The Great Gatsby Suggestions

The Great Gatsby is probably one of my all time favourite books. I've been searching for a nice Fine Press edition for quite some time and I thought I'd ask all you wonderful people for your advice. At the moment, I'm leaning towards the Thornwillow Press's half-leather edition.

What are everyone's general thoughts on the Thornwillow Press? Does anyone have a copy of the half-leather edition and if so, what are your thoughts on it? Moreover, does anyone know whether all editions arrive with a solander box or whether it is just select editions?

Lastly, are there any other editions I should perhaps look at instead of Thornwillow's?

There is also the forthcoming Beehive edition:-
https://beehivebooks.com/illuminatededitions/the-great-gatsby-signed-amp-numbere...

>1 averagegatsby: I own a copy of both the LEC and the 1/2 leather Thornwillow editions. Overall, I slightly prefer the Thornwillow edition but at half the price, the LEC has a better bang for the buck. Take a look at the illustrations for both editions and see which artist you prefer. All of Thorwillow's 1/2 leather editions come in a solander box while the cloth and paper bound books do not come with either a solander box or slipcase.

>1 averagegatsby:

https://booksandvines.com/2016/05/16/the-great-gatsby-by-f-scott-fitzgerald-ario...

>2 wcarter: God, those look beautiful. I have not come across Beehive before - any idea of the paper and bind quality? Whilst I would like the lettered edition, there doesn't appear to be much difference between the numbered and lettered besides the clamshell box and the original drawing, mounted inside the clamshell housing?

>3 kdweber: Thanks for suggesting the LEC - I've had a look at the illustrations and they look great. It's going to be a tough one, I'm thinking of getting the Beehive's numbered edition as well as the Thornwillow's half leather. Thank you very much for clarifying which of their books come with a solander box.

>4 dlphcoracl: Thanks - that's really helpful. I've come across Arion's edition but I wasn't too keen on their illustrations.

I own the half-leather Thornwillow and it’s a beautiful book. I particularly like the architecturally-themed images—it leaves the looks of the characters to my imagination. My only niggling complaint would be the paper. The weight is fine, but it’s a kind of speckled off-white to grey color. They didn’t share which paper they used, so I’m not sure if it’s the same on all editions or only the half-leather. Of my two dozen or so Thornwillow editions, ranging from chapbooks to limp-vellum, it’s the only one where I thought, “huh, why did they choose THAT paper?” That said, I am a huge Great Gatsby fan and have no regrets on the purchase.

>5 averagegatsby:
I have two Beehive books (numbered editions), and the quality is excellent. I have ordered three more, including the Gatsby.

>8 mnmcdwl: I'm sold, looks like I'm going to purchase the Thornwillow edition. Out of curiosity, does it tells you how many the half-leather are limited to in the book?

>9 wcarter: What are your thoughts on the lettered edition?

>10 averagegatsby: Yeah, Thornwillow generally includes that information on their limitation pages. In the case of The Great Gatsby Half-Leather, it should be 140.

I'd recommend the Thornwillow half-cloth over the half leather in this case tbh

>5 averagegatsby: I have a different take on the quality of Beehive editions. I own 6 Beehive books including 4 from the same series as The Great Gatsby. Although sewn, the books have paper covered boards and the binding looks like something one would find on a textbook. The paper is meh. The slipcases are very thick, I do not know if they used acid free cardboard or not. I will not be buying any more of their signed limited editions on Kickstarter. The only difference between these copies and the massively cheaper copies available soon after on Amazon is a pasted on bookplate inside the front cover with the signature and limitation number.

>13 gmacaree: Is there any particular reason(s) why you would?

>14 kdweber: Thank you very much for your input of Beehive, those are definitely considerations I'll have to take into account before making a purchase. However, from what you've said, it's very unlikely I will me purchasing from Beehive now.

>15 averagegatsby: I think the spine of the cloth binding is more harmonious with the lovely boards

>17 gmacaree: I think the half cloth and half leather use the same text block as well. The half cloth sells for 20% the price of the half leather at the moment. So for me the comparison is whether the leather binding and slightly different limitation numbers is worth an additional $800 USD.

I don’t have the Gatsby, but I do have a copy of the half cloth Genesis, which I like a lot.

(The calculus is slightly better if you are an early backer during their Kickstarters; I think the half leather Parable of the Sower was around $450 originally, and is now priced around $1k to buy direct.)

(Edit to add I also agree that the design on the boards of the half cloth edition looks nicer than the boards on the half leather edition.)

Some more on the LEC on my blog: https://ubiquitousbooks.wordpress.com/2020/08/13/the-great-gatsby/

For the Thornwillow Gatsby, one key difference is that the pages are uncut on the half-cloth. In general I think Thornwillow is at their best in the half-cloth editions, but in this case, my love of The Great Gatsby and the near certainty that I would mangle cutting the pages played roles in me getting the upgrade. If I didn’t have the Thornwillow, I would probably go for the Arion Press version, something I might still do anyway if I can find a fine one at a reasonable price.

