▲ | iambateman 2 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cool story, but I wish this were published into the public domain online. It's kind of weird that a 150-year-old slave narrative is being sold by a University press. At any rate, here's the original text from the Australian paper: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/rendition/nla.news-articl... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | quuxplusone 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Excellent find! That text actually begins here, much more poorly OCRed: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/rendition/nla.news-articl... https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/rendition/nla.news-articl... so that the GUI version is probably easier to read ( https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/60178733 , https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/60177234 ). Also, TFA itself links to a transcription of the (according to TFA, "chopped ... excising most of its political arguments") Leisure Hour reprint: https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/jjacobs/jjacobs.html It might be interesting to compare the two. In fact, I would hope that such a comparison appears in Schroeder's new edition. A university press is exactly where I'd expect to find a "critical edition" or recension of a 150-year-old narrative that exists in multiple versions. If university-press publication is appropriate for a critical edition of Shakespeare or Pulci, it seems equally appropriate for a critical edition of John S. Jacobs. You're not paying for the transcription, you're paying for the scholarship. The only weird things about this story, to me, are: (1) The book-jacket design screams modern pop, where I personally would have gone with a more "serious"-looking design, like you'd find on a Penguin Classic, or even on an Erik Larson novel. (2) It's not clear what they mean "rediscovered"; I scanned the article looking for the traditional discovery narrative, like "he inherited a manuscript" or "a yellowed newspaper clipping" or whatever. Here it looks like the "rediscovery" was basically that it came up in a Google search and he said "oh that's neat, someone should republish that in real print, on paper." Which is fine and great; we should republish more out-of-print work. It's just not the traditional media narrative of a "rediscovered" or "resurfaced" lost work; it's more like a tracing of the familiar narrative beats from which the actual plot (the physical discovery of a lost work) has been surgically removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | Archelaos 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The original text is public domain. So you can copy it to your Website, or submit it to archive.org, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | Attummm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's ironic even after 150 years, the person is still facing the same issue. |