From: "Madeleine Yeh" <myeh at wap.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Flinty things . . . longish . . .was: Re: The World Turned Upside Down - and changes
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:31:25 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

    The real problem with Eric Flint's editing is that
James Schmitz is no longer around to approve, disprove or
do a major rewrite.  Also Schmitz is a REAL good author.
 There are several authors currently living and writing
who I feel I could improve upon if I cut out some/a lot/ a
little of their books.  Kinda of like having Star Wars
with some of the  unneccesary characters removed.
    If Schmitz was still a live author, I would think that
Eric Flint was just doing an editor's job.  As it is, I
resent his work.  I also resent the fact that he doesn't
have a forward explaining that the works were slightly
changed from the original publication.
     Madeleine

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:56:33 -0400
  "Michael Walsh" <MJW at press.jhu.edu> wrote:
>> myeh at wap.org 9/11/04 11:07:52 PM >>>
>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:41:47 -0400
>>  Steve Smith <sgs at aginc.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On the topic of Flynn's editing of Schmitz, I didn't
>>>notice any glaring
>>> bloopers, and I have most of Schmitz's Telzy stories in
>>>the original
>>> magazine versions.  Somewhere (rasff?) Flynn defended
>>>his edits on the
>>> grounds that what he did was basically take out a couple
>>>of paragraphs
>>> of description that were repeated verbatum in each
>>>story.  It's OK in
>>> the magazine version as a memory jogger, but irritating
>>>when you read
>>> the stories straight through.  Not as bad as some make
>>>out (he didn't
>>> really "rewrite" anything) but still disrespectful.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve Smith
>>>                                          sgs at aginc.net
>>> Agincourt Computing
>>>                           http://www.aginc.net
>>> "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to
>>>make sense."
>>>
>>    What I didn't like was Eric Fling removing all the
>>cigarettesin Schmitz's stories, it seemed like the people
>>"improving" Shakespeare by  modernizing the language.  I
>>am glad to see all the stories again,  but wish he had
>>just stuffed them in a book and reprinted them.  That how
>>all the Howard books are  reprinted.
>>     Madeleine
>>
>
> As they say in sports, let's go to the videotape . . .
>or in this case,
> Google . . .
>
> Date: 2000/03/31
> Message-ID: <954454425.84029 at localhost.localdomain>
>
> "The editing breaks down into petty and significant.
> The petty stuff
> is slightly updating some of the technical terminology,
>touching up
> outdated slang terms, removing about a jillion
>exclamation points.
> (Schmitz was a maniac about using them in dialogue.  "Be
>quiet!"
> whispered Telzey.  "Okay!" muttered her sidekick.  Musta
>read too many
> comic books.)  And so on and so
> forth.
>
> The "significant" editing (in my opinion, at least --
>and I'm the
> editor, so there) is where I removed a chunk of material
>or re-arranged
> it.  In Telzey Amberdon, there are four instances of
>that kind of
> editing.  As follows:
>
> 1. The scene in chapter 1 of Undercurrents where two
>officials are
> arguing over the ethics of using psi machines was
>trimmed back.  It's a
> long passage as it is, and it was even longer in the
>original.  The
> problem with it, other than being intrinsically talky,
>is that the
> issues being raised are
> important but Schmitz never takes them up again.  So
>it's pretty much a
> red herring, as it were.
>
> 2. I removed the very last section of Undercurrents (end
>of Chapter 7).
> In the original version, that section is a "coda."  It
>takes place
> after the adventure is over.  Some time later, Telzey is
>lounging around
> and a Psionic Cop pops into her mind.  In the course of
>their dialogue,
> he gets oh-so-mysterious and tells her that "it was
>important" that she
> have that adventure and "it will be necessary" etc etc.
>
> It's very much like a cutesy version of those scenes in
>Doc Smith's
> Lensman books where Mentor the Bore is contemplating the
>Cosmic All and
> droning on to Kim Kinnison (who always talks like a
>dimwit even though
> Smith swears he's a genius) about how everything will
>someday make sense
> to him, blah blah blah...
>
> The problem with the whole thing is that... nothing ever
>comes of it.
> I assume that when Schmitz wrote that story -- he was
>much influenced by
> Doc Smith in his early career -- that he was planning to
>do follow up on
> it. But he never did, in any of the remaining 11 out of
>a total of 13
> Telzey
> stories.  So why bother to include it?  It's completely
>extraneous to
> the story as it eventually was told.  Out it goes!
