Standard eBooks Is a Gutenberg Project You’ll Actually Use

[svenlind]

Well I for one am happy with this site. The small changes are quite minor compared to a translation into my first language.

[DiapDealer]

I prefer the original wherever possible, myself. But I take no issue whatsoever with others making these types of modified Public Domain books available. That's what Public Domain is all about; and I wholly support the concept. At least they're publicly announcing their changes and giving examples. They wouldn't have to do that if they didn't want. Doing so allows people to make up their own minds about it. Good on them. *shrug*

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I prefer the original wherever possible, myself. But I take no issue whatsoever with others making these types of modified Public Domain books available. That's what Public Domain is all about; and I wholly support the concept.

It's also an entirely normal part of the editorial process. Editors have always changed spelling and punctuation. Look at a dozen published versions of Austen or Dickens, and you'll find amongst them probably at least 3 or 4 different variants of spelling, hyphenation and punctuation.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's also an entirely normal part of the editorial process. Editors have always changed spelling and punctuation. Look at a dozen published versions of Austen or Dickens, and you'll find amongst them probably at least 3 or 4 different variants of spelling, hyphenation and punctuation.

Agreed. We've never had any real assurances that we're reading the authors' "original" manuscripts verbatim.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Agreed. We've never had any real assurances that we're reading the authors' "original" manuscripts verbatim.

Particularly given the fact that the original manuscripts were hand-written, and not always in particularly good handwriting. Austen in particular wasn't very well-educated in academic subjects, and was a notoriously poor speller.

[sun surfer]

I'm not too fussed about reading the exact manuscript the author wrote, especially considering that beyond editors the authors themselves can make revisions in subsequent editions. However once a text becomes more or less 'finished' and a long time passes I'd rather read a version closer to the original than altered by modern editors, so long as I can still more or less easily understand the original. I particularly love classics and one of the reasons is because I often feel immersed into that time period. Knowing there are changes by the authors themselves or by their original editors still keeps the text in that time period; knowing there are changes by modern day editors can make me feel like the text is a bit corrupted and I'm being condescended to.

When it comes to more difficult earlier language where more extreme revisions may be needed to become comprehensible, I would either rather battle with the original or read a version that includes both an updated version and the original. This reminds me of No Fear Shakespeare, which I've never read but really like the idea of. If I'm not mistaken, these editions include a complete 'translation' into plain and simple modern English but also include the original side-by-side.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's also an entirely normal part of the editorial process. Editors have always changed spelling and punctuation. Look at a dozen published versions of Austen or Dickens, and you'll find amongst them probably at least 3 or 4 different variants of spelling, hyphenation and punctuation.

This is so true!

And, they can shorten or omit sentences and even whole paragraphs when going from say hardcover to paperback. Or when an omnibus type edition containing several books is published.

They definitely can change and modernize stuff. There are two distinct versions of The Blue Man by Kin Platt, the original hardcover and a Scholastic paperback edition. In the Scholastic PB, quite a few cultural references were changed. So editorial changes aren't limited to just spelling and punctuation.

The annoying bit is that these changes take place, but in most instances, there is no notation for the reader that a text has been modernized or changed.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

I particularly love classics and one of the reasons is because I often feel immersed into that time period. Knowing there are changes by the authors themselves or by their original editors still keeps the text in that time period; knowing there are changes by modern day editors can make me feel like the text is a bit corrupted and I'm being condescended to.

I don't personally think it is condescending: it's just a recognition of the fact that language changes. I suspect there are relatively few readers, for example, who would prefer to retain the "long s" that was the norm in 18th and early 19th-century spelling: "tenderneſs" rather than "tenderness", for example. Use that and the typical reaction will be "what's that funny 'f' in the middle of the word?"

Likewise, changing "shew" to "show" is simply a practical acknowledgement that the spelling of the word has changed.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't personally think it is condescending: it's just a recognition of the fact that language changes. I suspect there are relatively few readers, for example, who would prefer to retain the "long s" that was the norm in 18th and early 19th-century spelling: "tenderneſs" rather than "tenderness", for example. Use that and the typical reaction will be "what's that funny 'f' in the middle of the word?"

Likewise, changing "shew" to "show" is simply a practical acknowledgement that the spelling of the word has changed.

I had to look up collywobbles the other day. It is rather an unknown word now.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't personally think it is condescending: it's just a recognition of the fact that language changes. I suspect there are relatively few readers, for example, who would prefer to retain the "long s" that was the norm in 18th and early 19th-century spelling: "tenderneſs" rather than "tenderness", for example. Use that and the typical reaction will be "what's that funny 'f' in the middle of the word?"

Likewise, changing "shew" to "show" is simply a practical acknowledgement that the spelling of the word has changed.

I think we're outliers around this site, but I also think we're the ones who actually read a lot, and maybe also a lot of classics like this. Most of the population never or hardly ever read books, except for schooling and such. These type of revisions are more meant for those readers, in my opinion. Numbers-wise they far outnumber us who read a lot, but if you compare the simple total of all the books they read compared to all the books we heavier readers read I think we easily read more classics than they do, and we read them more for enjoyment than they do.

Personally, I don't even agree with the long s being changed. I'd rather read the text as it was published at the time, and if anything is too difficult then modern editors can either publish side-by-side original and updated texts, or simply include annotations for more difficult original words or spellings.

[HarryT]

Interestingly, even the Penguin Classics versions of Austen, which claim to use "original spelling", don't go for the long s, although that's what Austen used in her manuscripts, and it's what all the early printed editions used.

[issybird]

Call me a Philistine, but I like to have punctuation modernized; I'm indifferent between American and British. I don't want to "see" the punctuation; I want my eye to skip over it. Punctuation that calls attention to itself retards the immersion process.

I don't have strong feelings about spelling. Keep it, change it, British, American, I don't care. But if they keep it, I would like the narrators of audiobooks to be given a heads up. The letter thorn is pronounced like the "th" it replaces. Hearing a succession of "yees" instead of "the" makes me crazy.

I want the words unchanged, however, not translated for modern sensibilities nor the cross-pond audience. In the first Harry Potter book, Lily was referred to as his mom. That's just painful. However, I realize with older books there's a judgment call involved. I read an article recently dealing with Mrs. Elton's affected term of endearment for her husband. Austen wrote, "cara sposo." But did she really mean "caro sposo," getting it wrong through carelessness or sloppiness? In other words, is Mrs. Elton an idiot or just a boor?

[ZodWallop]

Harry has brought me around. I'm okay with minimal editorial changes to modernize spelling/punctuation.

When I first read that it made me think of Harry Potter having Philosopher's Stone changed to Sorcerer's Stone for us poor, dumb Americans.

[dwig]

In general, I like what they are doing. Personally, I prefer the original spellings, etc., but I'm aware that archaic and "foreign" spellings are roadblocks for some readers.

The one thing that does bother me a lot is this:

Even if we do miss something, our ebooks are stored in the hugely popular Git source control system, allowing anyone to easily submit a correction.

In this day of false news and deliberate attacks alter data on sites like Wikipedia I don't want books from sites that let random users alter the books. Sending suggested "fixes" to their editors is fine, but direct access to Git is a red flag for me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

Call me a Philistine, but I like to have punctuation modernized; I'm indifferent between American and British. I don't want to "see" the punctuation; I want my eye to skip over it. Punctuation that calls attention to itself retards the immersion process.

I'd call you an entirely normal reader. Those who are interested in original orthography are in a small minority. The majority just want to read the book and not be distracted by funny spelling or punctuation.