Ready for Winnie the Pooh?
277 views
Skip to first unread message
Marshall Clow
Dec 29, 2021, 6:39:02 PM12/29/21
to Standard Ebooks
From Wikipedia...
Winnie-the-Pooh was published on 14 October 1926 by Methuen & Co. in England and E. P. Dutton in the United States.[1] As a work first published in 1926, the book will enter the public domain in the United States on 1 January 2022. British copyright expires on 1 January 2027 (70 calendar years after Milne's death).
— Marshall
P.S. I checked; no PG scans as yet. (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/730?sort_order=release_date)
maticstric
Dec 29, 2021, 7:13:16 PM12/29/21
to Standard Ebooks
It was claimed but it looks like it wasn't finished in time (though maybe
it was done through personal emails):
https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/2K_Lk0k2KfI/m/uE8oisoDBQAJ
There's
a Fadedpage transcription since it's PD in Canada:
https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20150606
Vince
Dec 29, 2021, 7:48:00 PM12/29/21
to Standard Ebooks
Right, most of the work for the 1927 PD books has taken place offline, so there’s been little activity on the list about them.
Alex Cabal
Dec 29, 2021, 7:52:40 PM12/29/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
Hasn't been finished, and I haven't heard any progress about it. Matt,
are you still working on it or should we release it?
On 12/29/21 6:13 PM, maticstric wrote:
> It was claimed but it looks like it wasn't finished in time (though
> maybe it was done through personal emails):
> https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/2K_Lk0k2KfI/m/uE8oisoDBQAJ
>
> There's a Fadedpage transcription since it's PD in Canada:
> https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20150606
>
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-8 mclow...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> From Wikipedia...
>> /Winnie-the-Pooh/ was published on 14 October 1926 by Methuen &
>> Co. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuen_Publishing> in England
>> and E. P. Dutton <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Dutton> in
>> the United States.^[1]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh_(book)#cite_note-:1-1>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/b99d6295-6335-4256-be48-19875875aae0n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/b99d6295-6335-4256-be48-19875875aae0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
are you still working on it or should we release it?
On 12/29/21 6:13 PM, maticstric wrote:
> It was claimed but it looks like it wasn't finished in time (though
> maybe it was done through personal emails):
> https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/2K_Lk0k2KfI/m/uE8oisoDBQAJ
>
> There's a Fadedpage transcription since it's PD in Canada:
> https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20150606
>
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-8 mclow...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> From Wikipedia...
>> Co. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuen_Publishing> in England
>> and E. P. Dutton <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Dutton> in
>> the United States.^[1]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh_(book)#cite_note-:1-1>
>> As a work first published in 1926, the book will enter the public
>> domain in the United States
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States> on
>> domain in the United States
>> 1 January 2022. British copyright expires on 1 January 2027 (70
>> calendar years after Milne's death).
>
> — Marshall
>
> P.S. I checked; no PG scans as yet.
> (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/730?sort_order=release_date
> <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/730?sort_order=release_date>)
>> calendar years after Milne's death).
>
> — Marshall
>
> P.S. I checked; no PG scans as yet.
> (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/730?sort_order=release_date
>
>
>
> --
> 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/b99d6295-6335-4256-be48-19875875aae0n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/b99d6295-6335-4256-be48-19875875aae0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Matt Chan
Dec 30, 2021, 12:13:57 AM12/30/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
I haven't started working on it yet because I wanted to finish the Confucian Analects first, which is a pretty big project. I'm getting there though. Also working on Michael Strogoff (Jules Verne) as well but I also put that on hold to focus in the Analects. I would still like to work on Winnie the Pooh, but since it'll be awhile before I get to it if someone really wants to work on it they can!
Thanks for checking in!
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/f47480af-c66d-edfc-51cf-a416fceccae4%40standardebooks.org.
Vince
Dec 30, 2021, 1:00:15 AM12/30/21
to Standard Ebooks
Alex, this doesn’t look too difficult, I should be able to get it done by the 1st. If someone has any ideas for a cover or has time to look, I would greatly appreciate it.
