Quote:

The Master of the Crabs: Clark Ashton Smith and the Typhonian Tradition

[dmrbooks.com]

What is your opinion of Bigfoot, also called the Sasquatch?

Famous 1967 film clip
[www.youtube.com]

stabilized, first sequence
[www.youtube.com]

stabilized, second sequence
[www.youtube.com]

Recent photos taken by hikers
[www.youtube.com]

Account of lengthy sighting in 1955 by one William Roe
[www.bfro.net]

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is your opinion of Bigfoot, also called the
> Sasquatch?
>
> Famous 1967 film clip
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> stabilized, first sequence
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> stabilized, second sequence
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> Recent photos taken by hikers
> [www.youtube.com]

I think all of these images are men dressed in gorilla suits.

>
> Account of lengthy sighting in 1955 by one William
> Roe
> [www.bfro.net]

This part of the description...

"... and I believe if this animal should have been seven feet tall, it would have weighed close to 500 pounds."

...sounds a lot like Shaquille O'Neal.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think all of these images are men dressed in
> gorilla suits.
>
> >
> > Account of lengthy sighting in 1955 by one William Roe
> > [www.bfro.net]
>
> This part of the description...
>
> "... and I believe if this animal should have been
> seven feet tall, it would have weighed close to
> 500 pounds."
>
> ...sounds a lot like Shaquille O'Neal.

Thank you Sawfish for sharing your thoughts. Personally I am a little more open-minded to these images, and find them intriguing. The more times I have watched them, and the closer I have looked, the more I have started doubting my initial rejection.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I think all of these images are men dressed in
> > gorilla suits.
> >
> > >
> > > Account of lengthy sighting in 1955 by one
> William Roe
> > >
> [www.bfro.net]
> >
> > This part of the description...
> >
> > "... and I believe if this animal should have
> been
> > seven feet tall, it would have weighed close to
> > 500 pounds."
> >
> > ...sounds a lot like Shaquille O'Neal.
>
> Thank you Sawfish for sharing your thoughts.
> Personally I am a little more open-minded to these
> images, and find them intriguing. The more times I
> have watched them, and the closer I have looked,
> the more I have started doubting my initial
> rejection.

Fair enough, Knygatin.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is your opinion of Bigfoot, also called the
> Sasquatch?

I have no desire to be a spoil-sport. But I think the odds are VERY much against his being real.

Of course, if I were writing a story about him, all the experts and scoffers would somehow be wrong.

Some Balkan gypsy music:

Taraf de Haidouks - Cintec de Dragoste Si Joc

Mahala Rai Banda - Mahalageasca

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Balkan gypsy music:
>
> Taraf de Haidouks - Cintec de Dragoste Si Joc
>
> Mahala Rai Banda - Mahalageasca


If anyone wonders, I think it's very good music, deliciously off key.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Jan 22 | 02:32PM by Knygatin.

If there is one thing I can't stand, it is insincerity and lies.

[www.theguardian.com]

Participants at this forum might have thoughts -- not knee-jerk reactions -- to the matter of "sensitivity readers" altering texts. Here are some of mine:


1.If publishers are going to alter the texts attributed to authors, the publishers should state plainly and noticeably that they have done so, on each copy thus edited. Purchasers of books should know up front if a book has been altered. As a (retired) English teacher, I'm convinced that the first priority, when doing critical work with fiction and poetry, is to have the most accurate text possible unless one's task is to discuss a poem or story as it was known to an audience at a time when only an edited or inaccurate version was available. In that case, one has to be sure to work with that version.

(Someone might think: "We're not talking Shakespeare here. What does it matter if someone changes the text of an Agatha Christie novel? No one's going to do critical writing on a writer of popular entertainment fiction like her." But that person would be wrong. Academics will write about anything since the 1980s or so. There are academics who are specialists in, say, manga, who have read only sketchily in Shakespeare, Dickens, &c.)


2.Public discussion of the qualifications of sensitivity readers would enhance transparency about what's going on. Who are the sensitivity readers, who credentialed them as sensitivity readers, how do they go about their work? I don't mean their personal information needs to be disclosed when I ask "who" they are. But what are their qualifications? Who established such qualifications as being adequate preparation for the task of sensitivity editing?