>20 mnmcdwl: This is exactly why I was hesitant to purchase the half-cloth Thorwillow was because of the uncut pages. I purchased the half-cloth, but if I had to do it over again, I'd purchase the half-leather.

>20 mnmcdwl: I've had a few books where I tried to cut the pages. It was a disaster, I will never attempt to cut pages again!

>19 ubiquitousuk: Thank you for posting what you do on your blog - it is incredibly helpful and incidentally where I saw the LEC's illustrations.

>23 averagegatsby: thanks. I should say that I was on this journey half a year ago and came incredibly close to getting the Thornwillow (I would have bought the cloth because I agree the spine is nice). In the end, I decided the LEC resonated more with me, but that's a personal thing and I don't think you'll go far wrong with either.

In my opinion... the Thornwillow edition has all of them beat hands down. Especially the half leather.... which, though more expensive than it was on the Kickstarter launch, is still comparatively reasonable on the website compared to Arion... and (with apologies to ubiquitousuk) I really dislike the AP edition. I know he's a famous architect, but I really really don't like the illustrations. Re the LEC edition... it feels painfully 1970's rather than the deco design it should be. I don't like it either.

It's odd... for such an iconic title... the only fine press edition that gets it right, for me, is the Thornwillow one.

>19 ubiquitousuk: Thanks for the link - I've added your blog to my favorites!

>1 averagegatsby: I'll throw my hat in the ring :)

https://www.centurypress.ca/products/the-great-gatsby-pre-order

>27 CenturyPress: A handcrafted, sheepskin-bound, letterpress-printed on cotton rag limited edition of 500 copies going for $75 USD? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not egregiously underpriced? I don't see many technical details on the page, but the exterior is handsome. Perhaps there was a missed opportunity to include green coloring on the back. :)

Regardless, I've ordered a copy!

Edit: Multiple letters on the technical details behind the publication can be found here.

Edit: I've browsed your Instagram. The paper looks fantastic! And the typeface & bite, very well done! I'm surprised I'm the first reply to you—this is right up the Fine Press Forum's alley. Happy to have you in the game, Century Press! Looking forward to future offerings.

LT won't show any text or images below the picture embedded above, so following up here.

Printer: Ian Bristow

Binder: Laura Shevchenko

A close-up of the sheepskin binding & gilt inlay.

>28 PatsChoice: Thanks for your kind message and support! We're really proud of what we've been able to create thus far.

You're not too far off the mark wondering if this edition is a bit underpriced. Admittedly, as a first release, there was some naivety on my part in terms of how well I'd be able to keep my production costs in-line...

Let's just say that for our inaugural book, our early customers are getting a pretty good deal :-)

Cheers,
Alex

>30 CenturyPress: Lucky us! Thanks for the outstanding work and offer.

Any chance my personal copy can come with Scott's original misspelled slur intact? ;)

>30 CenturyPress: hi Alex, just ordered from the U.K. I can’t wait to receive this beautiful book. I am looking forward to seeing how the production quality is and just love letterpress. Please do keep us updated on your future publications. You’re off to a good start, and I’m pleased with the price point especially for us that are in the U.K. and Europe and have to deal with shipping costs and/or VAT/customs.

>27 CenturyPress:

Pre-ordered, looking forward to seeing your work!

>30 CenturyPress: Pre-ordered, pleased to see a Canadian publisher!

Like Pat above I'd also prefer the author's original text ;)

For all the folks, who can't stand the idea that the text has been altered in the most minor way (setting aside the fact that there basically is not one definitive, pure, and inerrant version of any classic text), here's what you do:

Step 1. Get a #2 pencil.

Step 2....

I've also pre-ordered. The publication looks lovely.

I would also prefer the original text. Generally I am quite left leaning and very much prefer if such words were left to the past, but I also don't think we should white wash that past.

>35 whytewolf1: “… there basically is not one definitive, pure, and inerrant version of any classic text …”

While this is often true, especially for older works that have less well known provenance and more editorial intervention, it is definitely not a general fact.

While I am not particularly knowledgeable about Fitzgerald, my inexpert belief (open to revision) is that there is a pretty clear canonical source text here. There is no need to disguise an edit that is based on some clear principles. Better to have the courage of your convictions and be up front about it, in my opinion (as seems to be the case here) and let customers decide whether they want the exact Fitzgerald words or an adjustment for whatever reason.

>37 abysswalker: I agree. Everything seems pretty above board here: Century have been pretty clear about what exactly is on offer and everyone is free to take it or leave it. I would personally prefer if there had been no edit, but have pre-ordered with full knowledge on the basis that it looks like a nice production.

I feel a little bit sad that, having already read the book and with a copy of the LEC edition on my bookcase, I might never get round to reading it.

