Shenanigans with book titles, plagiarism, etc.

I put a reference to this under the string of re's but thought either it
would get lost or nobody knew what the heck I was talking about. I'm a
Spanish major, so I'm not sure how closely other people follow things in
Latin America. Anyway somebody raised the issue of political incorrectness
.....


Mexicans Line Up for Controversial Stamps By MARK STEVENSON, Associated
Press Writer
Fri Jul 1, 6:38 PM ET

MEXICO CITY - Hundreds of people lined up at Mexico City's main post office
on Friday, some waiting hours to buy postage stamps featuring a black comic
book character that U.S. leaders have called racist.

The series of five stamps released Wednesday depicts the Memin Pinguin
character, a hapless boy drawn with exaggerated features, thick lips and
wide-open eyes. His appearance, speech and mannerisms are the subject of
kidding by white characters in the comic book, which started in the 1940s
and is still published in Mexico.

The stamps have become a symbol of resentment that the United States - where
Mexicans have long faced discrimination - would dare to accuse Mexico of
racism.

"They're the racists. They're worse than we are, but they just want to
belittle us, like always," said Cesar Alonso Alvarado, 53, a businessman
among the hundreds of people waiting in line to buy stamps. Alvarado said he
started reading the comic at age 10, and denies it is racist.

Memin and the artist who draws him, Sixto Valencia, were lionized on Mexican
television news programs.

People were also drawn to the post office by reports that full sheets of the
6.50-peso (60-cent) stamps were being offered on the Internet auction site
eBay for as much as $200 each or more.

"They're paying $120 for them in the United States," said Luis Guillen, 66,
when asked why he had bought several sheets. Responding to the accusations
of racism, he responded: "What about all the waiters, and servants, and dumb
depictions of blacks in old American movies?"

Mexicans snapped up the stamps at such a rate that all 750,000 sold out
Friday, two days after they hit the market.

The stamps were released just weeks after Mexican President Vicente Fox
angered U.S. blacks by saying Mexican migrants take jobs in the United
States that "not even blacks" want.

Fox, in an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, rejected U.S.
claims that the stamp is racist, saying critics should read the beloved
comic book on which it is based before they make judgments.

Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Mexico is "by no means" considering the
possibility of withdrawing the stamp.

Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez called the criticisms "a total lack of
respect for our culture."

Stamp collector Enrique Gutierrez, 41, waited 2 1/2 hours before he proudly
came away with one sheet.

"It's just a cartoon," he said, recommending Americans "not be so
closed-minded."


"Billy Bob" wrote in message
...
I think there were a few "scoundrels" in the book publishing business in
days past!

I have been working on adding to my book collection recently. I will do
quite a bit of research on a particular subject, and then will discover
new
(to me) titles of books in the 1800's and early 1900's.

Then I will order a book and await the arrival of the package. When the
package arrives, I open it and look at my new (old) book.

As I flip through the pages, the book seems very familiar! I go to my
bookshelf and take down a book with a different title/author, which was
published a few years prior. They are one and the same! (Except for the
different title and/or author.)

I am finding out and out plagiarism. Sometimes just portions of text from
another book, other times entire chapters from another book.

Also I am seeing the same author publish the same exact book, except under
different titles and differently designed covers, say every 15 years or
so.

In one case, there was a book published in England around 1900, then a
different author published a book in the U.S. around 1902. The 1902 book
had the same exact title except for one word changed. I have not found a
copy of the 1900 book yet, but I would not be surprised to find the same
exact text as the 1902 book.

It seems to me that there would be one author every 50 years or so who
created his own entirely *new* book. Then for the next 50 years or so,
most
of the books on that subject were basically the same thing, but reworded
or
plagiarized.

I guess this is why copyright laws were created.

Anybody else notice these things with non-fiction books published in the
1800's and early 1900's?

Speaking of political incorrectness (if you will forgive this off topic
post) is anyone else following the fire and smoke over the Mexican postage
stamps? They issued some stamps for Memin Pinguin (a Mexican comic book) and
our Black activists had a cow. With some reason, the character certainly
looks like a Jim Crow character. (I haven't read the comic) Last time I
checked the things had sold out in just a few days.

Stamps? Ya lick 'em, ya stick 'em. That's all I know.

"Billy Bob" wrote in message
...
"my-wings" wrote in message

...What subject area(s) does your collection cover?


Billiards books. Following is an interesting example....

