When Baen published all of Garrett's Lord D'Arcy stories in one volume not so long ago, did they alter any of the text? I know that in the past Baen have been known to "update" bits of text (i.e. replace references to slide-rules with calculators in some books) and I'm curious as to whether this recent collection suffered the same fate.
In article <9a68c8ec.0408020039.23915...@posting.google.com>,
Jason Petty <jason_pet...@hotmail.com> wrote: >When Baen published all of Garrett's Lord D'Arcy stories in one volume >not so long ago, did they alter any of the text?
I understand they did.
I have all the stories in their original form, so I could make a check if I wanted to, but I don't want to. I would just get annoyed. I'm not sure why I have the omnibus (the one with the girl with the strange anatomy being devoured by her dress) at all; perhaps someone gave it to me.
By the way, it's Darcy, without an apostrophe.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
>In article <9a68c8ec.0408020039.23915...@posting.google.com>, >Jason Petty <jason_pet...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>When Baen published all of Garrett's Lord D'Arcy stories in one volume >>not so long ago, did they alter any of the text? >I understand they did. >I have all the stories in their original form, so I could make a >check if I wanted to, but I don't want to. I would just get >annoyed. I'm not sure why I have the omnibus (the one with the >girl with the strange anatomy being devoured by her dress) at >all; perhaps someone gave it to me. >By the way, it's Darcy, without an apostrophe.
So far as I know, all they did was remove the couple of paragraphs that were repeated in every single story, about how Richard the Lion- Hearted was wounded by a crossbow bolt, suffered a change of personality, etc. etc. They left in a couple of instances of it, but it would have been pretty repetitive to have it in every story.
On a similar note, I noticed that the Baen edition of _Witches of Karres_ is out, "Edited by Eric Flint." Does anyone know what editing has been done?
-- ================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ================== Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen; tene...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
>So far as I know, all they did was remove the couple of paragraphs >that were repeated in every single story, about how Richard the Lion- >Hearted was wounded by a crossbow bolt, suffered a change of personality, >etc. etc. They left in a couple of instances of it, but it would have >been pretty repetitive to have it in every story.
YMMV. I have, as I said, all the stories in their original form, with the explanatory paragraph or two, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest to read them again, or to skip over them.
The trouble is, so I'm told, that when Flint gets his hands on something Baen is going to reprint, he does more than clip repetitions, he starts cleaning up the text to suit his own ideas of what it should look like. Since Randall was a better man and a better writer than Flint can ever hope to be, I find this not merely unnecessary but highly undesirable. And the same goes for Schmitz.
>On a similar note, I noticed that the Baen edition of _Witches of >Karres_ is out, "Edited by Eric Flint." Does anyone know what editing >has been done?
No, but I have seen others complain that a lot of gratuitous rewriting was done to _Witches_, as described above. There are many people on this and related groups who spit (metaphorically) whenever Flint's name is mentioned.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
>In article <celv0r$t1...@naig.caltech.edu>, >Ross TenEyck <tene...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote: >>On a similar note, I noticed that the Baen edition of _Witches of >>Karres_ is out, "Edited by Eric Flint." Does anyone know what editing >>has been done? >No, but I have seen others complain that a lot of gratuitous >rewriting was done to _Witches_, as described above. There >are many people on this and related groups who spit (metaphorically) >whenever Flint's name is mentioned.
I know, I was here for that. I'm not in the "spit at his name" crowd, but I certainly was not pleased with some of the edits he made on the Schmitz collections. (Note "some." Twiddling punctuation here and there, correcting obvious errors in grammar, that kind of thing I have no problem with; that's just copy editing.)
On the other hand, I failed to notice anything that had been done to the Darcy stories, other than the aforementioned deletion of boilerplate text. That didn't bother me.
So Eric, if you're reading this -- and at the risk of starting the whole "Eric Flint is Eeeeevil" thread again -- what sort of editing was done on _Witches_?
-- ================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ================== Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen; tene...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:07:30 GMT, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>So far as I know, all they did was remove the couple of paragraphs >>that were repeated in every single story, about how Richard the Lion- >>Hearted was wounded by a crossbow bolt, suffered a change of personality, >>etc. etc. They left in a couple of instances of it, but it would have >>been pretty repetitive to have it in every story.
>YMMV. I have, as I said, all the stories in their original form, >with the explanatory paragraph or two, and it doesn't bother me >in the slightest to read them again, or to skip over them.
>The trouble is, so I'm told, that when Flint gets his hands on >something Baen is going to reprint, he does more than clip >repetitions, he starts cleaning up the text to suit his own ideas >of what it should look like.