Vince
Dec 30, 2021, 2:08:39 AM12/30/21
to Standard Ebooks
It’s mostly formatted and ready for modernize-spelling which I’ll do tomorrow. Proofing shouldn’t take too long, so I should hopefully be able to have it done sometime Friday. Seriously, if someone has any ideas for a cover, it would be a huge help.
I found this scan (borrow only), which shows a 1926 copyright and a 1954 renewal, and a thirty-third Dell printing in 1985.
A couple of formatting questions:
- All of the chapter titles begin with “In Which” in italics, with the rest of the title beginning on the next line. I guess maybe those could be considered bridgeheads? First, which would you consider them, and either way, do we want to keep the formatting, i.e. the italics on In Which and the break after?
- There’s a paragraph in chapter one structured with a single word per line, all right-justified, because Pooh is climbing a tree. The text is, I think, intended to mimic that, but it’s also to the right of an illustration of the tree, so that may be part of or the only reason. The Faded Page kept the formatting even without the illustration. Do we want to keep the formatting?
Alex Cabal
Dec 30, 2021, 12:29:04 PM12/30/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
If you could get it done by the 1st, that would be great. But, I'm
extremely busy in these next few days so I may not have time to review
and post this. We'll see. If it goes out on the 2nd, that's no big deal.
Re. In Which, those look like chapter titles, and I don't think we have
to keep the formatting.
Don't keep the tree formatting. It doesn't make sense without illustrations.
On 12/30/21 1:08 AM, Vince wrote:
> It’s mostly formatted and ready for modernize-spelling which I’ll do
> tomorrow. Proofing shouldn’t take too long, so I should hopefully be
> able to have it done sometime Friday. Seriously, if someone has any
> ideas for a cover, it would be a huge help.
>
> I found this scan
> <https://archive.org/details/winniepooh00aami/page/n13/mode/2up> (borrow
> <https://archive.org/details/winniepooh00aami/page/6/mode/2up> in
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
extremely busy in these next few days so I may not have time to review
and post this. We'll see. If it goes out on the 2nd, that's no big deal.
Re. In Which, those look like chapter titles, and I don't think we have
to keep the formatting.
Don't keep the tree formatting. It doesn't make sense without illustrations.
On 12/30/21 1:08 AM, Vince wrote:
> It’s mostly formatted and ready for modernize-spelling which I’ll do
> tomorrow. Proofing shouldn’t take too long, so I should hopefully be
> able to have it done sometime Friday. Seriously, if someone has any
> ideas for a cover, it would be a huge help.
>
> I found this scan
> only), which shows a 1926 copyright and a 1954 renewal, and a
> thirty-third Dell printing in 1985.
>
> A couple of formatting questions:
>
> 1. All of the chapter titles begin with “/In Which/” in italics, with
> thirty-third Dell printing in 1985.
>
> A couple of formatting questions:
>
> the rest of the title beginning on the next line. I guess maybe
> those could be considered bridgeheads? First, which would you
> consider them, and either way, do we want to keep the formatting,
> i.e. the italics on In Which and the break after?
> 2. There’s a paragraph
> those could be considered bridgeheads? First, which would you
> consider them, and either way, do we want to keep the formatting,
> i.e. the italics on In Which and the break after?
> <https://archive.org/details/winniepooh00aami/page/6/mode/2up> in
> chapter one structured with a single word per line, all
> right-justified, because Pooh is climbing a tree. The text is, I
> think, intended to mimic that, but it’s also to the right of an
> illustration of the tree, so that may be part of or the only reason.
> The Faded Page kept the formatting even without the illustration. Do
> we want to keep the formatting?
>
>
>> On Dec 30, 2021, at 12:00 AM, Vince <vr_se...@letterboxes.org
> right-justified, because Pooh is climbing a tree. The text is, I
> think, intended to mimic that, but it’s also to the right of an
> illustration of the tree, so that may be part of or the only reason.