>32 ironjaw:
>33 kcshankd:
>34 kvnchn:
>36 Jobasha:

Thank you all so much for the support! I'm really looking forward to getting these shipped out to folks.

With regards to alterations to an author's original text, perhaps I can gather your all's opinion on our next release where the n-word is used more than 20 times. I personally don't feel very comfortable at all reproducing this word as originally written.

In large part, my stance on this has been informed by research from Lynne Tirrell using the example of the 1990s Rwandan genocide. She argues that an increasing normalization of the use of derogatory terms leads to a greater acceptance of non-linguistic (i.e. physical) actions.

I'll host the article on my website and I recommend taking a look as it also does a great job differentiating between obscene language and deeply derogatory language (slurs), which are often tied to systems of oppression.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0541/2264/3637/files/Genocidal_Language_Games....

The repercussions of propagating slurs can be approached from an artificial intelligence perspective as well as a philosophical/anthropological one:

A 2019 study from Cardiff University demonstrated that an increase in hate speech on social media leads to more crimes against minorities in the physical world.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-online-speech-crimes-minorities.html

Certainly, a fine press book is different from Twitter, or TV, or a newspaper, but clearly it's not possible to discount the real-world after-effects of choosing to propagate the same derogatory language originally used by the author.

For me, that's a lot of responsibility to take on, and I have a difficult time justifying that the benefits of maintaining a few deeply derogatory slurs 'as written' are worth it, especially in a 2021 reproduction of a classic work.

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts before I finalize typesetting the book :)

For me, it comes down to artistic purpose. If derogatory language is used in a character's speech or thoughts in an artistically purposeful way then I'm fine with it. What dismays me is when authors use such terms casually and for no apparent purpose - I see a lot of this in my reading of Victorian Era literature in particular. I know some say "that's just how people were back then" but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. So I would be fine with altering such language. I also feel that, whether or not derogatory language is to be included, include a publisher's note at the start of the book explaining the situation and your views and direct people to online resources where they can learn more.

>39 CenturyPress: you clearly have thought carefully about this, which is great to see.

(Apologies in advance for the incoming tangent.)

First, I would say a lot depends on the nature and intent of the work in question. Given your other comments here, I would assume that you are not planning a fine edition of some demagogue’s tract demonizing a minority, but more likely some classic work that is a product of its time. Also, there is a long tradition of reclaiming slurs within minority communities. For example, changing the lyrics of a Kanye record to remove slurs is a much different project than editing a work by an outsider or a work with more opportunistic intent. So it’s hard to consider the meaning of an edit without knowing the work and the context within which it was written.

Regarding the online speech finding, I would be careful about a causal interpretation. The news report indicates an association, so both online speech patterns and offline behaviors could arise from an unmeasured third variable, assuming the correlation itself is not spurious. (This is the old “correlation does not imply causation” principle.) There are some statistical ways to increase confidence in a causal interpretation, such as lagged panel analysis or quasi-experimentation, but such findings are still difficult to interpret, especially if the effect is small and/or there are plausible alternative explanations. I will take a look at the actual paper later and see how they address the correlational critique.

>39 CenturyPress:
For what it’s worth I’ve come close to ordering the book, and I’m cautiously for leaving the word in but addressing it in an introduction or a foot- or endnote (assuming this can be done in an aesthetically acceptable way). If a word is changed I’d prefer it to be clear that this has been done, whether by footnote, asterisks, dashes or whatever. Just my two cents. I don’t suppose my purchase would hinge on any of these preferences, however.

>39 CenturyPress: I had a chance to examine the articles.

The paper about Rwanda is a conceptual treatment with no quantitative results so I don't feel qualified to offer an evaluation.

For the paper about social media effects, below is what the authors write about potential causal interpretation. I think it is clear enough in lay language to just include a couple brief quotes:

RE/FE models have been used to indicate causal pathways in previous criminological research; however, we suggest such claims in this article would stretch the data beyond their limits. As we adopt an ecological framework, using LSOAs as our unit of analysis, and not individuals, we cannot state with confidence that area-level factors cause the outcome. There are likely sub-LSOA factors that account for causal pathways, but we were unable to observe these in this study design.
...
Despite this significant advancement, we were unable to examine sub-LSOA factors, meaning the individual level mechanisms responsible for the link between online and offline hate incidents remain to be established by more forensic and possibly qualitative work.

(LSOAs seem to be some form of geographical unit within London.)

My read of the article on balance is that, if there is a causal link it is probably better understood as a consequence of incitement speech in particular rather than slurs per se. The analyses in the paper are, from what I see, correlational.

Additionally, the effect indeed seems to be quite small. In the regressions the coefficient for the association with unemployment is .625 and the coefficient for the association with hate tweets is .004 (for one of the outcome variables; all have coefficient ratios with similar orders of magnitude). We don't even need to know the unit scaling to interpret these results. In plain language, basic economic factors seem to be a much better explanation of hate crimes than online speech in terms of practical consequences.

