4 ms·

The intention is the difference. The value of a book is that you experience the world through a viewpoint that is different than your own. That viewpoint may

The intention is the difference. The value of a book is that you experience the world through a viewpoint that is different than your own. That viewpoint may not be pretty, or fun, or something you agree with. Honestly - most of the books that I value challenge me by exposing me to something raw and unfiltered that I have not experienced myself. --- That editor also doesn't have the experiences of the author, and changing word choice is changing the world that author is speaking about. If the author's goal is to actually tell a genuine story that they connect with - to expose the world to their own thoughts and feelings and history - then changing those things is not trivial. --- I don't want to read a bland mash of "editor approved" stories. I want to read stories that are told by individuals, with all their quirks and intricacies. I want to hear their opinions and words. Not some filtered, white washed, toned down version of them. I want to make up my own mind about whether that story was valuable, or touching, or compelling, or horrible, or repelling. I don't want to never hear it in the first place because an editor decided they didn't like it and struck it out. --- Basically - if the author doesn't give a shit and is just trying to sell the most books... fine. Go with the editor's picks for the words. Let them control the narrative and story. They have the most experience with selling books and their advice is probably decent. If the goal is to write down a story that is meaningful to the author... don't change the author's words.

slg 4y ago
How can you know the author's intentions? How is this type of analyzing of their thoughts not "thought policing" them?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. I'm not acting as thought police because I literally didn't police their thoughts - I left them the fuck alone. --- I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way).
  - slg 4y ago
    >Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. But this is fundamentally what editing is which brings me back to the original question of how is "thought policing" different from editing. In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? >I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way). I'm just trying to understand your position by asking questions.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      > In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? When the author is present and engaged in the process. Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out.
      - slg 4y ago
        >When the author is present and engaged in the process. Does this mean you would be fine with this process if it involved the author even if they approved of changes to a book decades after it was originally released? >Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. >Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out. Does this mean that in situations in which the author is dead and the books are still under copyright that you are ok with a publisher that decides to stop publishing the book, basically the Dr. Seuss situation?

slg 4y ago

How can you know the author's intentions? How is this type of analyzing of their thoughts not "thought policing" them?

horsawlarway 4y ago
Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. I'm not acting as thought police because I literally didn't police their thoughts - I left them the fuck alone. --- I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way).
- slg 4y ago
  >Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. But this is fundamentally what editing is which brings me back to the original question of how is "thought policing" different from editing. In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? >I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way). I'm just trying to understand your position by asking questions.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    > In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? When the author is present and engaged in the process. Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out.
    - slg 4y ago
      >When the author is present and engaged in the process. Does this mean you would be fine with this process if it involved the author even if they approved of changes to a book decades after it was originally released? >Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. >Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out. Does this mean that in situations in which the author is dead and the books are still under copyright that you are ok with a publisher that decides to stop publishing the book, basically the Dr. Seuss situation?