AFAIK he tends to admit it quite openly, though. In spite of the infinite iterations of the Flint-you-Bastard threads that keep going on (and on and on and on) here on such occasions.
In article <4a5tg0h9qk064ka9ahg4f3dvlrel1dp...@4ax.com>, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>AFAIK he tends to admit it quite openly, though. In spite of the >infinite iterations of the Flint-you-Bastard threads that keep going >on (and on and on and on) here on such occasions.
Uh huh. See, that is how I know about it, because I don't intend (as mentioned upthread) to spend my time going over the original and the revised versions to find points of divergence/contention. I already take several medications to control high blood pressure; why make it worse?
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
In article <I1tor5....@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> By the way, it's Darcy, without an apostrophe.
Well, like you said, I'm not going to go over all the originals (assuming I could even find the issues and books I had them in), but I thought it was sometimes spelled with an apostrophe. Even before I saw the title of this thread. Did I just imagine it?
>Well, like you said, I'm not going to go over all the originals (assuming I could >even find the issues and books I had them in), but I thought it was sometimes >spelled with an apostrophe. Even before I saw the title of this thread. Did I >just imagine it?
I think you did. It was originally d'Arcy, of course; once or twice he refers to himself as "the lord of Arcy".
Randall explained to me once that really high-level nobility, Dukes and Counts and so on, are administrative officers in charge of large segments of land and spend most of their time on their lands, not running around doing something else. Lord Darcy, however, has a small enough fief that he is allowed to let a bailiff run Arcy most of the time, since he's on the King's service in another capacity.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
> >When Baen published all of Garrett's Lord D'Arcy stories in one volume > >not so long ago, did they alter any of the text?
> I understand they did.
Oh well. I've got all the earlier anthologies so I was only going to get this one for the sake of completeness, but now I guess I'll pass on it. This is only a rhetorical question , but why, oh why do they have to do this?
> I have all the stories in their original form, so I could make a > check if I wanted to, but I don't want to. I would just get > annoyed. I'm not sure why I have the omnibus (the one with the > girl with the strange anatomy being devoured by her dress) at > all; perhaps someone gave it to me.
Yes, what is that cover all about? It's just plain weird.
In article <9a68c8ec.0408030045.7c1d...@posting.google.com> , Jason Petty <jason_pet...@hotmail.com> writes
>> I have all the stories in their original form, so I could make a >> check if I wanted to, but I don't want to. I would just get >> annoyed. I'm not sure why I have the omnibus (the one with the >> girl with the strange anatomy being devoured by her dress) at >> all; perhaps someone gave it to me.
>Yes, what is that cover all about? It's just plain weird.
"Cover art by Gary Ruddell", and I haven't read the book yet, although I've read some of the stories and remember them imperfectly; and of course they /are/ weird - so what have we got? A man with long-ish hair and sideburns, military jacket, and waiscoat and bow-tie, either flying or leaping in mid-air, accompanied by the lady, while, in the background, before the lighted upstairs windows of the manor-house, a soldier with elegant blonde goatee crosses swords with a spectral figure in shirt-sleeves. No, the scene isn't familiar to me. I particularly don't remember any real ghosts in that world, but various hallucinations and/or projections are possible.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.carne...@excite.com at large -- I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
>Yes, what is that cover all about? It's just plain weird.
Supposedly it represents Lord Darcy trying to prevent Tia Einzig from jumping off the bridge in _Too Many Magicians._ There was a thread here not long ago on bizarre covers in general and that one in particular, how the anatomy was bad and the treatment of the skirt was ridiculous. Then it mutated into a thread on comics artists, at which point I quit reading it.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes: >In article <9a68c8ec.0408030045.7c1d...@posting.google.com> >, Jason Petty <jason_pet...@hotmail.com> writes >>Yes, what is that cover all about? It's just plain weird. >"Cover art by Gary Ruddell", and I haven't read the book yet, >although I've read some of the stories and remember them >imperfectly; and of course they /are/ weird - so what have we got? >A man with long-ish hair and sideburns, military jacket, and >waiscoat and bow-tie, either flying or leaping in mid-air, >accompanied by the lady, while, in the background, before the >lighted upstairs windows of the manor-house, a soldier with >elegant blonde goatee crosses swords with a spectral figure in >shirt-sleeves. No, the scene isn't familiar to me. I particularly >don't remember any real ghosts in that world, but various >hallucinations and/or projections are possible.