I normally wouldn't get into the weeds like this in a hobbyist forum, but here we have an interesting case of a publisher reasoning about cultural production based on social science findings, so it feels like a useful exercise in translation between specialist communities.

The article is open-access, so anyone should be able to read it for themselves if curious about other details.

>39 CenturyPress: Without knowing the book you are publishing I use Faulkner as an example in my head re how would I react to redactions. I think redacting language in his books would be a travesty that risks altering his intent and impact of his narrative that was set in a specific period in time. If a book is that offensive to you, perhaps the answer is not to publish it. I hope you are forthright in editorial choices made so the consumer can choose - I will likely forego an edited book in lieu of an original that preserves the author's intent.

>39 CenturyPress: I for one really liked your decision and choice for Gatsby, her disdain (and racism) is still evident in her sentence so the meaning isn’t altered, and for me it would have been a distraction, as I wasn’t quite sure what the word in question meant, like a lot of slurs from that era. However, changing a word 20 times is quite something and, as >40 AMindForeverVoyaging: said so much better than I’m going to say it, it depends on whether it’s true to the character and/or necessary to the story (ie artistically purposeful), or whether it’s a distraction (it IS a flashing lights kind of word) and gets in the way of the artistic purpose. Good luck with making the best decision…

>39 CenturyPress:

I am not sure one can come up with a general rule. So much depends upon the author and the context. You being uncomfortable with it is probably reason enough. I would just ask that any deviations be noted in some sort of publisher's note in an afterward or the like.

I would agree with >44 LBShoreBook:. You can easily avoid this whole debate by choosing to publish something else, which is not as controversial. Surely there are enough classics out there without racial or other slurs.

>40 AMindForeverVoyaging:
>42 GusLogan:
>44 LBShoreBook:
>45 stopsurfing:
>46 kcshankd:
>47 filox:

Thanks so much for all your input, this was really helpful for me.

A special mention goes to >41 abysswalker: for taking a deep dive into the research data which I was relying on for some of my decision making. I really appreciate having some quantitive, statistical minds chiming in. His commentary exemplifies that the headlines of news articles covering scientific publications may not be entirely representative of the actual findings.

After taking into consideration your comments, I feel much less comfortable outright changing slur words to other words, especially given that in this next publication they will appear dozens of times. I know this is contrary to what I chose to do in Gatsby but I think it's reasonable to adjust my approach for a new publication, based upon new information and feedback.

I now feel more inclined to simply elide the small handful of 'deeply derogatory slurs' that may arise in classic novels. (i.e. N—, K—, etc.) This way, I'm absolved from propagating potentially violent language while maintaining the author's intent intact.

To complement this approach, I'm thinking (as suggested) of adding a publisher's note saying something to the effect of: "Deeply derogatory slurs have been elided in this edition. A free, unedited version of the text is available online from Project Gutenberg."

How does that sound to folks?

>49 CenturyPress: I haven't been involved in this discussion but I like that approach

>49 CenturyPress: Publisher/editor ought to limit his/her intrusion into the author's text to the preface commentary otherwise he/she risks becoming a censor.

Yesterday's ways may be not be right, or may not be seen in a favorable light, and we have to learn from them and improve. We may not like the way people spoke, or dressed, or acted, but it was then and the author's work including dialogue reflects that reality back then, not today's. There is no need to intervene.

If you do choose to intervene, elide the words or remove them entirely, you may be doing our society a disservice. We try to edit out so many things these days without trying to use them as an opportunity to educate. How will future generations reading your book know what these "deeply derogatory slurs" are when they are not even there. How will they learn about historical context, discrimination, right vs. wrong etc.? How about a conversation concerning offensive language that may never happen?

On a humorous note, I hope you will never publish rap lyrics compendium... I did order a copy of The Great Gatsby though :).

>49 CenturyPress: While I don't love editing out words in concept, your proposed approach to me is more defensible than replacing the words with ones of your choice. I am a bit puzzled by the proposed publisher's note - I can't imagine buying a limited press book that references to the work that I purchased as "deeply derogatory." I would consider something maybe a bit more neutral in messaging. Anyway, that is my $.02.

>49 CenturyPress: I like that approach. And contrary to the opinion of >52 LBShoreBook:, I think because the language of the publisher’s note is saying that the slurs themselves are deeply derogatory, rather than the work itself, the language of the note works. I think it is perfectly fair to say that some of the language choices are derogatory without impugning the reputation of the work as a whole.

>52 LBShoreBook: "Potentially offensive words have been edited for your mind's sake. If you do not like it, f---- o--, and skeddadle to online Project Gutenberg where s---- is free and unedited." /Intended as a joke

1. "Deeply derogatory slurs" is a serious statement of opinion. Potentially offensive language or words may be a bit more accommodating...
2. Referencing a free and unedited online resource when somebody has just paid for your product without any prior warning/disclaimer regarding interference with the original text may lead to increase in returns...

