[Next project] Germinie Lacerteux by Edmond and Jules de Goncourt

[Bob Reus]

For my next production, I'd like to work on Germinie Lacerteux by the Goncourt brothers.

Here is the transcription on Project Gutenberg
and the page scans

The transcription looks good, and in line with the page scans, so I expect this to be a fairly straightforward production.

[Alex Cabal]

OK great. se create-draft can accept multiple authors, see other books
like Communist Manifesto for an idea of how metadata, etc. is
structured. Make sure to check the titlepage image to ensure you called
se create-draft with the right parameters.

Emma, can you manage this with Vince reviewing?

On 10/6/22 2:49 PM, Bob Reus wrote:
> For my next production, I'd like to work on Germinie Lacerteux

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinie_Lacerteux> by the Goncourt
> brothers <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goncourt_brothers>.

>
> Here is the transcription on Project Gutenberg

> <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27711>
> and the page scans <https://archive.org/details/germinielacerteu02dego>

>
> The transcription looks good, and in line with the page scans, so I
> expect this to be a fairly straightforward production.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/593ee7cd-87c9-47de-9b5d-cc194a9ba431n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/593ee7cd-87c9-47de-9b5d-cc194a9ba431n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Emma Sweeney]

Sure.

Emma

[Bob Reus]

Great, I've started. Here's the url to the repository: https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire

-Bob

Op donderdag 6 oktober 2022 om 22:36:06 UTC+2 schreef Emma Sweeney:

[Bob Reus]

I have a couple of questions about formatting:

1. The second preface is an excerpt from a diary. Each entry's dateline is formatted like this:
<p><i epub:type="se:diary.dateline"><time datetime="1862-07-22">July 22, 1862</time>.</i>⁠—[entry text]</p>

Except for the final entry, which in the PG transcription is formatted like this:
<p><i>Thursday, October 21.</i></p>
<hr/>
<p>[entry text]</p>

Which is consistent with the page scans. I think the <hr/> between those two entries is justified (as it seems to indicate a time gap between entries, and there's a thematical break), but I'd much rather style the dateline like the other entries. What is the right approach to take here?

2. The book has a few full-page illustrations, which are followed by a blank page and the passage in the book that the illustration depicts. Also, in the book the first image is placed before the titlepage. (see page 11 -14 in the page scans)
I have formatted these as full page illustrations with the passages as figcaption, as described in SEMoS 7.8.5.3. Is this correct? And where should the first image go?

Op donderdag 6 oktober 2022 om 22:57:37 UTC+2 schreef Bob Reus:

[Emma Sweeney]

1. I recommend following the page scans' formatting. The thematic break might indicate that there was some other text that was removed at the beginning of the entry.

2. We typically cut all decorative illustrations, so you can simply remove them.

Emma

[Bob Reus]

Thanks! I removed the images and kept the page scans' formatting.

I would like to propose Kitchen by Matthijs Maris for the cover:

In the novel, Germinie is a maidservant with a grim past and a hidden double life. In this painting, the shadow on the left looks like it's almost preying on her (but it could be her own). I think it fits :) It's on the Rijksmuseum website with a CC0 license, so thankfully no hunting for page scans.

Op vrijdag 11 november 2022 om 20:35:16 UTC+1 schreef Emma Sweeney:

[Emma Sweeney]

Looks good!

Emma

[Bob Reus]

Alright, I think this is ready for review!

Here is the link to the git repo: https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire

Op zaterdag 12 november 2022 om 20:29:32 UTC+1 schreef Emma Sweeney:

[Vince]

Really nice work, Bob. I logged a few minor things in GibHub, but it looks really good. Seventy chapters for a 70K book, when one of the chapters is 10K by itself; that makes for some quickly read chapters!

Alex, a clarifying question about italics being used in places that don’t appear to be covered by the manual. As one example, the Goncourt’s italicize “chick” several times when referring to a friend, e.g. (I bolded just to make them easier to find)

And this lasted ten years! ten years, during which Mademoiselle de Varandeuil had no other recreation, no other consolation than to pour out all the tenderness and warmth of a maternal affection upon one of her two young friends, recently married⁠—her chick, as she called her.

…

But she returned to her dear chick first of all, and to another distant cousin, also married, who had become the chick’s sister-in-law. 

…

And a couple of other instances.

It’s conceivable to me that the first one could be styled emphasis, but the others seem doubtful to me.

Then there are uses like this:

Madame Jupillon, who claimed to have been married and signed herself Widow Jupillon, had a son. He was still a child. … Germinie fell into the way of accompanying Madame Jupillon when she went to see Bibi on Thursdays.

The Widow Jupillon feels like it should be quoted, not italicized. If it is italicized, is it just unsemanticated italics? I’m not sure why the Bibi is italicized; it isn’t elsewhere, but that use doesn’t feel like emphasis, but maybe it is?

In short, how free should we be (or not be) with things that are italicized in the source that aren’t covered by the manual and don’t have semantics? Should we lean towards leaving them italicized, and just use unsemanticated italics if they’re not emphasis, or should we only leave them italics if they are emphasis? And should we assume they are emphasis unless it’s “clear” they’re not?

Yes, I know—it depends. :) I’m just trying to get a feel for how to determine what the “depends” depends on.

[Bob Reus]

Thanks! You caught a few things that I made case-by-case decisions on, but aren't very consistent overall. (Then again, as you noticed, neither are the page scans). I'll fix them sometime today, and do an extra review just in case.