> The Faded Page kept the formatting even without the illustration. Do
> we want to keep the formatting?
>
>
>> On Dec 30, 2021, at 12:00 AM, Vince <vr_se...@letterboxes.org
>> <mailto:vr_se...@letterboxes.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Alex, this doesn’t look too difficult, I should be able to get it done
>> by the 1st. If someone has any ideas for a cover or has time to look,
>> I would greatly appreciate it.
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 11:13 PM, Matt Chan <thew...@gmail.com
>>
>> Alex, this doesn’t look too difficult, I should be able to get it done
>> by the 1st. If someone has any ideas for a cover or has time to look,
>> I would greatly appreciate it.
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 11:13 PM, Matt Chan <thew...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:thew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't started working on it yet because I wanted to finish the
>>> Confucian Analects first, which is a pretty big project. I'm getting
>>> there though. Also working on Michael Strogoff (Jules Verne) as well
>>> but I also put that on hold to focus in the Analects. I would still
>>> like to work on Winnie the Pooh, but since it'll be awhile before I
>>> get to it if someone really wants to work on it they can!
>>>
>>> Thanks for checking in!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 7:52 PM Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org
>>> <mailto:al...@standardebooks.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hasn't been finished, and I haven't heard any progress about it.
>>> Matt,
>>> are you still working on it or should we release it?
>
>>>
>>> I haven't started working on it yet because I wanted to finish the
>>> Confucian Analects first, which is a pretty big project. I'm getting
>>> there though. Also working on Michael Strogoff (Jules Verne) as well
>>> but I also put that on hold to focus in the Analects. I would still
>>> like to work on Winnie the Pooh, but since it'll be awhile before I
>>> get to it if someone really wants to work on it they can!
>>>
>>> Thanks for checking in!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 7:52 PM Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org
>>> <mailto:al...@standardebooks.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hasn't been finished, and I haven't heard any progress about it.
>>> Matt,
>>> are you still working on it or should we release it?
>
> --
> 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/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org
> 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/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Matt Chan
Dec 30, 2021, 12:57:47 PM12/30/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Vince for taking over; I'm excited to see this released!
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/a230ddb9-c056-d9b1-fa6f-eb492b640fdf%40standardebooks.org.
John Rambow
Dec 30, 2021, 1:21:28 PM12/30/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
I can look around a bit today for cover ideas.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org.
John Rambow
Dec 30, 2021, 6:58:55 PM12/30/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
Here are a few ideas.
The Interior of a Forest (PD). I like this one because it's fairly bright -- many forest paintings are more ominous.
Autumn, a Wood Path.
https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1922.220
Bear (PD)
--it’s a print, not an oil, so it's iffy. (I looked at some other bears, but this one is the best so far. Most are too fierce and/or bearlike.)
Way Through an Oak Forest (PD)
Forêt de Compiègne (PD)
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/53058/foret-de-compiegne
Vince
Dec 30, 2021, 7:42:48 PM12/30/21
to Standard Ebooks
Thanks so much for this, John!
The bear isn’t an oil and doesn’t look like an oil, so it’s a no go.
The last one isn’t bad, a little abstract, but I don’t know if it fits a children’s book. Possibly?
Do either of the below pass muster, Alex?
The middle one might be OK, if trees make for a reasonable cover. Unfortunately, the lightest portion is in the bottom part of the painting.
I took a few minutes before I start proofing and found this. It has a big tree and kids; it’s not as modern as it could be, but maybe it might work?
On Dec 30, 2021, at 5:58 PM, John Rambow <ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here are a few ideas.The Interior of a Forest (PD). I like this one because it's fairly bright -- many forest paintings are more ominous.
Autumn, a Wood Path.
https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1922.220
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/CAFu_-g8S0RF1m%2BpmU7xosp_1NRJzpasA7ugJKYdpOiMJeteCjw%40mail.gmail.com.