>49 CenturyPress: I like your new approach more, choosing to elide that word in particular puts you in company with Arion Press and their recent edition of A Lost Lady. That said, I would generally prefer to leave the texts of the past as they are, trusting in the reader to know that such words are inappropriate for use these days. The best approach may be to publish works from a wide range of authors, past and present, with a variety of diverse viewpoints, thus better reflecting the fullness of the human experience—warts and all.

>54 EPsonNY: Exactly. This priggish, moralizing, liberal censorship fills me with revulsion, and absolutely precludes me from spending a single cent on such a bowdlerized edition, however finely produced.

>49 CenturyPress: Ultimately, it's your press and your edition. I wouldn't worry *too* much about what will please your audience. Instead, do what you think is right.

>55 mnmcdwl: "I would generally prefer to leave the texts of the past as they are, trusting in the reader to know that such words are inappropriate for use these days. The best approach may be to publish works from a wide range of authors, past and present, with a variety of diverse viewpoints, thus better reflecting the fullness of the human experience—warts and all."

I agree completely.

Was the casual anti-Semitism in Schindler's List in danger of creating a new generation of anti-Semites, or did it imbue millions with a new appreciation for the horrors of the holocaust? I do not mean to claim that The Great Gastby is Schindler's List, but it seems to me that we must at least entertain the notion that people use cultural works to understand how life is experienced by others and, in so doing, to learn to sympathise and even empathise with them.

Which effect is stronger: creating copy-cat persecutors, or inspiring heartfelt sympathisers? I do not know, and I do not believe there exists a basis in evidence for knowing with any certainty. So embarking on the wholesale "wokification" of culture seems to me like a risky enterprise. An editor's preface to an unedited manuscript has the obvious advantage that it preserves both the opportunity to learn from the text and the opportunity to learn from a modern interpretation of it, and is my favoured approach for that reason.

But I also agree with >57 grifgon:. It's your press and nobody has any business complaining unless there's some sort of deception involved. I, for one, look forward eagerly to my copy of Gatsby, edited as it may be.

>58 ubiquitousuk:

There has been a theme in the recent expansion of Neo-Nazism of adopting iconography from popular media which is not sympathetic. For instance with American History X and then again with the adoption of Tomorrow Belongs to Me (from Cabaret) as an anthem. Both sources are at least hostile to Neo-Nazism but still appealing to Neo-Nazis. So it is still a difficult position that Century Press is in. But I agree that these works should not be censored for what a tiny minority will do with them.

>49 CenturyPress: I also purchased The Great Gatsby and am very excited to get it. I purchased before I knew you had chosen to alter the text. I do not agree with changing or deleting anything not even a punctuation mark. If it troubles you to print derogatory words I have no problem to eliding them(n_____,k____,etc.) Just please don't delete them, or even worse change them to completely different words. That could change the authors intent. I cant imagine reading Uncle Toms Cabin and having Simon Lagree after he finds Tom's bible say that he "will have none of you bawling,singing,praying African Americans on my place". I would not dare be a part of humanizing the monster that started the American Civil War. So in short your solution sounds good to me. As for the people who have been goading you to increase the price of your books, what the H___,some of us are poor boys, and $100.00 is a lot to pay for a book I have five copies of, and have read four times. I will just take it as a discount on a mistake made for a good intention.

>56 ultrarightist:
I’m a liberal myself, but we agree on this: I unequivocally oppose any alteration of artistic works to avoid potentially bruised sensitivities. The work is what it is. If it makes you too uncomfortable, pass it by. If you think it’s wrong or evil in its intent, denounce it. But nobody has the right to soften it, for any reason, however well-intentioned.

>61 kermaier: Well stated.

>61 kermaier:
How do you use the word ”right” here - moral or other? While it is not what is happening here, I think I would, for example, be comfortable with someone taking a known work full of racist statements and (explicity or even surreptitiously) replacing them with, say, statements about apple pie, as an artistic expression. And indeed publishing it (copyright allowing, but I suspect there is some wriggle room around satire etc.) as a political act. But I suppose doing so while claiming it’s the original work is tricky - though just possibly might make some further political point.

I actually broadly agree that in general ”the work is the work”. I suppose I’m just somewhat clumsily making the point that there are other uses of works (collages, say) than straight-up publishing them? I find it much easier to reject the idea of removing a word from The Great Gatsby than to sign up to a universal principle. Though I think I can agree to ”oppose any alteration of artistic works to avoid potentially bruised sensitivities” I guess I’m a bit allergic to strong statements (”nobody… for any reason”). I obviously have every right to soften any work I read to my children. For any reason. Or not to do so. Or to make a detour to explain things to them. Which I happen to prefer. (Edit: I realize this last bit looks like a straw man, I’m not trying try ascribe the opposite view to anyone. But is this or is it not an alteration of the work, just because I’m not publishing it?)