3.Public discussion of sensitivity reading/editing needs to address the topic of agendas (which are often not stated) because it doesn't appear to be the case that concern for various groups of people is equally and evenly distributed. What are the criteria and who establishes them, on behalf of whom?


4.There's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Is it likely to operate here?



I'm not looking to stir the pot here, in the sense of provoking heat rather than light. Just thought this might be a worthy topic for this dormant thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27 Mar 23 | 10:14AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Participants at this forum might have thoughts --
> not knee-jerk reactions -- to the matter of
> "sensitivity readers" altering texts.

Most people who read books would rather read an original, authentic, uncensored version. I think a demand for censored versions arises primarily when there is a significant audience for a TV or film adaptations, and there is a desire to offer the masses (who don't usually read) a book that is more in keeping with the spirit of the film. Or where people buy books as gifts for non-readers, but don't want to offend. But I think in these cases, the original book is really playing second fiddle to the movie/tv "derivative work", which may be the main source of revenue. In this context, it may be important not to "taint" the film brand with the book brand.

I'm not sure I have ever heard of this being done to a public domain work. To have the luxury of resorting to such a tactic, you have to control the market. Perhaps part of the problem is that copyrights last too long, thanks to special interests such as Disney lobbying our governments.

> 1.If publishers are going to alter the texts
> attributed to authors, the publishers should state
> plainly and noticeably that they have done so, on
> each copy thus edited. Purchasers of books should
> know up front if a book has been altered.

This is a simple application of the principle that a vendor should give the customer what he paid for on contract principles. If you go too far in deceiving the customer, he may be entitled to his money back. If you pay for a book by Edith Wharton, you should get the book that Edith Wharton actually wrote. But if it says on the cover "by Edith Wharton as adapted for modern audiences by Joe Schmoe", then perhaps you have been duly warned.

> 2.Public discussion of the qualifications of
> sensitivity readers would enhance transparency
> about what's going on. Who are the sensitivity
> readers, who credentialed them as sensitivity
> readers, how do they go about their work? I don't
> mean their personal information needs to be
> disclosed when I ask "who" they are. But what are
> their qualifications? Who established such
> qualifications as being adequate preparation for
> the task of sensitivity editing?

There are no such qualifications. It is just that a modern editor has artistic differences with the author, and a desire to pander to current ideological trends. I guess he is entitled to his freedom of speech. But what happens to the voice of the author between the ideology-driven abuse of copyright laws, and the work entering public domain? Maybe not much. Maybe, by creating woke editions, the modern censor merely motivates outraged readers into going out of their way to buy authentic copies. Which maybe makes it a win/win situation for the copyright holder.

In Agatha Christie's case, a small number of her novels have already entered public domain. But the lady lived a long time and wrote alot of books. Which makes me wonder. Have the sensitivity readers bothered to update "The Myserious Affair at Styles" or "Poirot Investigates" or "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd"? If not, it would tend to support my theory that woke editions are just not in demand when a more authentic text can easily be made available by competitors.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28 Mar 23 | 01:55AM by Platypus.

Yes. I don't think this is a good trend.

I'd add a 4th consideration to my previous comment. I'd recommend that authors' contracts spell out what rights, if any, the publisher has to alter the text that the publisher is buying, or buying the use of. The author could choose to sell the work outright, so that the publisher may do whatever it wishes with it. However, I think the author should hold out for this, that even in this "outright" case, the publisher should be obliged to identify the book as altered if it is (other than, say, correction of misprints). The author should presumably get a higher price for such a sale, as compared to an author who sells the (use of) the work only as it was when an agreement was made on such and such a date, with the author being entitled to further compensation if author and publisher agree to changes sometime in the future.

