Subject: Re: Revisionist history -- a bane against Truth From: "Paul Rhoads" Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:02:16 +0200 To: "Gan Uesli Starling" Gan, here is the current text for Cosmopolis 52. Your page has now been up long enough to do damage, so a full correction of your revissionism is necessary. If you take down now, however, I will take this into account, as I will if you don't. Paul : Wannek Wonks and Wankers The VIE, once again, has fallen under cyber-sniper fire. This time we are accused of '[countering] the author's stated wish on matters of both title and content. ' Allegedly the VIE has changed the title 'The Servants of the Wankh' to 'Wannek' not at the initiative and direction of Jack Vance, but under pressures from prudish Brits. The facts are these: a) Ever since discovering the special British slang connotations of the vocable 'wank' Vance--a writer not only exceptionally sensitive to the meaning of words but delicate in his sensibilities--regretted having used it. Discussing this title recently Jack Vance said: 'it embarasses me'. His discovery of the slang meaning of this word was made in the 1970s, shortly after publication of the book and several decades prior the existence of the VIE. Vance informed me personally of his feelings about this title in 1998, two years prior to the existence of the VIE. As for my personal feelings about, there is nothing to say; I am unfamiliar with the slang in question, I am not the author of the book. The matter means nothing to me personally. b) Weather or not, as the cyber-sniper in question claims, the subject was discussed in Oakland in January of 2000, and weather or not certain British members of the VIE brought it up at that time, my own understanding of the VIE-Brit attitude to the title in question is more or less amused indifference. I have never had the least echo of a British, or any other type of initiative to change this title, within the project or outside of it. If, however, someone, British or otherwise, VIE manager or not, did have an objection to this title, and did express it to Jack, this is a perfectly innocent circumstance. Everyone is entitled to an honest opinion. There is no law which I ever heard of forbidding me to find a word, such as say, 'Pnume', objectionable, nor to express that opinion to an American citizen, such as Jack Vance. Jack Vance, meanwhile, seems to me like a big enough boy to be able to listen to honest opinions without totally losing his bearings. c) The title 'The Servants of the Wankh', which is the one under which I know this text in published editions, is not Jack's. Jack's original title is 'The Wankh'. d) The story of the title change is this: in the spring of 2000 (several months after the alleged British urgings) Vance called me, in France, to ask if he might change a title. I was somewhat astonished; I thought of myself, in this circumstance, not as someone to whom one made polite requests but to whom one gave instructions. I did my best to make Vance see the situation my way. I made clear that, whatever titles he wanted would be the titles in the Vance Integral Edition. As VIE Editor-in-Chief what interests me, I told him, is his artistic intentions in order to present his work in as perfect and complete a manner as possible. That settled Vance began to search for a new title. He suggested several there on the phone, and asked my opinion of them--again to my astonishment. As Editor-in-Chief I would implement whatever title he wanted but I was not an artistic collaborator! When I read my VIE books I don't want to read the Vance-Rhoads, I want to read Vance! If I want to read Rhoads I can write my own stories and read them! Over the next 12 months Vance proposed several titles, all more or less similar to the 'wank' vocable, finally settling on 'Wannek'. This, of course, implied changes in the text; 'Wankhman' must become 'Wannekman' and so on, a matter which was fully discussed. This is not the first time a VIE title change has provoked an exaggerated reaction. Several books will bare titles in the VIE which have never been used by commercial publishers. These titles fall into several categories. 'Mazirian the Magician' was an original title, rejected by the publishers in favor of 'The Dying Earth'. In the year 2000 Vance remained disgusted by this change and seized upon the opportunity provided by the VIE to put matters right. 'The Eyes of the Overworld', by contrast, was a book which never had an 'original' title. Vance, none-the-less, deplored the editorial title for the reason that, to make sense, it ought to have been 'The Eyes of the Underworld'. When asked what the books should be called in the VIE, Vance, after thinking it over, instructed us to use 'Cugel the Clever'. We are using this title. 'Cugel's Saga' was another title Vance disapproved, and again no original title existed. Vance likewise provided a title for the VIE: 'Cugel: The Skybreak Spatterlight'. Other published titles were either distortions of original titles, or editorial alternates. Vance's 'The Chash' was changed to 'The City of the Chasch'; 'Gold and Iron' was published under this correct title, but also under the editorial 'Slaves of the Klau'. Alternate published titles are listed on the 'opposite title page' in VIE volumes (as 'The Servants of the Wankh' will be), and a full record of title related problems will be found in the 'Catalogue of Texts' in VIE volume 44. To some this blind and unquestioning obedience to the wishes of Jack Vance may not put the matter to rest. Is the VIE Editor-in-Chief merely an automaton who takes orders? Are there no larger considerations? Strong reactions to the replacement of 'The Dying Earth' with 'Mazirian the Magician' were expressed. Time and Use, it was argued, had consecrated the published title; reader familiarity and affection should be respected! As VIE Editor-in-Chief, I stand not for authenticity but for Art. Vance's work is the product of his imagination, experience, influences, ambition and artisanship. 