>63 GusLogan:
This post is a bit of a mess, I was trying to write and think while in charge of children, but obviously I won’t restructure it now, as even as its author, that could be construed as softening the work for some/any reason : )

>63 GusLogan:
Yes, I meant moral right, not legal — I’ll assume the latter stricture is complied with.
Softening, eliding or otherwise editing a work for your children’s consumption falls under the rubric of personal choice to experience a work at one’s own comfort level. But re-publishing it in an altered form, and claiming it’s still the author’s work, is simply wrong, in my opinion.

Another thought on the subject: Removing the word “k-ke” from Gatsby arguably produces the opposite of its intended effect. Are we better served when we make a character’s anti-Semitic speech more palatable, by papering over its essential crudeness and crassness; or by keeping it as offensive as it is, so the sentiment expressed doesn’t become unremarkable?
These choices shouldn’t be in the hands of latter-day publishers - it’s too fraught to continuously revise our distinction between the gratuitous and the essential.

So, to the publishers in the room: If you feel compelled to personally distance yourselves from offensive words or ideas in the literature you publish, a footnote or preface would do the trick. But please don’t alter the text of the book.

>49 CenturyPress:

I would like to start by saying that I could never approve changing or removing a word, or even a single letter, of a book. No matter the arguments one can make to support such action - be it moral, political, philosophical, etc. - there is only one term to describe it, and it is censorship. As defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English, censorship means “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, film, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security”.

Although I can only speak for myself, I believe that most collectors of private press books would not look kindly on any form of censorship. No matter the intentions of the censor.

As a Canadian collector of private press books, I was delighted to come across Century Press. I was even more delighted when I noted that your first book is “The Great Gatsby”. Despite already having a few nice editions of this book on my bookshelf, it was an immediate “buy”. My enthusiasm; however, was greatly diminished once I read the Letters about “re-editing” the text. I was hoping that that was an isolated occurrence. Alas, your last post has cast significant doubt on that hope.

I sincerely want your press to succeed; however, I don’t believe that systematic censorship is the answer. Most private press collectors (at least the ones that I know), and there are very few of them around (lets face it, how many people do you know willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a single book on regular basis?), are well educated and informed people who fully appreciate that what might have been acceptable at one point in history may not be acceptable at another and would never dream of writing or saying something that could be disrespectful or hurtful to their fellow human beings. However, they are also acutely aware of the dangers associated with rewriting history.

You have obviously given this matter a lot of consideration and thought and you clearly do not feel comfortable printing certain words. This is completely understandable and I am sure that not a single person here will hold this against you; however, censorship is not the answer. At least not to this collector. A simple solution, as suggested by many people here, is to avoid texts that you find unacceptable to print. However, I am afraid that if you continue down this road of censoring your books (or suggesting that anyone interested in reading uncensored text refers to a free online version), pretty soon it will all be academic.

>68 vadim_ca: Well said. Reflects my feelings and thoughts on this matter exactly.

>67 kermaier:
Thanks! Can I ask - out of genuine curiousity - why you would object (as based on your posts I think you would) to an alteration that makes it clear to the reader what the original word is, ie eliding it and discussing the word itself and the reason for this course of action in a footnote or similar (as mentioned a few times above)? The author’s text is then right there, if the reader can read. Your argument in >66 kermaier: cannot be said to apply - to my mind, at least. Would you say it’s a slippery slope of censorship? Or is it a question of the reading experience, a break in the flow? Or an affront against the author? I honestly cannot tell from your posts above why it is, in your words, ”simply wrong”. Do you place any positive value at all on the possibility that some readers might read the work with less unease if this were done? (I think, cautiously, that I do - but I can’t think of any situation where I would myself suffer such unease and want an alteration - and I do see the possibility, perhaps remote, of a great many words or phrases ending up on an ever-expanding or ever-changing ”naughty list”.)

Note that if you do decide to elide the words, and write something like n_____ or n-----, this could easily achieve the opposite effect. These words will jump out at the reader as soon as they open the page, and they will be aware of them the whole time while they are reading. Not sure this is something you want to inflict on the reader.

>70 GusLogan: What would be the advantage to the reader in this case? If the word is k-ke, you would still read the whole word in your head, regardless of how it's written. To me this sounds more like it's trying to shield the sensibilities of the publisher more than that of the reader.

And to echo some of the comments above: referring to an unedited free version of the text online is a bit like a slap to the face for the buyer. If I pay $100+ for a book, the least I would expect is being able to read the text. If i'm referred to an online version, that means I'm basically paying for a few sheets of paper and some cardboard that will sit on my shelf collecting dust. Sorry if this all sounds overly negative, it's just that it feels like there's a slow shift towards totalitarianism in society at large, and then any kind of attempt at censorship rubs me the wrong way.

