6 ms·
IMHO, modernization tip toes into the same category as translation. From my limited literature experience, the translator is always credited somewhere near the
by DoubleCribble 9y ago
IMHO, modernization tip toes into the same category as translation. From my limited literature experience, the translator is always credited somewhere near the author as it is considered the translator's version.
I can imagine a "Do-Gooder" helpfully going through Huck Finn and modernizing all that messy vernacular but that book ain't Mark Twain's and it ain't something I'd want to read. Some folks may have trouble understanding what is being said but modernizing the text would suck the life right out of the story.
To your point, I think the ultimate prize is both the original and a modern/translated digital version. Anecdotally, I might have developed an appreciation of Shakespeare MUCH earlier in life had I known not just what the characters were saying but combined with how they were saying it.
- throwanem 9y ago> I can imagine a "Do-Gooder" helpfully going through Huck Finn and modernizing all that messy vernacular You needn't imagine it; it's happened, more than once. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/books/07huck.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/books/07huck.html?pagewant...
- acabal 9y agoWe actually have Huck Finn in our catalog, and of course we've preserved all of the vernacular. I invite you to check it out for yourself to see what you think. "Light modernization" in our sense doesn't mean "ham-fistedly change old-timey vernacular into new-fangled internet slang", it simply means some basic, mostly-automated one-to-one spelling and hyphenation updates. Things like "develope -> develop" and "to-night -> tonight", that would not change the meaning of the text. Vernacular is not affected by these changes, nor would we want it to be. :) Think of it more like modernizing spelling of Shakespeare, so that we can enjoy the text and not spend time parsing spelling like: Had, having, and in quest, to have extreame, A blisse in proofe and provd and very wo, Before a joy proposd behind a dreame... Some people might prefer that old-fashioned spelling, and it might be of some use to academics and historians, but I think the majority of casual modern readers would have an easier and more enjoyable time with light modernization.
- DoubleCribble 9y agoThank you for the reply. I can only imagine that the application of "Light Modernization" to this masterpiece would not only change the pronunciation of the words, it would add the implied missing words thereby disrupting the meter and rhyme and thus subsequently ruin the sonnet. I understand the point of making things readable but when you start changing the spelling, you actually ruin the art form. Sonnet > Light Modernized Poem Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove. O no, it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wand'ring barque, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
- acabal 9y agoIronically, you've posted the lightly modernized version of 116. :) In the 1609 printing it looks like: O no, it is an euer fixed marke That lookes on tempeſts and is neuer ſhaken; It is the ſtar to euery wandring barke Whoſe worths vnknowne, although his higth be taken... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet_116 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet_116
- DoubleCribble 9y agoTouche! :D The point still stands. If "mostly-automated one-to-one spelling and hyphenation updates" changes 'wand'ring' to 'wandering', 'worth's' to 'worth is' or 'Love's' to 'Love is', you break the sonnet.