Fun on the Billiard Table - Stancliffe - 1900

Fun on the Pool Table - Herrmann - 1902

Tricks and Games on the Pool Table - Herrmann - 1967

Pool Table Tricks and Games - Herrmann - 1978



Poor Mr. Stancliffe! (Assuming he was the original author.) He did it first,
and then Mr. Herrmann copped all of the glory in future editions? Was the
1902 edition in the public domain by the time it was reprinted in 1967? I
can hardly believe that the author was still around to add any additional
material to the book.

It sounds like you have the makings of a nice bibliography, and probably one
that would be welcomed by collectors in the area, if it would save them
needlessly buying books that are merely reprints of ones they already own.

Alice
--
Book collecting terms illustrated. Occasional books for sale.
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/

"Barbara Roden" wrote in message
news:hmBxe.111482$tt5.3064@edtnps90...


AND THEN THERE WERE NONE is the original American title of TEN LITTLE
******S; the book has also appeared in the States as TEN LITTLE INDIANS
and
THE NURSERY RHYME MURDERS, although AND THEN THERE WERE NONE seems to be
the
preferred title for all editions these days. Interestingly, the original
poem which serves as a basis for the plot is American, and was called 'Ten
Little Injuns' (1868); the British version, published in 1869, was called
'Ten Little ******s'. The American version ends happily ('He got married,
and then there were none'), whereas the British version ends unhappily
('He
went and hanged himself, and then there were none'). The book uses the
British ending, whereas Christie herself used the happier American ending
for the stage play she based on the book; this ending was subsequently
used
in the great 1945 film version directed by Rene Clair, and the makers were
criticised for changing the author's original downbeat ending, unaware (I
assume) that Christie had approved this ending for her play.

Barbara

Barbara, thanks for that fascinating bit of Christie trivia. I don't believe
I could ever afford to put together a set of her true first editions, but I
did manage to get almost all of the titles (there are 80+ I believe) in
Bantam's Agatha Christie Mystery Collection, a pretty set published in black
(or possibly navy blue...for some reason I can't tell the colors apart)
lightly padded leatherette with marbled end papers. The books are not only
look attractive on the shelf, but they feel lovely in the hand as well.

Alice

--
Book collecting terms illustrated. Occasional books for sale.
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/

"my-wings" wrote in message

Poor Mr. Stancliffe! (Assuming he was the original author.) He did it
first,
and then Mr. Herrmann copped all of the glory in future editions? Was the
1902 edition in the public domain by the time it was reprinted in 1967? I
can hardly believe that the author was still around to add any additional
material to the book.

It sounds like you have the makings of a nice bibliography, and probably
one
that would be welcomed by collectors in the area, if it would save them
needlessly buying books that are merely reprints of ones they already
own.


Actually my first thought was that I should just keep the first edition of
books like these. But each "reprinting" looks totally different, sometimes
different sized books, also different colors and graphics on the cover.

So if there is a reprinting of a particular book where the cover is totally
different, I keep it.

If nothing else, it is fun to pull three or four different looking books
from my book case, show them to a friend, and point out that they are all
the same book!

Al Smith wrote:
It's not non-fiction, and it's not that early in time, but as a mystery
reader, I've been irritated more than once when I brought home what I
thought was a previously unread Agatha Christie only to find that it had
been published before under a different title. For her works, it wasn't only
a variance in titles across the Atlantic, but over time as well. I can't
name any at the moment, although I think *And Then There Were None* went
through several titles.

This is a common practice of publishers. They do it when they feel
a title hasn't gotten the recognition its contents deserves. To
refresh the work, they publish it under a new title and a new
cover, hoping to find a new audience. I don't see this as
dishonest as long as the publisher notes on the cover or in the
preface that the book is a reprinting of an earlier work under a
new title. If there is no notice of the change, it is apt to cause
confusion among buyers.


Sometimes this is a very good idea. Would you rather buy a book called
_The Island of the Mighty_, or _The Virgin and the Swine_?

This is a common practice of publishers. They do it when they feel
a title hasn't gotten the recognition its contents deserves. To
refresh the work, they publish it under a new title and a new
cover, hoping to find a new audience. I don't see this as
dishonest as long as the publisher notes on the cover or in the
preface that the book is a reprinting of an earlier work under a
new title. If there is no notice of the change, it is apt to cause
confusion among buyers.



Sometimes this is a very good idea. Would you rather buy a book called
_The Island of the Mighty_, or _The Virgin and the Swine_?


Not very keen on either title. The first is a bit vague. Mighty
what? As for the second, it's more suggestive, but does it really
have anything to do with the relationship between a young woman
and a pig? I doubt it. And what does her virginity have to do with
anything? I'm not interested in bestiality myself. But then, I
suppose she might be a metaphorical virgin, and he might be a
metaphorical swine, in which case they might as well have called
it "A Man and a Woman."