'The Dying Earth' title may be 'good' in itself. For the VIE (to say nothing of Jack's wish to see the true title in print) it is unacceptable because it is not the product of Vance's artistry. The VIE is the guardian of Vance's Art. We hope to protect and promote it, in as complete and perfect a manner as possible. We are not an antiquarian curiosity shop. That someone might be disappointed at the change from 'Wankh' to 'Wannek' is understandable. But, having been informed of the facts, the motivations, actors, and mechanisms and of the change, to persist in a public denunciation of the VIE as a whole is irresponsible, destructive and malevolent. This particular situation is regrettable in that the cyber-sniper in question has been, up-until now, a hardworking volunteer. This person makes the following accusations: 1 - The VIE has: 'deliberately elected to change one of the works given into their charge.' But we have only followed the instructions of the author himself, regarding his work and the form and manner in which he, the author, wishes it to be presented. 2 - The VIE has violated it's own 'prime tenet: to undo the hackneyed depredations of former editorial staffs and revert every work to its most original form.' But, as stated above, the VIE is not an experiment in archeological deontology, it is the work of Jack Vance as Jack Vance would like it presented. If we were tied to the Procrustean bed of authenticity, what would be do with the many revised stories or passages? Must the VIE present every version of every story and every alternate passage penned by Jack Vance, including first draft versions the texts of which must be deciphered from under the lines striking them out? Does the fact that something has been published confer some sort of magical aura so that, no matter how corrupted by other hands or currently disapproved by its living author, it must be reproduced in a encyclopedic spasm of idolatry? 3 - The cyber-sniper claims to have objected to this change in 2000 'through the official, on-line discussions with other members of the VIE team'. But no 'official' on-line discussions ever existed. There were e-mail list-servers in the fall of 1999 but they were never 'official'. The VIE has always been participatory but it has never been democratic. All 'official' discussions are non-public and all decisions are made by a duly constituted authority with review and control by other appropriate authorities, per the Master Plan--which, as VIE Editor-in-Chief, it is my duty and privilege to serve and enforce. The informal discussions which occurred on the mail lists nourished the project in its formative months. They helped VIE volunteers get to know each other, to build esprit de corp, and to vet ideas. However, in January 2000, cyber-thugs began to exploit these list and, as Editor-in-Chief, I closed them down--with the exception of the 'Merscript' which was under the control of the TI team. The 'Merscript', however, was closed only a few weeks later. The cyber-sniper alleges that Vance was pressured by the VIE in January 2000. This would have left the sniper only a few weeks to have made his alleged objection on the Merscript. At that time, as far as I know, a change to this title at VIE or any other initiative was neither proposed nor even contemplated. He further claims that 'John Vance at that time settled the issue by reporting his father's preference for the true and original title.' But I never heard anything about any of this. However, if there was VIE discussion of changing the title, it was not only unofficial, it was irresponsible. I had nothing to do with it, and a conversation, in February 2000, resulting in such a remark from John Vance is not only surreal, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, the cyber-sniper claims that: 'shortly thereafter, the initial scanning and OCR work completed, I took my leave of the VIE with a sigh of relief that a dire crisis had been averted' and then goes on to claim that 'I did very probably manage to scan the greatest number of texts'. One wonders what the word 'shortly' means here, since scanning continued for several years, and while I have no wish to diminish the contribution of any VIE volunteer, the questoin of who did how much of what in the VIE is a matter of public record, so this sort of unfounded boasting, in an effort to legitimize a mendacious attack against the books of the Vance Integral Edition, is not only regrettable, it is imprudent. 4 - The above objections have been presented to the cyber-sniper, who demonstrates his malevolence by persisting in them, including the following lie: 'the VIE was not only willing, but clearly well able to counter the author's stated wish on matters of both title and content': in other words: the VIE, on its own intiative, made this title change, dispite knowing that Vance objected to the change. He also insinuates: 'I cannot now regard the other volumes without a nagging trace of suspicion. If the title and the chief antagonists of the plot are not safe from such wonton editorial depredations ...what other redactions might have crept in?' By posting such comments on the web he is seeking to plant this seed of doubt in other minds in order to discourage subscribers. It is an act of destruction. He justifies his tenacity by the following absurd claim: 'I cannot help but remain convinced that had the Britts not badgered Jack so in the first place, and apparently later again after I'd ceased to pay attention thinking the matter wisely resolved, the term Wannek should nowhere have appeared in print, much less in an archival edition.' Since the Wannek title has been a public matter since 2000, one wonders why July 2004 has been chosen to make this squawk. The sniper claim that he 'cannot allow an attempt at revisionist history to pass unchallenged'. It is a slogan which runs in two directions. This is not the first time the VIE has been accused of mucking around with Vance's texts to satisfy an i-deological program. It is ironic that the VIE, the Vance publisher which takes unprecedented care to present the true texts per the authors intentions and wishes, is regularly accused of doing the opposite! The pages of Cosmopolis have seen many demonstrations of how commercial