Alex Cabal
Dec 30, 2021, 7:47:13 PM12/30/21
to standar...@googlegroups.com
I think the 2nd one works well. The house could be at any time and you
can't really tell a clothing style since the figures are so small.
On 12/30/21 6:41 PM, Vince wrote:
> Thanks so much for this, John!
>
> I like the first one, but the cracks in the painting are extremely
> noticeable when it’s cropped for the cover.
> The bear isn’t an oil and doesn’t look like an oil, so it’s a no go.
> The last one isn’t bad, a little abstract, but I don’t know if it fits a
> children’s book. Possibly?
>
> Do either of the below pass muster, Alex?
>
> The middle one might be OK, if trees make for a reasonable cover.
> Unfortunately, the lightest portion is in the bottom part of the painting.
>
>> <https://www.artic.edu/artworks/53058/foret-de-compiegne>
>> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
>> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/CAFu_-g8S0RF1m%2BpmU7xosp_1NRJzpasA7ugJKYdpOiMJeteCjw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/6D9D246D-98C2-4236-BA5F-872EA2B7DBA1%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
can't really tell a clothing style since the figures are so small.
On 12/30/21 6:41 PM, Vince wrote:
> Thanks so much for this, John!
>
> I like the first one, but the cracks in the painting are extremely
> noticeable when it’s cropped for the cover.
> The bear isn’t an oil and doesn’t look like an oil, so it’s a no go.
> The last one isn’t bad, a little abstract, but I don’t know if it fits a
> children’s book. Possibly?
>
> Do either of the below pass muster, Alex?
>
> The middle one might be OK, if trees make for a reasonable cover.
> Unfortunately, the lightest portion is in the bottom part of the painting.
>
> I took a few minutes before I start proofing and found this
> <https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11623>. It has a big
> tree and kids; it’s not as modern as it could be, but maybe it might work?
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 30, 2021, at 5:58 PM, John Rambow <ram...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:ram...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Here are a few ideas.
>>
>> https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS611?q=wood&page=0&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue
>> <https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS611?q=wood&page=0&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue>
>>
>> The Interior of a Forest (PD). I like this one because it's fairly
>> bright -- many forest paintings are more ominous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are a few ideas.
>>
>> https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS611?q=wood&page=0&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue
>> <https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS611?q=wood&page=0&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue>
>>
>> The Interior of a Forest (PD). I like this one because it's fairly
>> bright -- many forest paintings are more ominous.
>>
>>
>>
>> Autumn, a Wood Path.
>> https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1922.220
>> <https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1922.220>
>>
>> <image.png>
>>
>>
>> Bear (PD)
>> https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/2946550--daniel-lievano/animal/objecten#/RP-P-OB-201.016,2
>> <https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/2946550--daniel-lievano/animal/objecten#/RP-P-OB-201.016,2>
>> --it’s a print, not an oil, so it's iffy. (I looked at some other
>> bears, but this one is the best so far. Most are too fierce and/or
>> bearlike.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1922.220
>> <https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1922.220>
>>
>> <image.png>
>>
>>
>> Bear (PD)
>> https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/2946550--daniel-lievano/animal/objecten#/RP-P-OB-201.016,2
>> <https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/2946550--daniel-lievano/animal/objecten#/RP-P-OB-201.016,2>
>> --it’s a print, not an oil, so it's iffy. (I looked at some other
>> bears, but this one is the best so far. Most are too fierce and/or
>> bearlike.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Way Through an Oak Forest (PD)
>> https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS3366?q=forest&page=1&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue
>> <https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS3366?q=forest&page=1&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue>
>> https://open.smk.dk/artwork/image/KMS3366?q=forest&page=1&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue
>> <https://www.artic.edu/artworks/53058/foret-de-compiegne>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Rambow <ram...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:ram...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I can look around a bit today for cover ideas.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:08 AM Vince <vr_se...@letterboxes.org
>> <mailto:vr_se...@letterboxes.org>> wrote:
>>
>> It’s mostly formatted and ready for modernize-spelling which
>> I’ll do tomorrow. Proofing shouldn’t take too long, so I
>> should hopefully be able to have it done sometime Friday.
