Here's a thought, which as a legal scholar you might opine on. Has Puffin not committed fraud? They are selling these works "by" Roahld Dahl, but they have altered the prose. As you point out, this is not editing, as authors are given the right to accept or reject edits prior to publication. In this case, the author is dead, and the text has been changed both by removing passages, and by replacing passages. If they were simply removing them, they should have to add "abridged" to the cover, I would think. Since they are also changing the text by inserting their own, then they should have to say "based on the work of" rather than "by". Or am I missing something? And if I'm not, could Puffin not be dragged into court over this matter, for instance in a class action suit by defrauded customers?
So - seriously - I was thinking that they need to note the fact that it is edited or abridged or whatever. Under Australian law, I was wondering about a contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law: “misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce”. I think there’s an argument.
The thing is - there’s no incentive for the Dahl estate to do so - they’re evidently just interested in the money. It would be interesting (in an Australian context) if the regulator took action? But I don’t think they’d want to get involved in such a thing. Another thing I can’t help thinking (because remedies lawyer) is what the remedy would be. I think they should put something on the cover to say it’s not the original and something inside to indicate that it has been amended.
Would be difficult to establish - although I am aware of a case where someone got $20,000 for having a non winning lottery ticket - Kuzmanovski v New South Wales Lotteries - but I think that was an exception to the rule. Usually courts are pretty chary of awarding emotional distress damages, precisely because it isn’t measurable. Oh dear, now you have started me, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
I'm most disappointed by the counter-revolutionary backsliding of Penguin. Their corrections of Dahl's text were doubleplusgood dusckspeak. For example, I love changing Kipling's India to Steinbeck's California. Obviously necessary. Next up will be the performance of the new Hamlet in which the legitimacy of General Secretary Claudius will be denounced by his nephew at the all-Denmark 20th Party People's Congress followed by a new adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons in which the Marquess de Metrteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont enthuse about their upcoming empathy awareness workshops. All excellent ideas because the only way to enhance social emancipation is to rewrite history so that the need for it never existed. Therefore I'm particularly excited by the new edition of The Iliad which ends with the marriage of Achilles and Hector.
So glad I've never attempted to publish fiction (poetry might be even worse): my experience in dealing with academic publishers in the UK (above all Hart in Oxford, but bigger and smaller names too) has been superb, both as an author and as reviewer for others' book proposals: quick to respond, courteous, appreciative. But I was one of a pair of Series Editors for a heavweight law publisher for about a decade, supposedly making suggestions and comments on the specific construction law list. We just got to know the editorial contact running the list and within less than a year they were moved within the company to a quite different area. Hopeless for the company and for us!
Hart are wonderful, as are my other academic publishers (CUP, Edward Elgar, Latrobe University Press etc).
I did once get a poem published in a creative writing journal - was rather proud of it - it was actually about an insolvency case I was involved in of all things. Might have to reproduce it here.
And yes - I can imagine the heavyweight publisher situation. It’s most frustrating when someone finally understands your situation and they go. I’m sure people must have that with big law firms, actually.
Here's a thought, which as a legal scholar you might opine on. Has Puffin not committed fraud? They are selling these works "by" Roahld Dahl, but they have altered the prose. As you point out, this is not editing, as authors are given the right to accept or reject edits prior to publication. In this case, the author is dead, and the text has been changed both by removing passages, and by replacing passages. If they were simply removing them, they should have to add "abridged" to the cover, I would think. Since they are also changing the text by inserting their own, then they should have to say "based on the work of" rather than "by". Or am I missing something? And if I'm not, could Puffin not be dragged into court over this matter, for instance in a class action suit by defrauded customers?
So - seriously - I was thinking that they need to note the fact that it is edited or abridged or whatever. Under Australian law, I was wondering about a contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law: “misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce”. I think there’s an argument.
I really hope someone is preparing such a lawsuit.
The thing is - there’s no incentive for the Dahl estate to do so - they’re evidently just interested in the money. It would be interesting (in an Australian context) if the regulator took action? But I don’t think they’d want to get involved in such a thing. Another thing I can’t help thinking (because remedies lawyer) is what the remedy would be. I think they should put something on the cover to say it’s not the original and something inside to indicate that it has been amended.
I was more thinking a class action lawsuit by the customers. Damages: $20 price of the book + $5000 emotional distress each.
Would be difficult to establish - although I am aware of a case where someone got $20,000 for having a non winning lottery ticket - Kuzmanovski v New South Wales Lotteries - but I think that was an exception to the rule. Usually courts are pretty chary of awarding emotional distress damages, precisely because it isn’t measurable. Oh dear, now you have started me, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
Ah, but what about American courts? They absolutely adore emotional damages in arbitrarily large, punitive amounts.
I'm most disappointed by the counter-revolutionary backsliding of Penguin. Their corrections of Dahl's text were doubleplusgood dusckspeak. For example, I love changing Kipling's India to Steinbeck's California. Obviously necessary. Next up will be the performance of the new Hamlet in which the legitimacy of General Secretary Claudius will be denounced by his nephew at the all-Denmark 20th Party People's Congress followed by a new adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons in which the Marquess de Metrteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont enthuse about their upcoming empathy awareness workshops. All excellent ideas because the only way to enhance social emancipation is to rewrite history so that the need for it never existed. Therefore I'm particularly excited by the new edition of The Iliad which ends with the marriage of Achilles and Hector.
LOL - because if I don’t laugh, I’ll cry.
So glad I've never attempted to publish fiction (poetry might be even worse): my experience in dealing with academic publishers in the UK (above all Hart in Oxford, but bigger and smaller names too) has been superb, both as an author and as reviewer for others' book proposals: quick to respond, courteous, appreciative. But I was one of a pair of Series Editors for a heavweight law publisher for about a decade, supposedly making suggestions and comments on the specific construction law list. We just got to know the editorial contact running the list and within less than a year they were moved within the company to a quite different area. Hopeless for the company and for us!
Hart are wonderful, as are my other academic publishers (CUP, Edward Elgar, Latrobe University Press etc).
I did once get a poem published in a creative writing journal - was rather proud of it - it was actually about an insolvency case I was involved in of all things. Might have to reproduce it here.
And yes - I can imagine the heavyweight publisher situation. It’s most frustrating when someone finally understands your situation and they go. I’m sure people must have that with big law firms, actually.