>71 filox:
As I’ve stated above, I’m actually primarily in favour of keeping words unchanged, using footnotes or introductions to point out what may be deemed offensive - I’m just trying to tease out what the sound arguments are. I think you make three arguments. The third one (last para) applies - to me - especially to the case of a word being removed completely without this being indicated, since you agree in the second para that an elided word is completed in the reader’s head. Obviously this only works if it’s the case that only a very small number of words are elided.

The arguments in the first and second para I would answer in the same way - by simply stating that I think some readers would be strengthened by, or rather made to feel less unease by, noting that this is a word that is no longer routinely used, one the publisher wish to distance themselves from. That it is no longer a word fit for polite society if you will. I could be wrong about this, of course, but it should be possible to work out if it’s the case - and if it is, I for one would place at least _some_ value on that effect/their wishes, just possibly greater than the value of not offending readers who detest such alterations.

I think there's value to this when a word is so offensive it actually detracts from the work itself.

Even in the year 1940 American publishers knew it would be a mistake to publish Agatha Christie's book "And Then There Were None" under its original title. It's one of the greatest mystery novels of all time, but it would certainly not be still read and enjoyed by millions today if that change had not been made.

And many schools today teach using an edited version of Huck Finn. Because there's a lot of value and relevance still today in the message of that book, which is quite frankly completely obliterated by the harm caused by asking young black students, and young white students, to read the n word 200-300 times in a row. Mark Twain is not around to ask obviously, but I think a vocabulary edit that allows the actual message of his work to be appreciated by audiences 150 years later is a great contribution to his lasting legacy.

>74 distantriver: excellent point

>74 distantriver: "And many schools today teach using an edited version of Huck Finn. Because there's a lot of value and relevance still today in the message of that book, which is quite frankly completely obliterated by the harm caused by asking young black students, and young white students, to read the n word 200-300 times in a row. Mark Twain is not around to ask obviously, but I think a vocabulary edit that allows the actual message of his work to be appreciated by audiences 150 years later is a great contribution to his lasting legacy."

I'm curious - is the level of harm greater than, equal to, or less than the harm caused by the innumerable rap songs those same young students listen to? Songs which use that word much more liberally than Twain did.

And the value and relevance of Huck Finn is "completely obliterated" by it? Puhleeze. I could have done without the the textual emetic.

>76 ultrarightist:
Now, now - you ask a good question, no need to get nasty.

>76 ultrarightist:

The edited Huck Finn was much in the news some 10-15 years ago when it came into use, and I remember reading quite a bit about it at the time. One account has stuck with me -- a young black student saying that reading it felt like being punched in the face every time that word came up. Obviously I don't have a link as "proof" of this account, so I just ask you to put yourself into those students' shoes, and imagine how well you'd be able to absorb literary themes communicated via language that dehumanizing. A word that everyone has agreed is so offensive that we don't even say it in full when discussing it. And I think it's important to note that Mark Twain's work was not intended to be dehumanizing -- quite the opposite!

Many schools have also gone the opposite route, and rather than use the edited version just stopped teaching Huck Finn altogether because it's too painful for the students. Personally I think that's the greater loss.

As for the question on why black people are allowed to say it when white people aren't, there is a historical context there that we all know is still felt today. CNN has a piece about it, if you're truly interested. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/us/racism-questions-answers/?active=2

>78 distantriver: I do think there's a distinction between a book used to teach a high school course, and that printed by a private press for the purposes of collecting. For one, no one is making us buy and read the books published by a particular press, while students have no choice but to read what is part of the curriculum. Thus, I think it makes sense to perhaps spend more time and think about how to adapt or present a particular book to students, since we're forcing the book upon them.

In this case however, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything, and it seems that whatever choice is made by the publisher, some people will not be happy. So I feel there's a choice here between alienating a part of your customer base, or avoiding the whole problem altogether by publishing less controversial books. I know the choice I would make. I feel like this whole discussion around censoring certain words is distracting from discussing the quality of the books themselves, which should really be the goal here.

Hi all,

Thanks very much for your extensive and thoughtful input regarding whether or not certain slurs should be elided in my next release. It certainly impacted the editorial decision-making process I'm planning to take with Century Press.

To give a brief summary, I'm now intending to maintain this text (and any future texts) fully unedited and intact, and necessitate that the introductory criticism must address content that is today considered taboo or deeply offensive. In this way, my publications will serve to educate rather than obfuscate (as many of your posts mentioned).

I'll save a fully detailed explanation and justification for how I made this lengthily considered decision for a 'Letter' on my website down the road. (Better for linking articles, posting pictures, etc.)

At any rate, I'd like to thank you all again for taking the time to explicate your perspectives, as I found it very constructive on my end.

I'm looking forward to officially announcing our next release in the next couple months.

All best,
Alex

Great decision! My copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has an extensive commentary on the history and intent of this defamatory work. I wouldn't have it any other way.

>80 CenturyPress:

Great decision! Looking forward to The Great Gatsby and future publications!