editions have not only degraded Vance's texts out of contempt for Vance's artistry but also for ideological motives (promotion of Marxism in particular), but our cyber-detractors never raise their voices in thanks to the VIE for correcting these situations, or in indignation that they took place to begin with. The reason for this is clear: commercial publishers are not engaged in an open dialogue with their readers. They do not have to be. The VIE, on the other hand, is obliged to remain open. A commercial VIE is not viable. To accomplish our historic task we require willing hands and trusting subscribers. We can only attract and retain generous participation by being in constant communication and by remaining open to the world. It is inevitable, in this circumstance, that the project will come under attack. When one must use the whole world a as platform, there is no getting away from the all the kinds that it takes to make a world, including the goofballs, the ideologues and the simply malevolent. Some may feel that reposts to cyber-sniper fire is unnecessarily confrontational, undignified or pointless. I strongly disagree. The presentation of facts and the honest expression of respectable points of view, strengthen the project. Lies, distortions and innuendoes, particularly when they go without correction, or even rebuke, are harmful. The VIE has been deprived of a certain number of volunteers and subscriptions--discouraged from joining or quitting--because of cyber-mischief. Lost volunteers mean greater burdens on the rest of us, to say nothing of that extra degree of perfection lost to the edition by being deprived of their unique participation. Subscribers turned away means a weakening of the ultimate long-term effect of the project, since, in the last analysis, it is not only the quantity but the quantity of books we produce which is the final measure of our success. The VIE may print up to 1000 sets. So far we have about 600 subscribers. For some of us, this is already a fine accomplishment. But I want my 5 years of devotion to the work of Jack Vance to have a maximum impact. I am disgusted that cyber-thugs managed to turn subscribers away after the publication of Wave 1 by diffusing lies about the quality of the books, the integrity of the texts, or the political or religious affiliations of certain VIE managers. I have received letters from strangers contemplating subscription who hesitated in the face of these allegations. Failure to respond promptly and effectively to such tricks is therefore imprudent. Such is the nature of the cyber-sphere. This nature cannot be undone with wishes or blindfolds. I am particularly sorry at the current turn of events. The cyber-sniper in question is someone I considered a friend. His VIE work, which was important in quantity (if not as important as he claims) is, like all other volunteer contributions, extremely valued. Without it the VIE would not be where it is today: mere months away from final printing. -----Original Message----- From: Gan Uesli Starling To: Paul Rhoads Date: samedi 17 juillet 2004 21:44 Subject: Revisionist history -- a bane against Truth >>Paul, >> >>I cannot address what may have happend anywhere else but during that >>weekend. Alun did put pressure on Jack, polite pressure, but insistant >>pressure none the less. Jack gave his first reply in the negative and a >>respectful thing for Alun to do would have been let the matter rest. Yet >>he would not. It was obvious that Jack then wanted to move on. It was, I >>would guess a small matter to Jack. But even his smallest whim should >>have been taken as gospel. No second question ought have been asked. Nor >>yet a third or forth. >> >>I know that I was not part of the committee to make these decisions. Nor >>did I want to be so long as I labored under the delusion that EVERYBODY >>had it as their utmost goal to preserve Jacks true original work. That >>is the only reason I chimed in on the email list none to very long after >>that weekend. Do research it if at all possible. >> >>If email archives yet remain for the month or two following, my >>recollections will be born out. John Vance himself stepped in with >>Jack's second reply (2nd to my knowledge, anyway, admittedly limited >>though it is) which re-confirmed the Wankh original. Kindly research >>these if they may have been preserved. >> >>The reason for my adamance is that I remember it VERY distinctly since >>it was a cause for no small personal alarm. I took very great relief in >>the result of that discussion. >> >>For me that was several computers and two operating systems ago. It was >>on my old Gateway 2000 laptop running Windows 98, of which no records >>remain as I now run Unix. >> >>I have threaded in your own informative reply along with John's for the >>sake of ballance. Where this page resides on the Internet is between two >>links. My original link to the VIE now points there as a go-between, >>with the VIE's link moved to the bottom of said page. The point is that >>whowever comes to the VIE by way of my page shall thereby also be >>informed of my opinion on this very signular topic. >> >>It is the solid gold truth as I most clearly remember it. Revisionist >>history is the one dread thing of which I hold the utmost disfavor. Jack >>may indeed have had reservations about the title prior till then. But >>the impetus to make a change came from Alun and within my direct >>observation. I clearly saw Jack to recieve it cooly. And absolutely it >>was discussed and resolved in favor of the original by via group email >>not long after. It is the absolute truth and I did not mistake it. Nor >>could I respect myself to simply allow an abject revision of history to >>go unilluminated by truth. >> >>Gan >> >>Paul Rhoads wrote: > >>>> If pressure of any kind was ever put on Jack in this regard, I never knew >>>> anything about it. When Jack came to France in 1998, 2 years prior to the >>>> VIE gathering in 2000, he mentioned his unhappiness with the title. > >> >>-- >> >> Mistera Sturno - Rarest Extinct Bird >> >> <(+)__ Gan Uesli Starling >> ((__/)=- Kalamazoo, MI, USA >> `||` >> ++ http://starling.us >>