editions" of Shakespeare which were edited to remove the rude bits.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My response to bowdlerization is to want a return to the original text.

No, your response to bowdlerization is to demand the removal of bowdlerized works. In what imaginary universe is that not censorship?

If you had said "This needs to be clearly marked as a bowdlerized edition, and if possible, there should be a version containing the original text" then I would've agreed that that is what your response was.

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

"More nauseous and foolish cant was never chattered than that which would deride the memory or depreciate the merits of Bowdler. No man ever did better service to Shakespeare than the man who made it possible to put him into the hands of intelligent and imaginative children." - Swinburne

I propose opening the Bowdler Swinburne Library for Intelligent and Imaginative Children. I'll start it with an upload of Lady Chatterley's New Best Friend.

A better service to literature was never seen!

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think I'm in Alice's Looking-Glass World now.

Where else would I be accused of advocating censorship for objecting to bowdlerization?

Suggesting that Alex's changes were bowderlization is a pretty big stretch. Do I agree with his edit? No. Do I respect it? Yes. Do I think it counts as bowderlization? Only about as much as:

He meant to say, "Pass the salt." But instead he said "You've ruined my life you bloodsucking shrew"

counts as a Freudian slip.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by jandrew

Suggesting that Alex's changes were bowderlization is a pretty big stretch. Do I agree with his edit? No. Do I respect it? Yes. Do I think it counts as bowderlization? Only about as much as:

He meant to say, "Pass the salt." But instead he said "You've ruined my life you bloodsucking shrew"

counts as a Freudian slip.

A fan of Frasier?

[DrNefario]

Oh wow. I tend to ignore these threads that run on and on forever, thinking that it's just the same old arguments going round and round, but I thought I'd have a look at this one and see what people were still managing to talk about, and I'm almost wishing I hadn't.

Luckily I am now here to solve everything in easy numbered bullet points.

1. Being free and voluntary does not give you a free pass. Things can always be better. Isn't that why MR has its own library at all? To make nicer editions than the other free and voluntary sources? Personally, I appreciate the effort, and tend to come to MR first when I'm looking for a PD item, because the books here are likely to be better-formatted than at gutenberg or the automated conversions at amazon or whatever.

2. AlexBell's edition was identified as having modernised spelling. It seems that many of us feel that changing "gay" to "light-hearted" is more than just a modernisation, and should have been (at least) noted more clearly. "Gay" does not mean now what it meant then, but "light-hearted" changes the rhythm of the sentence. It is Wilkie Collins, though, of the verbose overwriting school of 19th-century literature, and ultimately I don't think it bothers me. It is the kind of edit you might make to put out a new edition, which is essentially what AlexBell has done.

3. The problem, really, is that there is no way of knowing it was done, unless you are already an expert on the text. And it's true. There isn't. We still wouldn't know it was done, if AlexBell hadn't told us. Any given book could be edited. It could be an abridgement. It could be a completely different book. Ultimately, you just have to trust the uploader and hope anything too egregious will eventually come to light. Or just not read it.

I had/have this problem to some extent with a commercial anthology. One table of contents I saw on the publisher's website suggested that some of the included works might be abridged. There's nothing in the actual book to say either way. The only way I can be sure is to read another version and compare, in which case why not just read the other version anyway?

4. I would hope that any substantive edits would be noted, and I don't really see why there shouldn't be guidelines to say that. I would guess there already are some guidelines for what can be uploaded to MR and how to do it? I haven't been able to contribute yet, so I wouldn't know.

Things would still be missed - AlexBell seems to be fairly conscientious, but obviously didn't think that change was sufficiently major to warrant a separate mention - but I don't see that there would be any harm in a statement of what the library is aiming for, if anyone can agree what that is.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jandrew

Suggesting that Alex's changes were bowderlization is a pretty big stretch. Do I agree with his edit? No. Do I respect it? Yes. Do I think it counts as bowderlization? Only about as much as:

He meant to say, "Pass the salt." But instead he said "You've ruined my life you bloodsucking shrew"

counts as a Freudian slip.

I'm not the one who characterized AlexBell's changes as bowdlerization, that was eschwartz.

See post 521.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

No, your response to bowdlerization is to demand the removal of bowdlerized works. In what imaginary universe is that not censorship?

If you had said "This needs to be clearly marked as a bowdlerized edition, and if possible, there should be a version containing the original text" then I would've agreed that that is what your response was.

1. Author writes a book.
   
2. A hundred years later, someone decides to "modernize" the author's vocabulary without noting the changes.
   
3. Someone else objects to the "modernization" and wants a return to the author's original text.

And that last someone is the one who's mocked, vilified, and accused of advocating censorship?

I wonder if you are even taking a moment to consider what you're really saying. I seriously doubt it. I think you and many of the others are just playing silly games, like a bunch of bullies in a schoolyard. Because it's just SUCH FUN to gang up on someone. And since I refuse to be intimidated, I'm a challenge.

Fine with me.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Isn't that why MR has its own library at all? To make nicer editions than the other free and voluntary sources? Personally, I appreciate the effort, and tend to come to MR first when I'm looking for a PD item, because the books here are likely to be better-formatted than at gutenberg or the automated conversions at amazon or whatever.

That's how I've always perceived it (right or wrong) and why I've pointed folks here over the years instead of Gutenberg & other site.

[doubleshuffle]

I propose nailing a warning sign to the gates of the MR library:

We love messing with texts. Only seriously disfigured, misedited and badowdlerizated texts to be found here. Customers demanding purity will be mocked, vilified, accused of advocating censorship and forced to read the whole of Moby-Johnson aloud.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

1. Author writes a book.
   
2. A hundred years later, someone decides to "modernize" the author's vocabulary without noting the changes.
   
3. Someone else objects to the "modernization" and wants a return to the author's original text.

And that last someone is the one who's mocked, vilified, and accused of advocating censorship?

I wonder if you are even taking a moment to consider what you're really saying.

I cannot answer that question, as I have already done so in the post that you quoted.

Might I also advise you to brush up on your logical fallacies?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I propose nailing a warning sign to the gates of the MR library:

We love messing with texts. Only seriously disfigured, misedited and badowdlerizated texts to be found here. Customers demanding purity will be mocked, vilified, accused of advocating censorship and forced to read the whole of Moby-Johnson aloud.

That last bit is a little over the top!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I cannot answer that question, as I have already done so in the post that you quoted.

Might I also advise you to brush up on your logical fallacies?

Might I advise you that stating a series of events in order of occurrence is not the same thing as offering a logical conclusion?

You're the one you might want to do some brushing up.

[theinfamousj]

Originally Posted by Catlady

1. Someone else objects to the "modernization" and wants a return to the author's original text.

And that last someone is the one who's mocked, vilified, and accused of advocating censorship?

It is that you are advocating the deletion, removal, burning-if-you-will of the modernized version rather than allowing it to live in tandem with the original wording that already exists, and simply selecting the original wording to read.

It isn't enough for you that the author's text is preserved, but all other derivatives must be extinguished. That is, if not censorship, against the spirit of public domain.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I propose nailing a warning sign to the gates of the MR library:

We love messing with texts. Only seriously disfigured, misedited and badowdlerizated texts to be found here. Customers demanding purity will be mocked, vilified, accused of advocating censorship and forced to read the whole of Moby-Johnson aloud.

You should do that