For anyone who is a fan of Fritz Leiber, and considering purchasing the recently-released collection of stories by him from Night Shade, I thought I would share the following note I sent to them about a truly singular editing fiasco I noticed in Selected Stories. Am I being excessively critical? It seems to me the height of editorial arrogance for something like this to have occurred. Maybe I am just naive... Is this the usual manner in which texts become corrupted over time? It seems unforgiveable to me.

--------
Dear Sirs,

Normally I don't make a habit of writing publishers to complain about poor editing, but in this case I feel it's almost a duty. I have long been a fan of Fritz Leiber's fiction, and though I already own numerous editions of his work, nevertheless purchased your recently released Fritz Leiber: Selected Stories. Aside from the somewhat lukewarm introduction by Gaiman, I have been happily skipping around randomly in the book, revisiting old favorites. A few moments ago, I began re-reading (for probably the 10th or 12th time) "Ill Met in Lankhmar". When I came to the middle of page 94, at which point Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser meet for the first (really 2nd) time over the unconscious bodies of the thieves of the guild, I was horrified when Fafhrd suggested to the Mouser that they split the loot, "Fifty-fifty?" !!!! Now, this might seem perfectly natural to someone who has never read the story before, but in every single edition ever published, including the original magazine appearance, this line reads, "Sixty-sixty?" I have always taken this to be intentional, as Leiber was a master wordsmith (and familiar with basic arithmetic) and unlikely to make a simple mistake of this sort; clearly it is meant to convey the fact that though very bright, Fafhrd at this point in his career is profoundly ignorant in the area of mathematics... Therefore I am forced to conclude that one of the editors had the appalling bad judgment to assume that this was a mistake and "correct" it, without so much as checking with someone more intimately familiar with the tale, and without the common courtesy of contemplating the possibility that the author might actually mean to write what was written! Perhaps this seems pedantic on my part, but it is very disappointing, and leads me to wonder what other "improvements" have been made to the stories in this volume.

It's worse than I thought...I think. Comparing the rest of the text of the NSB edition to the Ace paperback, SFBC, and White Wolf editions, I'm finding that the latter three agree at all points, but that the new NSB edition omits words, sentences, and entire paragraphs, and changes word choices here and there.. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe my recollection of the original publication in F & SF is faulty (I no longer own a copy), and that perhaps the version in the NSB volume goes back to the original which might at some point have been emended by FL. Anyone still have the original to check it against?

Never mind. Turns out this is the original version. Embarrassing :(.

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never mind. Turns out this is the original
> version. Embarrassing :(.

That may not mean that it hasn't been contaminated in one way or other anyway. Remember, B&N printed the original, corrected, based-on-manuscript versions of Lovecraft in their huge tome a couple of years ago -- yet that book is so full of typos, omissions, additions, and tampering that it may be the worst-proofed book in the history of Lovecraft publishing.

No doubt that's possible, but it seems as if Leiber must have done what I call "pulling a Moorcock"--i.e., revising his own work after initial publication, something MM is notorious for doing, often to the detriment of the piece; obviously Moorcock isn't the only one notorious for this. Presumably this was done when he was "fixing up" the stories to publish in the Gregg Press hardcovers and paperback novel formats in the 70s. Having read both versions of "Ill Met in Lankhmar" I've come to the conclusion that I much prefer the more recent version. Odd, though, to think that he would change anything, let alone multiple things, in a novella which won the Nebula...

I suppose there are two schools of thought on which version NSB should have published. If you go with authorial intent, then clearly the later one is preferable. But I suppose for historical purposes, it doesn't hurt to publish the original so we have a "snapshot" of the art as it stood at first.

Don't give Moorcock credit for originating the practice. A. Merritt was well known for "revising" editions of his works. A hero in MOON POOL changes from the Royal Naval Air Service to the Royal Air Force. Villains shift from being German to Russian and back. And when other hands are involved - I call it "Nancy Drew's running board problem" when stories are "updated," either by the author or by other hands. In one Nancy Drew story, she jumps on the running board of a car. As models change and no longer have them, the story has to be "adjusted." When others than the author makes the changes, we have the problem of "purity" of text. We have to live with it. Maybe foot or end notes can help, but as a commercial venture, maybe the writing does have to be "adjusted" as conditions change. As much as we may not like it, sometimes (maybe most of the time) when adapting printed text to the screen, a lot of changes have to be made. Maybe more are made than need to be, but only certain written works can be moved almost unchanged to the screen. Correcting typos is one thing, but wholesale rewriting is another. Didn't Henry James "revise/edit/redo" his stories for publication in a uniform edition? With desktop publishing, every man can be a Henry James and rewrite.

JBP

Quote:

Don't give Moorcock credit for originating the practice. A. Merritt was well known for "revising" editions of his works [...]

I would add that let's not get too indignant about the practice, period. My understanding is that CAS himself revised many of his earlier poems for republication in the Arkham House Selected Poems.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would add that let's not get too indignant about
> the practice, period. My understanding is that CAS
> himself revised many of his earlier poems for
> republication in the Arkham House Selected Poems.


Aye, plenty of authors have done this, some of Conrad's work was significantly 'revised' between its serialised publication and its novel form. I believe that there is also at least two published versions of Frankenstein and John Fowles' The Magus was also revised... I'm sure there are countless other examples...

Stephen King's THE STAND! Just kidding.

Poe was another obsessive reviser of his own work.