>> Seriously, if someone has any ideas for a cover, it would be a
>> huge help.
>>
>> I found this scan
>> <https://archive.org/details/winniepooh00aami/page/n13/mode/2up> (borrow
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Rambow <ram...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:ram...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I can look around a bit today for cover ideas.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:08 AM Vince <vr_se...@letterboxes.org
>> <mailto:vr_se...@letterboxes.org>> wrote:
>>
>> It’s mostly formatted and ready for modernize-spelling which
>> I’ll do tomorrow. Proofing shouldn’t take too long, so I
>> should hopefully be able to have it done sometime Friday.
>> Seriously, if someone has any ideas for a cover, it would be a
>> huge help.
>>
>> I found this scan
>> only), which shows a 1926 copyright and a 1954 renewal, and a
>> thirty-third Dell printing in 1985.
>>
>> A couple of formatting questions:
>>
>> 1. All of the chapter titles begin with “/In Which/” in
>> thirty-third Dell printing in 1985.
>>
>> A couple of formatting questions:
>>
>> italics, with the rest of the title beginning on the next
>> line. I guess maybe those could be considered bridgeheads?
>> First, which would you consider them, and either way, do
>> we want to keep the formatting, i.e. the italics on In
>> Which and the break after?
>> line. I guess maybe those could be considered bridgeheads?
>> First, which would you consider them, and either way, do
>> we want to keep the formatting, i.e. the italics on In
>> Which and the break after?
>> 2. There’s a paragraph
>> <https://archive.org/details/winniepooh00aami/page/6/mode/2up> in
>> chapter one structured with a single word per line, all
>> right-justified, because Pooh is climbing a tree. The text
>> is, I think, intended to mimic that, but it’s also to the
>> right of an illustration of the tree, so that may be part
>> of or the only reason. The Faded Page kept the formatting
>> even without the illustration. Do we want to keep the
>> formatting?
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2021, at 12:00 AM, Vince
>>> <vr_se...@letterboxes.org
>> right-justified, because Pooh is climbing a tree. The text
>> is, I think, intended to mimic that, but it’s also to the
>> right of an illustration of the tree, so that may be part
>> of or the only reason. The Faded Page kept the formatting
>> even without the illustration. Do we want to keep the
>> formatting?
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2021, at 12:00 AM, Vince
>>> <vr_se...@letterboxes.org
>>> <mailto:vr_se...@letterboxes.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alex, this doesn’t look too difficult, I should be able to
>>> get it done by the 1st. If someone has any ideas for a cover
>>> or has time to look, I would greatly appreciate it.
>>>
>>>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 11:13 PM, Matt Chan <thew...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Alex, this doesn’t look too difficult, I should be able to
>>> get it done by the 1st. If someone has any ideas for a cover
>>> or has time to look, I would greatly appreciate it.
>>>
>>>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 11:13 PM, Matt Chan <thew...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:thew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't started working on it yet because I wanted to
>>>> finish the Confucian Analects first, which is a pretty big
>>>> project. I'm getting there though. Also working on Michael
>>>> Strogoff (Jules Verne) as well but I also put that on hold
>>>> to focus in the Analects. I would still like to work on
>>>> Winnie the Pooh, but since it'll be awhile before I get to
>>>> it if someone really wants to work on it they can!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for checking in!
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 7:52 PM Alex Cabal
>>>> <al...@standardebooks.org <mailto:al...@standardebooks.org>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't started working on it yet because I wanted to
>>>> finish the Confucian Analects first, which is a pretty big
>>>> project. I'm getting there though. Also working on Michael
>>>> Strogoff (Jules Verne) as well but I also put that on hold
>>>> to focus in the Analects. I would still like to work on
>>>> Winnie the Pooh, but since it'll be awhile before I get to
>>>> it if someone really wants to work on it they can!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for checking in!