>80 CenturyPress: Kudos to you on what I think is the right decision regarding the integrity of Twain's text. You and I probably do not have similar views, but I support your right as the publisher to write your introductory criticism however you see fit to do so, and opining on your chosen topics as you wish.

>80 CenturyPress:
I’m very glad to hear it, and I’m looking forward to seeing more work from the press!

Great news. Any type of censorship is unacceptable among book lovers. Can not wait to get my copy of Gatsby down in West Virginia,the land of the long and violent school book protest of the late 1970s.

I have always believed, that it is important that people face the truth and decide for themselves what is right and wrong. An introductory context sets the stage, culture and time and would help in understanding why such language and/or view was prevalent at that time. We can judge the past for what it is, even how grim, but we must face the future on better and educated terms.

I have always felt that books are to educated but also shock and provide a breeding ground for discussion on matters that are uncomfortable. That's how we learn about the world, but more importantly about ourselves, as a person.

I am happy to hear >80 CenturyPress: that you've decided to leave the text unedited and look forward to receiving my copy.

>80 CenturyPress: Hi Alex,

I am deeply disappointed in this decision and hope you will reconsider for future publications. Your introductory criticism could have just as easily address the controversial content that's been removed or the authors casual racism without forcing readers in the affected groups to read the slurs they've either fought to see removed from the common vernacular, or are still faced with on a regular basis. You could even strike these much like olrder texts would strike a curseword, or even add footnotes where content has been edited.

There's certainly room in stories for characters to experience racism and audiences to relate oe be exposed to that plight, but it's clear nobody who input on your decision has faced the experience of reading a book and having an author's racism directed specifically at their demographic.

This feels a lot like the "erasing history" argument against removing statues, or cutting racist content from school curriculums. The slurs & racism were never a valuable part of the work, and they don't need to be maintained in order to be addressed or commented on, nor is addressing a previous wrong "erasing" it.

Those calling this "censorship" seem to be ignoring your right as a publisher to address concerns that you've clearly had with an author's work, and claiming it's part of the "integrity of the text" really need to think long and hard about what value they think actually reading the racist content adds when they could be simply informed that it was there, it was wrong, and it's been removed. I don't even know where to start with "face the truth and decide for themselves what's right or wrong;" I think it's important to call out objective wrong in historical or literary texts, and don't think any readers who land on the side of that content being "right" should be catered to.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

>87 NathanOv: " but it's clear nobody who input on your decision has faced the experience of reading a book and having an author's racism directed specifically at their demographic."

You don't know that and I can assure you that your statement is false.

>88 kdweber: I second that.

>88 kdweber:
That’s for sure.

>88 kdweber: I agree 100%

Am I missing something, or is the claim that the author is racist misdirected? Isn’t the word spoken by one of his characters?

>92 _WishIReadMore: I'm not a Fitzgerald fan, but he probably was; blacks in his novels are always or almost always viewed in a disparaging manner. But even if he was, I have trouble with this mantra of cancelling people or editing works to pretend it wasn't there. If one delves deep enough into anyone they can find undesirable traits and qualities; it's what makes us human. We're all a little crazy and certainly all very imperfect. Celine, Hamsun, Hugo, Dostoevsky were anti-semitic, Bellow was sexist, Mishima was a fascist, Neruda was a rapist - the list goes on and on. Heck, even the greatest men in the 20th century were flawed: Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Tolstoy, Ghandi. It's a slippery slope when people pick and choose what's admissible and what isn't. And isn't what makes reading so magical is having the ability to pick and choose what you find important in the text? I completely disagree with most everything Ayn Rand believes in but I thoroughly enjoyed The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It doesn't make me anti-Semitic because I liked Growth of Soil.

>93 Joshbooks1: Thank you.

I still have trouble with the idea of censoring a racist character because they were saying... racist things. If Fitzgerald wrote himself into the book a la Stephen King and started being racist, I suppose that would be a different matter. But this line of argument is like censoring a Nazi character in a book from saying they hate Jewish people.

"I don't even know where to start with "face the truth and decide for themselves what's right or wrong;" I think it's important to call out objective wrong in historical or literary texts, and don't think any readers who land on the side of that content being "right" should be catered to."

I feel Nathan is conflating two ideas here. Having the words appear uncensored isn't saying it's "right," and those advocating for leaving it the way it was written aren't "being catered to." It's much simpler than that - the book is being published the way it was written. Objecting to the use of those words doesn't preclude someone from disapproving their use or acknowledging they are inappropriate. You're free to take a black Sharpie to the words in your own copy if they are so offensive, and I don't mean that as a slight.

There are a host of other derogatory words using to describe people based on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical appearance, etc. Would the position then be that no author should ever write a character that would use those words? Or is the line in the sand the k* word used in Gatsby?

Edit: Edited the last paragraph as I made a mistake on the offensive word being used. Thank you abysswalker.

>94 _WishIReadMore: it's actually the k* word (slur for person of Jewish origins).

(I am more or less on the same page with everything else you wrote.)