Provision needs to be made about online texts, too. With archive.org, one is typically dealing with reproductions of pages from an edition of such and such a date. With Project Gutenberg, however, you might have a plain text version that can be silently altered. I am concerned about the integrity of digital publications of public domain texts.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd add a 4th consideration to my previous
> comment. I'd recommend that authors' contracts
> spell out what rights, if any, the publisher has
> to alter the text that the publisher is buying, or
> buying the use of. The author could choose to
> sell the work outright, so that the publisher may
> do whatever it wishes with it. However, I think
> the author should hold out for this, that even in
> this "outright" case, the publisher should be
> obliged to identify the book as altered if it is
> (other than, say, correction of misprints). The
> author should presumably get a higher price for
> such a sale, as compared to an author who sells
> the (use of) the work only as it was when an
> agreement was made on such and such a date, with
> the author being entitled to further compensation
> if author and publisher agree to changes sometime
> in the future.

Living authors who retain copyright in their own works already have these rights. They have rights not only in their own texts, but also in derivative works. No one may condense, adapt, or abridge the work without the author's permission. That's the theory, anyhow, though I'm not saying that no editor ever took liberties.

When PKD's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was adapted into the movie "Blade Runner", the filmmakers were so free with their adaptation that they wanted to market a novelization of the film. But PKD had only sold the film rights, not the rights to derivative novels. He refused to permit this, and they were obliged to market a a movie-tie-in edition of PKD's actual novel instead under the title "Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep)".

The situation with Agatha Christie and Ian Fleming is that they are dead. So these adapted works are being authorized, not by them, but by their heirs and assigns, whoever they might be.

When the works enter public domain, anyone will be able to write an adapted work. There is no Jane Austen estate with the authority to prevent the publication of adapted works like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". And there has always been a market for abridged adaptations of classic novels. I have always regarded them as sad and deficient things, but they will never go away. But on the plus side, any publisher will be able to print and market the actual text.

It was a no doubt abridged version of Great Expectations in a 9th grade reader -- how I wish I could get my hands on that book now, over 50 years later -- that was perhaps my first experience of reading Dickens. I liked it! Even Classics Illustrated adaptations of Wells and Verne, I suppose, helped to prepare me to enjoy these writers and the genre of science fiction.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.theguardian.com]
> ha-christie-novels-reworked-to-remove-potentially-
> offensive-language?CMP=twt_books_b-gdnbooks&utm_so
> urce=substack&utm_medium=email
>
> Participants at this forum might have thoughts --
> not knee-jerk reactions -- to the matter of
> "sensitivity readers" altering texts. Here are
> some of mine:
>
>
> 1.If publishers are going to alter the texts
> attributed to authors, the publishers should state
> plainly and noticeably that they have done so, on
> each copy thus edited. Purchasers of books should
> know up front if a book has been altered. As a
> (retired) English teacher, I'm convinced that the
> first priority, when doing critical work with
> fiction and poetry, is to have the most accurate
> text possible unless one's task is to discuss a
> poem or story as it was known to an audience at a
> time when only an edited or inaccurate version was
> available. In that case, one has to be sure to
> work with that version.
>
> (Someone might think: "We're not talking
> Shakespeare here. What does it matter if someone
> changes the text of an Agatha Christie novel? No
> one's going to do critical writing on a writer of
> popular entertainment fiction like her." But that
> person would be wrong. Academics will write about
> anything since the 1980s or so. There are
> academics who are specialists in, say, manga, who
> have read only sketchily in Shakespeare, Dickens,
> &c.)
>
>
> 2.Public discussion of the qualifications of
> sensitivity readers would enhance transparency
> about what's going on. Who are the sensitivity
> readers, who credentialed them as sensitivity
> readers, how do they go about their work? I don't
> mean their personal information needs to be
> disclosed when I ask "who" they are. But what are
> their qualifications? Who established such
> qualifications as being adequate preparation for
> the task of sensitivity editing?
>
>
>
> 3.Public discussion of sensitivity reading/editing
> needs to address the topic of agendas (which are
> often not stated) because it doesn't appear to be
> the case that concern for various groups of people
> is equally and evenly distributed. What are the
> criteria and who establishes them, on behalf of
> whom?
>
>
> 4.There's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Is
> it likely to operate here?
>
>
>
> I'm not looking to stir the pot here, in the sense
> of provoking heat rather than light. Just thought
> this might be a worthy topic for this dormant
> thread.

I'm unconvinced that sensitivity readers are needed, or in any sense desirable.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~