With 'chick', I took into consideration that it's a nickname, and doesn't necessarily refer to the MW definition of the word. I kept the emphasis to make that clearer, but maybe emphasizing the first instance would be sufficient. Bibi also seemed like a nickname to me, but the scans only italicize the first instance.

On that note, bibi also occurs in lower case once (chapter 26). Should I fix that in an editorial commit?

Op woensdag 16 november 2022 om 06:28:54 UTC+1 schreef Vince:

[Vince]

Yes, I agree, “chick” is definitely a nickname (or affectionate term), that’s one of the reasons I’m asking Alex. (In a vacuum, I would quote the nickname the first time and be done with it.)

I ran into this in one of the Maupassant stories: a man’s nickname was italicized throughout the story (probably 20-30 times), and the “nickname” of one of his liquors was also italicized throughout. I was going to have to ask the same question at the time, but I ended up using a later translation of his stories that did neither of those things. Which is one of the reasons I question whether the italics are needed at all. And I’ve seen this before, though not to that extreme; maybe nicknames is something we should cover in the manual, I don’t know.

If François is lurking maybe he can clarify on the use of “bibi” here. My (limited) research shows it’s informally a woman’s hat (probably not the use here :), and slang for “yours truly,” which would also not appear to be the use here. The French edition of the book I looked at italicized the first capital Bibi in chapter 8, but not the second one, and also used lowercase in both of the instances in chapter-26. It feels like to me (I know this isn’t what it translates to) like calling someone Precious, which might be capitalized when referring to them directly (as a sort of nickname) but in conversation with them would be treated as an adjective rather than a proper name and would thus be lowercased.

[Alex Cabal]

All of those should be quoted:
https://standardebooks.org/manual/1.7.0/single-page#8.2.10.1

The first instance of chick can be qouted and the rest can be regular

On 11/15/22 11:28 PM, Vince wrote:
> Really nice work, Bob. I logged a few minor things in GibHub, but it
> looks really good. Seventy chapters for a 70K book, when one of the
> chapters is 10K by itself; that makes for some quickly read chapters!
>
> Alex, a clarifying question about italics being used in places that
> don’t appear to be covered by the manual. As one example, the Goncourt’s
> italicize “chick” several times when referring to a friend, e.g. (I
> bolded just to make them easier to find)
>
> And this lasted ten years! ten years, during which Mademoiselle de
> Varandeuil had no other recreation, no other consolation than to
> pour out all the tenderness and warmth of a maternal affection upon

> one of her two young friends, recently married⁠—her /*chick*/, as
> she called her.
> …
> But she returned to her dear /*chick*/ first of all, and to another

> distant cousin, also married, who had become the

> /*chick’s*/ sister-in-law.

> …
> And a couple of other instances.
>
>
> It’s conceivable to me that the first one could be styled emphasis, but
> the others seem doubtful to me.
>
> Then there are uses like this:
>
> Madame Jupillon, who claimed to have been married and signed herself

> /*Widow Jupillon*/, had a son. He was still a child. … Germinie fell

> into the way of accompanying Madame Jupillon when she went to see

> /*Bibi*/ on Thursdays.
>
>
> The /Widow Jupillon/ feels like it should be quoted, not italicized. If

> it is italicized, is it just unsemanticated italics? I’m not sure why
> the Bibi is italicized; it isn’t elsewhere, but that use doesn’t feel
> like emphasis, but maybe it is?
>
> In short, how free should we be (or not be) with things that are
> italicized in the source that aren’t covered by the manual and don’t
> have semantics? Should we lean towards leaving them italicized, and just
> use unsemanticated italics if they’re not emphasis, or should we only
> leave them italics if they are emphasis? And should we assume they are
> emphasis unless it’s “clear” they’re not?
>
> Yes, I know—it depends. :) I’m just trying to get a feel for how to
> determine what the “depends” depends on.
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2022, at 4:54 AM, Bob Reus <bobr...@gmail.com

>> <mailto:bobr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Alright, I think this is ready for review!
>>
>> Here is the link to the git

>> repo:https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire <https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire>

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/50F1F197-9799-42E7-AB05-6ED5A0EBE73C%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/50F1F197-9799-42E7-AB05-6ED5A0EBE73C%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Vince]

Thanks, Alex. I don't really think of nicknames as “terms,” but now I will. :)

[François Grandjean]

I’m always lurking, Vince. :)

Not much to add, especially after Alex weighed in, but I can confirm it is an old (and not really used anymore) nickname for a woman or a child, typically showing close familiarity. Chick is also a nickname, which replaces poule (hen) in the original—that would be a familiar nickname in French for a young woman.

[Vince]

All right, Alex, I believe this is ready for you.

[Alex Cabal]

Great, I've gone ahead and released it. Thanks Bob, excellent work!

On 11/19/22 11:59 AM, Vince wrote:
> All right, Alex, I believe this is ready for you.
>
>
>> On Nov 17, 2022, at 12:25 PM, François Grandjean

>> <francois....@gmail.com <mailto:francois....@gmail.com>>

>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m always lurking, Vince. :)
>>
>> Not much to add, especially after Alex weighed in, but I can confirm
>> it is an old (and not really used anymore) nickname for a woman or a
>> child, typically showing close familiarity. Chick is also a nickname,

>> which replaces /poule/ (hen) in the original—that would be a familiar

>> repo:https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire <https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire> <https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire <https://github.com/bob-reus/edmond-de-goncourt_jules-de-goncourt_germinie-lacerteux_john-chestershire>>

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/7621BB7A-38DE-41FD-86EF-2B856AF2F880%40letterboxes.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/7621BB7A-38DE-41FD-86EF-2B856AF2F880%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.