Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:31:10 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: An imaginary conversation in the backroom ofabookstore . . . .
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

>ekovar at worldnet.att.net 02/04/03 11:29AM
>>At 08:16 AM 2/3/2003 -0800, Samuel Lubell wrote:
>
>>--- Michael Walsh <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu> wrote:
>> > Feel about Baen?
>> > The folks who've published re-written Schmitz and
>> > passed it off as =
>> > original?
>> > Sorry, I don't want to offend sensitive eyes reading
>> > such <g>.
>>
>>There was an extensive debate over this in USENET.
>>The editor, Eric Flint, made two telling points in my
>>opinion.  The first was that this wasn't a choice
>>between the edited Schmitz and an unedited volume but
>>the edited Schmitz or not being able to publish the
>>book.  The second point was that any publisher in the
>>last 30 years could have reprinted the stories
>>unedited if they thought these stories were so good
>>that they didn't need editing, yet no one did (even
>>some of the Telzey stories had not been reprinted.)
>
>I followed the debate closely, and nowhere did Eric answer the basic =
issue:
>he heavily edited the Schmitz books but they were published without =
any
>real indication that they'd been changed from the original.

Luckily there is enough online comment regarding the "editing" that the =
Baen editions will almost certainly be disregarded in any decent survey or =
scholarly discussion of Schmitz.

mjw