|
Post by dem bones on Apr 29, 2016 21:03:03 GMT
Paragraphgate! I like it. For the record, I didn't actually help with the reparagraphing - I just said I wouldn't be too bothered if he did it. In practice, I thought most of it was okay, but I can't deny that it jarred at times, and I'd agree with anyone who said it was unhelpful. Nevertheless I'm still not that bothered! I found Mr. Jones' reasoning, that it would make James "accessible" to a modern audience, .... interesting. Doubtless he's spot on, but can't say I'm a big fan of tampering with original works. Personally, I was more concerned when Wordsworth censored their edition of Sapper's Bulldog Drummond Black Gang Omnibus in deference to sensibilities of same "modern audience." R. A. W. L. had earlier adopted same approach when it came to reprinting Seabury Quinn stories in Startling Mystery Stories & Co. Once you start down that path where do you stop?
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Apr 30, 2016 10:44:27 GMT
Paragraphgate! I like it. For the record, I didn't actually help with the reparagraphing - I just said I wouldn't be too bothered if he did it. In practice, I thought most of it was okay, but I can't deny that it jarred at times, and I'd agree with anyone who said it was unhelpful. Nevertheless I'm still not that bothered! I found Mr. Jones' reasoning, that it would make James "accessible" to a modern audience, .... interesting. Doubtless he's spot on, but can't say I'm a big fan of tampering with original works. Personally, I was more concerned when Wordsworth censored their edition of Sapper's Bulldog Drummond Black Gang Omnibus in deference to sensibilities of same "modern audience." R. A. W. L. had earlier adopted same approach when it came to reprinting Seabury Quinn stories in Startling Mystery Stories & Co. Once you start down that path where do you stop? Couldn't agree more. Reparagraphing, while it may have been unnecessary (I don't think Steve Jones was right about it, but there's so much else that's good about the book that I forgive him), but to my mind there's never, ever any excuse for censoring/changing the actual words of reprints. Not that MRJ himself was immune to the tendency, when it came to the naughtier (as he perceived them) bits of certain Latin works he translated (though he tended just to leave those bits in Latin - he didn't actually cut them out altogether).
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 30, 2016 11:04:21 GMT
Not that MRJ himself was immune to the tendency, when it came to the naughtier (as he perceived them) bits of certain Latin works he translated (though he tended just to leave those bits in Latin - he didn't actually cut them out altogether). Did MRJ include naughty bits in the first paragraph of "The Treasure of Abbot Thomas"?
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Apr 30, 2016 12:47:54 GMT
Not that MRJ himself was immune to the tendency, when it came to the naughtier (as he perceived them) bits of certain Latin works he translated (though he tended just to leave those bits in Latin - he didn't actually cut them out altogether). Did MRJ include naughty bits in the first paragraph of "The Treasure of Abbot Thomas"? Only in the version held in the underground caverns accessed by the Secret Masters. I certainly don't have access to it - but then, I would say that, wouldn't I?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on May 2, 2016 10:48:04 GMT
I think you are getting confused with EL James' The Pleasure of John Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on May 3, 2016 10:37:26 GMT
Paragraphgate! I like it. For the record, I didn't actually help with the reparagraphing - I just said I wouldn't be too bothered if he did it. In practice, I thought most of it was okay, but I can't deny that it jarred at times, and I'd agree with anyone who said it was unhelpful. Nevertheless I'm still not that bothered! I thought it was vandalism, and ruined some of James's best effects. For what it's worth, the original paragraphing influenced how I do it in my own stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on May 3, 2016 15:39:57 GMT
Paragraphgate! I like it. For the record, I didn't actually help with the reparagraphing - I just said I wouldn't be too bothered if he did it. In practice, I thought most of it was okay, but I can't deny that it jarred at times, and I'd agree with anyone who said it was unhelpful. Nevertheless I'm still not that bothered! I thought it was vandalism, and ruined some of James's best effects. For what it's worth, the original paragraphing influenced how I do it in my own stuff. I think one of the reasons I wasn't that bothered is that it's clear from the manuscripts of MRJ's stories that a lot of the original published paragraphing wasn't his own anyway. He wasn't great at that sort of thing and seems to have dashed off his text without any thought to such niceties. Nevertheless, I do take your point that the re-paragraphing was seldom, if ever, an improvement. I also regretted the removal of the nice old-fashioned usage of hyphens in words like to-morrow.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on May 4, 2016 10:08:34 GMT
But wasn't the paragraphing of The Five Jars done by James, in which case, doesn't it provide some guidance for the other tales?
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on May 4, 2016 10:43:25 GMT
But wasn't the paragraphing of The Five Jars done by James, in which case, doesn't it provide some guidance for the other tales? This is a manuscript I've never looked at so I don't know. You may be right. Where do you get the information from?
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on May 4, 2016 10:57:35 GMT
I mean, did he not write it down with a view to having it published rather than reading it aloud?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on May 4, 2016 11:23:49 GMT
I thought it was vandalism, and ruined some of James's best effects. For what it's worth, the original paragraphing influenced how I do it in my own stuff. I'm going by memory here, but I think that one of the stories, because it was told in different documents, was printed entirely in italics. This made it impossible to read.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on May 4, 2016 11:56:43 GMT
I mean, did he not write it down with a view to having it published rather than reading it aloud? Oh, I see what you mean. Well, that also applies to several of the ghost stories, but I don't think it affected how he paragraphed (or didn't!) the texts. I might add that his punctuation left a lot to be desired too (I appreciate that some might say this is the pot calling the kettle black - I admit I largely punctuate by instinct! - but I think he was even worse than me).
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on May 4, 2016 12:00:32 GMT
I thought it was vandalism, and ruined some of James's best effects. For what it's worth, the original paragraphing influenced how I do it in my own stuff. I'm going by memory here, but I think that one of the stories, because it was told in different documents, was printed entirely in italics. This made it impossible to read. Yes, you're thinking of "The Story of a Disappearance and an Appearance", but it was an italicised script face of some sort, which made it even worse than simple italics. However much I might make excuses for the other decisions in the book, there's no question that this was a very bad one indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on May 4, 2016 12:14:56 GMT
I think you are getting confused with EL James' The Pleasure of John Thomas. What in hell have I started this time?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on May 15, 2016 13:58:53 GMT
Dem's work inspired me to take my only translated James from the shelf.
Content: The Treasure of Abbot Thomas Lost Hearts An Episode of Cathedral History The haunted Doll's House Canon Alberic's Scrapbook Wailing Well The Ashtree Casting the Runes The Stalls of Barchester Cathedral Count Magnus
This edition from 1979 was a reprint of a hardcover edition from 1970. It used to be the only translated collection of James' work and is out of print. Later this year a new and complete James edition is announced from another publisher. Of course there were a few a James' tales in other collections, but not much.
Publisher Suhrkamp used to publish only literature with a Capital L or texts about politics, academia and philosophy. A lot of social science. Their "Library of the Phantastic" published only writers like Blackwood, Lem, Hodgeson, Lovecraft and some literary sf. Back then the most "mainstream" writer was Philip K.Dick with a few novels. Nowadays their standards are much more relaxed; they even sell crime novels.
|
|