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 7:52 PM Alex Cabal
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hasn't been finished, and I haven't heard any progress
>>>> about it. Matt,
>>>> are you still working on it or should we release it?
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> tostandardeboo...@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>> Hasn't been finished, and I haven't heard any progress
>>>> about it. Matt,
>>>> are you still working on it or should we release it?
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web
>> visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>> visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/60B18796-2F26-4B7D-8617-AE4656F4BF1E%40letterboxes.org
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 tostandardeboo...@googlegroups.com
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web
>> visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/CAFu_-g8S0RF1m%2BpmU7xosp_1NRJzpasA7ugJKYdpOiMJeteCjw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/CAFu_-g8S0RF1m%2BpmU7xosp_1NRJzpasA7ugJKYdpOiMJeteCjw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> 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>.
> --
> 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
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/6D9D246D-98C2-4236-BA5F-872EA2B7DBA1%40letterboxes.org
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/6D9D246D-98C2-4236-BA5F-872EA2B7DBA1%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Vince
Dec 30, 2021, 7:49:43 PM12/30/21
to Standard Ebooks
Perfect, thanks, Alex.
Brendan Brown
Jan 2, 2022, 2:10:39 PM1/2/22
to Standard Ebooks
What's the status of the E.H. Shepard illustrations? Are they not considered part of the public domain of this work? Could they be included in a future revision if so?
Vince
Jan 2, 2022, 2:38:01 PM1/2/22
to Standard Ebooks
SE’s approach is not to include decorative illustrations in our productions.
Bob R. Kenyon
Jan 2, 2022, 2:42:55 PM1/2/22
to standar...@googlegroups.com
It’s interesting because I see When We Were Young on the wanted list, and it would be so boring without the illustrations.
I started looking at Winnie the Pooh, and immediately missed the illustrations from my childhood.
Bob
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/CBDCBAA7-A8AE-4DA1-AB0E-FAF20E672647%40letterboxes.org.
Matt Chan
Jan 2, 2022, 3:16:57 PM1/2/22
to standar...@googlegroups.com
We talked about this before and it was determined back then to not include them, but wasn't illustration included for a recent production for some reasons? There are exceptions from here and there.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/75E4791F-CE9B-4CBC-88D1-546F1907D426%40bobrk.com.
Vince
Jan 2, 2022, 3:26:00 PM1/2/22
to Standard Ebooks
It was ultimately decided to include them in the Potter shorts, because some of the stories themselves refer to them, and Alex decided it didn’t make sense to include them in some stories in the volume and not in all. But that decision was because some of the illustrations weren’t decorative. All of Pooh’s are.
Message has been deleted
Marshall Clow
Jan 2, 2022, 5:23:57 PM1/2/22
to Standard Ebooks
On Jan 2, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Bob R. Kenyon <b...@bobrk.com> wrote:
It’s interesting because I see When We Were Young on the wanted list, and it would be so boring without the illustrations.I started looking at Winnie the Pooh, and immediately missed the illustrations from my childhood.
I agree 100%
— Marshall
Asher Smith
Jan 3, 2022, 6:30:28 PM1/3/22
to Standard Ebooks
I think that the usual policy regarding illustrations breaks down with childrens' books somewhat. It's certainly good to have access to Milne's text, but this is the one situation where I would rather have a poor-quality pdf or other ebook rather than a nice StandardEbook to get the illustrations, especially if I'm going to be reading aloud to a child.
I know that there are technical problems with illustration formatting, so it may not be possible to change this.
Alex Cabal
Jan 3, 2022, 7:21:29 PM1/3/22
to standar...@googlegroups.com
We don't want decorative illustrations because in general we want to
maintain a single edition. Decorative illustrations are often changed
out for different editions and we don't want to be picking which
illustrator is better for our single edition. Plus, illustrations,
especially the kind in children's books which often change or depend on
the layout of the text around them, just aren't a great fit for the
ebook layout model right now.
