|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Apr 24, 2012 10:56:24 GMT
I suspect there is little in James anyway that will appeal to the kind of "modern reader" who is unable to deal with his paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Apr 24, 2012 10:58:38 GMT
I wouldn't do it myself. I think the paragraphing adds to the effect of the prose. I agree. That really has put me off the book. If I read James I want to read it as he laid his stories out, not tampered with. Since I already have his collected stories I'll stick by my battered old copy.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Apr 24, 2012 11:15:18 GMT
I wouldn't do it myself. I think the paragraphing adds to the effect of the prose. There's something generally awful about tampering with work in this fashion. The period feel gives it the charm but not only that... words fail me.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Apr 24, 2012 11:20:01 GMT
Is there something strange about James' use of paragraphs? I can't say I've ever noticed it. On the other hand, you can't really be an editor if you don't edit...
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Apr 24, 2012 11:28:20 GMT
Is there something strange about James' use of paragraphs? I can't say I've ever noticed it. On the other hand, you can't really be an editor if you don't edit... Does a collection of James' stories need an editor? That's more to the point. Plus, a good editor should know well enough when to leave alone. You know what they say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Apr 24, 2012 11:40:25 GMT
Is there something strange about James' use of paragraphs? I can't say I've ever noticed it. On the other hand, you can't really be an editor if you don't edit... Forgive me, but I disagree. Whenever I've edited a reprint anthology I've done my best to reproduce exactly what the authors wrote. Still, maybe that's a form of editing.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Apr 24, 2012 12:18:09 GMT
Is there something strange about James' use of paragraphs? I can't say I've ever noticed it. On the other hand, you can't really be an editor if you don't edit... Forgive me, but I disagree. Whenever I've edited a reprint anthology I've done my best to reproduce exactly what the authors wrote. Still, maybe that's a form of editing. Sorry, I was being facetious - though I have sometimes wondered what the role of the "editor" actually is in cases like this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 24, 2012 12:30:14 GMT
Look what I've started! And in such good company. I'm totally against reparagraphing anyone's text. It's like colouring in old black and white films to make them more "accessible". I'm still going go to order the book as Stephen Jones's afterword in the Lovecraft book was excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Apr 24, 2012 12:59:30 GMT
Yes, you should be ashamed - getting us all riled up like that. It's normally all peace and love round here... until someone goes and publishes another bloody book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 24, 2012 13:11:09 GMT
Yes, you should be ashamed - getting us all riled up like that.. I do that everywhere I go.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Apr 24, 2012 13:20:01 GMT
I'm totally against reparagraphing anyone's text. Now that is a bit extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 24, 2012 13:39:06 GMT
Reparagraphing or editing new text is fine, but not text which has been in print for decades.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Apr 24, 2012 20:58:39 GMT
Reparagraphing or editing new text is fine, but not text which has been in print for decades. Well, not necessarily new either. After all, F. Orlon Tremaine reparagraphed "The Shadow out of Time" to Lovecraft's dismay - indeed, it seems to have been among the factors that convinced Lovecraft his work was worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 25, 2012 9:36:35 GMT
I have to admit that I find Lovecraft hard to read sometimes. Recently, because of his use of very long paragraphs, big slabs of text not broken up by dialogue, I just stopped reading "At the Mountains of Madness".
To make a general point, I find that while the best British horror fiction from the 1890s on still stands up, I find that most American horror fiction before the 1940s tends to be dated stylistically or in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by cauldronbrewer on Apr 25, 2012 11:21:40 GMT
To make a general point, I find that while the best British horror fiction from the 1890s on still stands up, I find that most American horror fiction before the 1940s tends to be dated stylistically or in other ways. At the risk of sounding nationalistic--or at least nit-picky--is it fair to compare "the best British horror fiction" to "most American horror fiction"? If we're talking about the best pre-1940s American horror fiction, I would point to Ambrose Bierce, Mary Wilkins-Freeman, and Henry S. Whitehead as writers whose style has aged well.
|
|