It's a scene from _Too Many Magicians,_ with some events slightly compressed in time and space, and a couple of tweaks to make it visually renderable.
The scene in question is when Darcy and Ashley (sp?) are chasing [SPOILER] and Tia; Tia jumps off the bridge and Darcy goes in after her, and immediately afterwards Ashley has a swordfight with [SPOILER], in which his opponent uses a magic spell to make Ashley's eyes avoid his sword and sword-arm.
The artist has put all these events in the same moment, rather than separated by a couple of minutes, so as to have them all in the same frame; he's also substituted the "ghost" effect for the un-renderable don't-look-at-this effect.
All of that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the... odd execution of the resulting image. A large part of it, I think, is due to that dress; which I suspect the artist of free-handing without a model. It doesn't look right, and it makes the girl look very strange as well.
-- ================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ================== Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen; tene...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
First off, if this has already been answered, I apologize. I'ven't been able to read all of the thread. I have that book; it purports to be "Compleat". BUT ... I distinctly remember reading a DarcyWorld story taking place after the Magick Convention story. It was in Mechicoe and involved some seriously-illegal magick. Title? Why, certainly; of COURSE it had a title... ahem I also "seem" to recall a few others, but very, very vaguely. Does anyone else know about the Messcan Darcy story, or should I report to the Depot for re-programming? -- The One-and-only Holy Moses™
In article <10h0ctbfn0q7...@corp.supernews.com>, Duke of URL <MacBe...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>First off, if this has already been answered, I apologize. I'ven't been able >to read all of the thread. >I have that book; it purports to be "Compleat". BUT ... I distinctly >remember reading a DarcyWorld story taking place after the Magick Convention >story. It was in Mechicoe and involved some seriously-illegal magick. Title? >Why, certainly; of COURSE it had a title...
Aha. THAT one is _A Study in Sorcery_ by Michael Kurland, who was a friend of Randall's and wrote that and another book in the Darcy universe, I suppose by permission of Randall's widow.
It doesn't actually take place in Mechicoe, or mostly not. Some of it accompanies a Mechican expedition across New England, but most of it's in Nova Eboracum, where there's been a murder on an old Azteque pyramid on one of NE's islands and Darcy and Sean are called in to solve it.
The other book is called _Ten Little Wizards_ and it's about some serial murders in France.
They're okay, but not the genuine Garrett.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
tene...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote: >djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes: >>No, but I have seen others complain that a lot of gratuitous >>rewriting was done to _Witches_, as described above. There >>are many people on this and related groups who spit (metaphorically) >>whenever Flint's name is mentioned.
[...]
>So Eric, if you're reading this -- and at the risk of starting the >whole "Eric Flint is Eeeeevil" thread again -- what sort of editing >was done on _Witches_?
I also would like to know, because it will govern whether I buy it.
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <10h0ctbfn0q7...@corp.supernews.com>, > Duke of URL <MacBe...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>>First off, if this has already been answered, I apologize. I'ven't been able >>to read all of the thread. >>I have that book; it purports to be "Compleat". BUT ... I distinctly >>remember reading a DarcyWorld story taking place after the Magick Convention >>story. It was in Mechicoe and involved some seriously-illegal magick. Title? >>Why, certainly; of COURSE it had a title...
> Aha. THAT one is _A Study in Sorcery_ by Michael Kurland, who > was a friend of Randall's and wrote that and another book in the > Darcy universe, I suppose by permission of Randall's widow.
> It doesn't actually take place in Mechicoe, or mostly not. Some > of it accompanies a Mechican expedition across New England, but > most of it's in Nova Eboracum, where there's been a murder on an > old Azteque pyramid on one of NE's islands and Darcy and Sean are > called in to solve it.
> The other book is called _Ten Little Wizards_ and it's about some > serial murders in France.
Nevertheless, I'm so glad you reminded me of the existence of these books. Whenever I go to big cons, and remember to do it, I look in the huckster room for them. Now, bwah-ha-ha, with the power of Internet search engines behind me, I can find them.
>> Aha. THAT one is _A Study in Sorcery_ by Michael Kurland, ...
>> The other book is called _Ten Little Wizards_ ...
>Nevertheless, I'm so glad you reminded me of the existence of >these books. Whenever I go to big cons, and remember to do it, >I look in the huckster room for them. Now, bwah-ha-ha, with the >power of Internet search engines behind me, I can find them.
Would you like more data? _Ten Little Wizards_, Ace, March 1988, 0-441-80057-2; _A Study in Sorcery,_ Ace, June 1989, 0-441-79092-5.