On 1/3/22 5:30 PM, Asher Smith wrote:
> I think that the usual policy regarding illustrations breaks down with
> childrens' books somewhat. It's certainly good to have access to Milne's
> text, but this is the one situation where I would rather have a
> poor-quality pdf or other ebook rather than a nice StandardEbook to get
> the illustrations, especially if I'm going to be reading aloud to a child.
>
> I know that there are technical problems with illustration formatting,
> so it may not be possible to change this.
>
> On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 10:23:57 PM UTC mclow...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Bob R. Kenyon <b...@bobrk.com> wrote:
>>
>> It’s interesting because I see /When We Were Young/ on the wanted
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c9bc2174-a4c1-4489-b6e3-12dbfb97dd68n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
maintain a single edition. Decorative illustrations are often changed
out for different editions and we don't want to be picking which
illustrator is better for our single edition. Plus, illustrations,
especially the kind in children's books which often change or depend on
the layout of the text around them, just aren't a great fit for the
ebook layout model right now.
On 1/3/22 5:30 PM, Asher Smith wrote:
> I think that the usual policy regarding illustrations breaks down with
> childrens' books somewhat. It's certainly good to have access to Milne's
> text, but this is the one situation where I would rather have a
> poor-quality pdf or other ebook rather than a nice StandardEbook to get
> the illustrations, especially if I'm going to be reading aloud to a child.
>
> I know that there are technical problems with illustration formatting,
> so it may not be possible to change this.
>
> On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 10:23:57 PM UTC mclow...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Bob R. Kenyon <b...@bobrk.com> wrote:
>>
>> list, and it would be so boring without the illustrations.
>>
>> I started looking at /Winnie the Pooh/, and immediately missed the
>>
>> illustrations from my childhood.
>
> I agree 100%
>
> — Marshall
>
>
> I agree 100%
>
> — Marshall
>
> --
> 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>.
> 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
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c9bc2174-a4c1-4489-b6e3-12dbfb97dd68n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c9bc2174-a4c1-4489-b6e3-12dbfb97dd68n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Alex
Jan 8, 2022, 6:13:48 PM1/8/22
to Standard Ebooks
I think there is a key difference to be noted between “books that have illustrations” and “books that are illustrated.” Just because the illustrations are not directly referred to by the text itself does not mean that they do not add substantive depth and enhance the text.
According to the Calibre ebook viewer when comparing the Gutenberg epubs of Winnie-the-Pooh, the version with images has 232 “locations” while the version without images has 118 “locations.” This means that the Standard Ebooks version has stripped out *literally fifty percent* of the book (actually >50% when the title pages and Gutenberg license notices are removed). IMO one cannot claim that the illustrations have no purpose other than decoration when the illustrations constitute more of the book than the text itself does.
Obviously Alex Cabal is the editor who makes the final decision and I'm a nobody who's never contributed before; however I think including illustrations should be slightly more context-sensitive. Treasure Island, a young adult novel with a few illustrations? It's definitely fine with them removed. A true children's book barely one step above a full-on picture book? Not particularly valuable with all the images removed—especially to the intended audience of young children learning to read or who have recently learned to read.
According to the Calibre ebook viewer when comparing the Gutenberg epubs of Winnie-the-Pooh, the version with images has 232 “locations” while the version without images has 118 “locations.” This means that the Standard Ebooks version has stripped out *literally fifty percent* of the book (actually >50% when the title pages and Gutenberg license notices are removed). IMO one cannot claim that the illustrations have no purpose other than decoration when the illustrations constitute more of the book than the text itself does.
Obviously Alex Cabal is the editor who makes the final decision and I'm a nobody who's never contributed before; however I think including illustrations should be slightly more context-sensitive. Treasure Island, a young adult novel with a few illustrations? It's definitely fine with them removed. A true children's book barely one step above a full-on picture book? Not particularly valuable with all the images removed—especially to the intended audience of young children learning to read or who have recently learned to read.