Al Smith wrote:
This is a common practice of publishers. They do it when they feel
a title hasn't gotten the recognition its contents deserves. To
refresh the work, they publish it under a new title and a new
cover, hoping to find a new audience. I don't see this as
dishonest as long as the publisher notes on the cover or in the
preface that the book is a reprinting of an earlier work under a
new title. If there is no notice of the change, it is apt to cause
confusion among buyers.



Sometimes this is a very good idea. Would you rather buy a book called
_The Island of the Mighty_, or _The Virgin and the Swine_?


Not very keen on either title. The first is a bit vague. Mighty
what? As for the second, it's more suggestive, but does it really
have anything to do with the relationship between a young woman
and a pig? I doubt it. And what does her virginity have to do with
anything? I'm not interested in bestiality myself. But then, I
suppose she might be a metaphorical virgin, and he might be a
metaphorical swine, in which case they might as well have called
it "A Man and a Woman."

Good guesses all around. They're alternatite titles to Evangeline
Walton's first novel, based on the Welsh book of tales, the Mabinogion.
"The Island of the Mighty" was an ancient name for Britain. As for
_The Virgin and the Swine_, one of the worst titles in fantasy, "The
Virgin" refers to an actual virgin, and the swine to actual pigs.

Gwydion, a prince, conspires to let his brother get with said virgin by
convincing his tribe to steal some of the magical new beasts brought by
a rival tribe. Yes, the title describes the action, but sometimes that
is not always best. The later, alternate title, _The Island of the
Mighty_ is generally considered far superior.

Sometimes this is a very good idea. Would you rather buy a book called
_The Island of the Mighty_, or _The Virgin and the Swine_?



Not very keen on either title. The first is a bit vague. Mighty
what? As for the second, it's more suggestive, but does it really
have anything to do with the relationship between a young woman
and a pig? I doubt it. And what does her virginity have to do with
anything? I'm not interested in bestiality myself. But then, I
suppose she might be a metaphorical virgin, and he might be a
metaphorical swine, in which case they might as well have called
it "A Man and a Woman."


Good guesses all around. They're alternatite titles to Evangeline
Walton's first novel, based on the Welsh book of tales, the Mabinogion.
"The Island of the Mighty" was an ancient name for Britain. As for
_The Virgin and the Swine_, one of the worst titles in fantasy, "The
Virgin" refers to an actual virgin, and the swine to actual pigs.

Gwydion, a prince, conspires to let his brother get with said virgin by
convincing his tribe to steal some of the magical new beasts brought by
a rival tribe. Yes, the title describes the action, but sometimes that
is not always best. The later, alternate title, _The Island of the
Mighty_ is generally considered far superior.

Robert Graves mentions the importance of the pig to the cults of
various Goddess figures in his fascinating work "The White
Goddess." Since the "Mabinogion" is Celtic mythology, I take it
that's the connection between the virgin and the swine -- the
Celtic goddess and her totemic beast. So the island must be
Ireland, right? And the mighty would be the race of semi-divine
beings who are fabled to have dwelt there in most ancient times?
Once you know what's behind the title, it makes sense, but it
doesn't make sense if you don't know what the book is about.

Barbara Roden wrote:

AND THEN THERE WERE NONE is the original American title of TEN LITTLE
******S; the book has also appeared in the States as TEN LITTLE INDIANS and
THE NURSERY RHYME MURDERS, although AND THEN THERE WERE NONE seems to be the
preferred title for all editions these days. Interestingly, the original
poem which serves as a basis for the plot is American, and was called 'Ten
Little Injuns' (1868); the British version, published in 1869, was called
'Ten Little ******s'. The American version ends happily ('He got married,
and then there were none'), whereas the British version ends unhappily ('He
went and hanged himself, and then there were none'). The book uses the
British ending, whereas Christie herself used the happier American ending
for the stage play she based on the book; this ending was subsequently used
in the great 1945 film version directed by Rene Clair, and the makers were
criticised for changing the author's original downbeat ending, unaware (I
assume) that Christie had approved this ending for her play.


I read *And Then There Were None* in Junior High School as part of an
English class. That edition of the book had a glossary that defined
all the English words, like 'torch' and 'lift', that High School
students wouldn't be familiar with.

Anywho, I remember a scene in the book, just after the last character
left alive had shot and killed the penultimate character left alive,
where she is going back into the house. She is trying to remember how
the rhyme ends and she thinks to herself that the last line is 'She got
married, and then there were none'. It wasn't until she entered a room
and found the noose hanging from the ceiling that she realized she got
the line wrong.

Kevin L. O'Brien