Good luck finding them; I've never seen any other copies but mine.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
> Ross TenEyck <tene...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >So far as I know, all they did was remove the couple of paragraphs > >that were repeated in every single story, about how Richard the Lion- > >Hearted was wounded by a crossbow bolt, suffered a change of personality, > >etc. etc. They left in a couple of instances of it, but it would have > >been pretty repetitive to have it in every story.
> YMMV. I have, as I said, all the stories in their original form, > with the explanatory paragraph or two, and it doesn't bother me > in the slightest to read them again, or to skip over them.
The twin questions are does it offend more people than it attacts and is it so offensive that it is somehow morally wrong.
I'm generally a bit torn on whether or not posthumous editting is an abomination or not, but in this case, I think you have to be seriously deranged to think that removing a paragraph or two of entirely repetive introductory material is "wrong".
Under the circumstances, i don't think it's any more drastic than fixing a typo.
>> Ross TenEyck <tene...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> >So far as I know, all they did was remove the couple of paragraphs >> >that were repeated in every single story, about how Richard the Lion- >> >Hearted was wounded by a crossbow bolt, suffered a change of personality, >> >etc. etc. They left in a couple of instances of it, but it would have >> >been pretty repetitive to have it in every story.
>> YMMV. I have, as I said, all the stories in their original form, >> with the explanatory paragraph or two, and it doesn't bother me >> in the slightest to read them again, or to skip over them.
>The twin questions are does it offend more people than it attacts and is >it so offensive that it is somehow morally wrong.
>I'm generally a bit torn on whether or not posthumous editting is an >abomination or not, but in this case, I think you have to be seriously >deranged to think that removing a paragraph or two of entirely repetive >introductory material is "wrong".
>Under the circumstances, i don't think it's any more drastic than fixing >a typo.
Under those circumstances, no, probably not. But under those circumstances it's also not NECESSARY.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.net> wrote: > >AFAIK he tends to admit it quite openly, though. In spite of the > >infinite iterations of the Flint-you-Bastard threads that keep going > >on (and on and on and on) here on such occasions.
> Uh huh. See, that is how I know about it, because I don't intend > (as mentioned upthread) to spend my time going over the original > and the revised versions to find points of divergence/contention. > I already take several medications to control high blood > pressure; why make it worse?
If Guy didn't forget something, and they only thing that he and Eric did was cut the out the repetive "Ever since Richard", would that raise your blood pressure unduly?
>> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.net> wrote: >> >AFAIK he tends to admit it quite openly, though. In spite of the >> >infinite iterations of the Flint-you-Bastard threads that keep going >> >on (and on and on and on) here on such occasions.
>> Uh huh. See, that is how I know about it, because I don't intend >> (as mentioned upthread) to spend my time going over the original >> and the revised versions to find points of divergence/contention. >> I already take several medications to control high blood >> pressure; why make it worse?
>If Guy didn't forget something, and they only thing that he and Eric did >was cut the out the repetive "Ever since Richard", would that raise your >blood pressure unduly?
Probably not, if I had it on the say-so of people I trust that snipping the repetitive Richard bits was all that had been done. Snipping them, however, doesn't please me particularly, because their repitition doesn't annoy me, and lesser writers messing with the work of their deceased betters does, on principle.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
>> Would you like more data? _Ten Little Wizards_, Ace, March 1988, >> 0-441-80057-2; _A Study in Sorcery,_ Ace, June 1989, >> 0-441-79092-5.
>> Good luck finding them; I've never seen any other copies but >> mine.
>I have copies as well. But they're not for sale.
Nor mine but I have seen them when touring used bookstores. They aren't the real thing but they aren't that bad either. -- John Duncan Yoyo ------------------------------o) Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee. Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
>>>Aha. THAT one is _A Study in Sorcery_ by Michael Kurland, ...
>>>The other book is called _Ten Little Wizards_ ...
>>Nevertheless, I'm so glad you reminded me of the existence of >>these books. Whenever I go to big cons, and remember to do it, >>I look in the huckster room for them. Now, bwah-ha-ha, with the >>power of Internet search engines behind me, I can find them.
> Would you like more data? _Ten Little Wizards_, Ace, March 1988, > 0-441-80057-2; _A Study in Sorcery,_ Ace, June 1989, > 0-441-79092-5.
> Good luck finding them; I've never seen any other copies but > mine.
Never scoff at Internet search engines. Metabookfinder.com -- that's where to go. (Although, ouch! STUDY IN SORCERY for $35?!?! In your dreams, pal.)
|