Asher Smith
Jan 11, 2022, 6:04:57 AM1/11/22
to Standard Ebooks
Alex, how do you feel about illustrations that have been a part of the text for the whole time? This was definitely the case with the Beatrix Potter books; she illustrated them and they have always been printed with her original illustrations. I think it's also the case for the Pooh books, as it's my understanding that the original illustrations are still used in modern editions.
To me, the illustrations are just as iconic as the text itself, and I cannot imagine introducing anybody of the age the book is intended for to a copy without those illustrations.
Anthony J. Bentley
Jan 11, 2022, 10:38:19 AM1/11/22
to standar...@googlegroups.com
I agree with you that the Shepard illustrations for Pooh are singularly iconic, in a way that other iconic illustrations (such as the Strand
illustrations for Holmes) aren’t. But I can’t articulate that in a way that isn’t obviously subjective. And the strength of SE comes from having a clear, consistent ruleset applied against a large corpus.
If we allow Shepard’s Pooh, then the next potential exception requested will be Paget’s Holmes. The final decision will be based on subjective factors, after a long discussion. A discussion that will be repeated for book after book. I just don’t think it will work out.
In a way it’s like the question of allowing foreign production. I don’t think anyone argues a production of Verne in the original French wouldn’t be valuable. But SE’s scope is tightly constrained by the English-centered style guide, by production volunteers, by review effort. That could be surmountable—and it’s been repeatedly suggested here that a demo of ten productions or so from a foreign-focused style guide would be a strong argument. But despite the suggestion, it’s never been done, and that’s very telling about the sustainability of such an effort.
So my suggestion would be to take the SE books that would most benefit—everything’s PD, after all—and introduce the classic illustrations. Then we can see the difference. Even if nothing changes at SE, the production can still be valuable at PG or elsewhere. But I don’t think continuing this discussion on the mailing list is going to get us anywhere right now.
illustrations for Holmes) aren’t. But I can’t articulate that in a way that isn’t obviously subjective. And the strength of SE comes from having a clear, consistent ruleset applied against a large corpus.
If we allow Shepard’s Pooh, then the next potential exception requested will be Paget’s Holmes. The final decision will be based on subjective factors, after a long discussion. A discussion that will be repeated for book after book. I just don’t think it will work out.
In a way it’s like the question of allowing foreign production. I don’t think anyone argues a production of Verne in the original French wouldn’t be valuable. But SE’s scope is tightly constrained by the English-centered style guide, by production volunteers, by review effort. That could be surmountable—and it’s been repeatedly suggested here that a demo of ten productions or so from a foreign-focused style guide would be a strong argument. But despite the suggestion, it’s never been done, and that’s very telling about the sustainability of such an effort.
So my suggestion would be to take the SE books that would most benefit—everything’s PD, after all—and introduce the classic illustrations. Then we can see the difference. Even if nothing changes at SE, the production can still be valuable at PG or elsewhere. But I don’t think continuing this discussion on the mailing list is going to get us anywhere right now.
Alex Cabal
Jan 11, 2022, 11:58:11 AM1/11/22
to standar...@googlegroups.com
As Anthony said, that's just not the goal of the project, and we have to
set boundaries. One book gets an exception and then all of a sudden
instead of just being able to say "no", I then have to justify not
giving out more exceptions to everyone's pet book.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c9bc2174-a4c1-4489-b6e3-12dbfb97dd68n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c9bc2174-a4c1-4489-b6e3-12dbfb97dd68n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/236f2404-ac36-46cc-873a-e7db98b2b4c9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
set boundaries. One book gets an exception and then all of a sudden
instead of just being able to say "no", I then have to justify not
giving out more exceptions to everyone's pet book.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c9bc2174-a4c1-4489-b6e3-12dbfb97dd68n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>
>
> --
> 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/236f2404-ac36-46cc-873a-e7db98b2b4c9n%40googlegroups.com
>
> --
> 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/236f2404-ac36-46cc-873a-e7db98b2b4c9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages