3 ms·
I find it kind of fascinating that this article is fine with the changes made to Ursula K. LeGuin's work, but is up in arms over Dahl and Fleming and Christie
by causi 3y ago
I find it kind of fascinating that this article is fine with the changes made to Ursula K. LeGuin's work, but is up in arms over Dahl and Fleming and Christie
It's a case of changing the meaning of the statement vs translating the vocabulary to more accurately reflect the original meaning. Editing Lord of the Rings so Frodo tosses another bundle of sticks onto the fire doesn't alter the meaning. His example from Death on the Nile is straight-up altering the personality of a character to make her a better person.
- slily 3y agoI'd argue that any alteration to the prose is counter to authorial intent. Some people might be fine with that, but I don't want to read a book not knowing whether words were substituted for others because some editor thought that they were too antiquated or difficult for lowly readers. Footnotes exist for a reason (and dictionaries for that matter). Lately I often feel that publishers don't respect consumers' intelligence.
- causi 3y agoI'd argue that any alteration to the prose is counter to authorial intent. I agree fully, but for me the difference is between something being groan-worthy and something being sacrilege. I don't object when someone translates a work into another language.