>
> 3. Poltergeist, in the original, is a nice story ruined
>by a middle
> section so flabby it was horrible.  Telzey droning on
>and on to Axwen
> about Psych 101 -- and managing to telegraph the
>"surprise" ending 3
> times over - - combined with the life history of Axwen
>told in
> excruciatingly long-winded
> detail.  Dull, dull, dull.  So I gave the story a major
>belly-tuck.
> Cut 1500 words out of 7000.  Reads much better now.
>
> 4. The last piece of editing was more subtle.  Schmitz,
>like any
> writer, had certain characteristic weaknesses.  One of
>his was that he
> often had the tendency to shove a lump of expository
>background material
> right at the start of a story.  I guess he thought the
>reader needed to
> know "what it was going to be about."
>
> Bad technique, really is.  It's like a mother telling
>her kids: "You
> must eat your vegetables first!  You need the vitamins
>and minerals to
> get you through the story!"
>
> Sheesh.  Start 'em with dessert, that's what I say.
>
> START THE STORY WITH THE STORY.  Draw the reader
>_immediately_ into the
> excitement/mystery/intrigue.  DO NOT make them stand
>around scuffling
> their feet while you explain how exciting a time they're
>going to have
> -- later. They'll wander off.
>
> After editing, the story now starts as follows:
>
> The two wrecked spaceships rested almost side by side
>near the tip of a
> narrow, deep arm of a great lake.  The only man on the
>planet sat on a
> rocky ledge three miles uphill from the two ships,
>gazing broodingly
> down at them.
>
> Now THERE'S an opening!  It's great!  Schmitz was a
>genius!
>
> Except... in the original version, you don't get to
>those two sentences
> until you've read a page of background material --
>lecture, lecture, are
> we having fun yet? -- which is not only dull but
>telegraphs the punch.
> By the time you get to those two great sentences there's
>no mystery at
> all about  _who_ is this mysterious brooding man?  You
>know exactly who
> he is and can figure out why he's there.
>
> Marvelous...
>
> Out it goes!
>
> Background should only be brought it as needed and
>_when_ needed.  So I
> cut the first page or so of the story, and then
>reinserted everything in
> it which the reader actually _had_ to know when it was
>necessary for
> them to know it.  I had to do a smidgen of rewriting to
>make it read
> like dialogue instead of a lecture.  Did a good job,
>too, if I say so
> myself.
>
> If anybody's interested, when the book comes out look on
>p. 398.  Most
> of that dialogue between Dasinger and Duomart was
>originally the opening
> page of the story, presented in the form of background
>exposition.
> Betcha you couldn't have told it wasn't real dialogue,
>if I hadn't
> spilled the beans. :)
>
> Honest bear.  Sneaky, but honest.
> ________________________________End of quote.
>
> In an alternate universe Baen published the Schmitz
>stories with an
> openig something like this:
>
> Dear Reader,
>
> Welcome to the world of James H. Schmitz, one of the
>great talents of
> the of the SF field.
>
> We are reprinting his works as was orignially published
>in either the
> collections put together by James H Schmitz, or in the
>case of
> uncollected stories, as first published.  Who are we to
>re-edit works
> made ready for magazine publication by the likes of John
>W. Campbell, H.
> L. Gold, and Frederik Pohl.
>
> We thought of updating some of the technology (slide
>rules?), some of
> the social customs that have have changed (so much
>smoking in the
> future!), but we thought better of it.  As a reader of
>science fiction
> you are prepared to deal with strange new worlds and we
>knew you would
> understand that clasisc stories, regardless of when
>written, remain
> classic.  Imagine the furor if we had issued "updated"
>Sherlock Holmes
> stories!
>
> So, go forth, read, and enjoy!
>
> _________________________ (or words to that effect) . .
>. .
>
> I'm soooooooo glad he couldn't get his hands on the
>Clifford Simak
> books.  "Not enough action scenes in Way Station.  It
>all takes place
> out in the boonies of Wisconsin, jeeze!  Sequels! We
>need sequels!
> Quick, call Misty Lackey, John Ringo, Dave Freer . . .
>maybe between the
> four of us we can equal Simak!"
>
> mjw
>