Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Am I reading into this?

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Am I reading into this?
Date Posted: 8/2/2007 2:27 PM ET
Member Since: 2/7/2007
Posts: 44
Back To Top

I recently bought a copy of The Tale of Jemima Puddle-duck and was very disappointed because it was a board book without all of the original illustrations and not only abridged text, but rewritten from the original.

I want to post the book on PBS, who knows, maybe somebody else wouldn't mind, but the text listed under the publisher description reads:

To celebrate Peter's birthday, Frederick Warne is publishing new editions of all 23 of Potter's original tales, which take the very first printings of Potter's works as their guide. The aim of these editions is to be as close as possible to Beatrix Potter's intentions while benefiting from modern printing and design techniques.

The colors and details of the watercolors in the volumes are reproduced more accurately than ever before, and it has now been possible to disguise damage that has affected the artwork over the years. Most notably, The Tale of Peter Rabbit restores six of Potter's original illustrations. Four were sacrificed in 1903 to make space for illustrated endpapers, and two have never been used before. Of course, Beatrix Potter created many memorable children's characters, including Benjamin Bunny, Tom Kitten, Jemima Puddle-duck and Jeremy Fisher. But whatever the tale, both children and adults alike can be delighted by the artistry in Potter's illustrations, while they also enjoy a very good read. Because they have always been completely true to a child's experience, Potter's 23 books continue to endure.
To me this suggests that the original artwork and the original text are included  (particularly the watercolors more accurately than ever and "as close to possible to Potter's intentions" parts). The edition in the description is (to me) significantly different from the one I have, but when I brought it up, I was told that the description was not wrong per se and that I was reading into the text there, so it would not be changed.
I will put what I consider the discrepancy in my review of the book so as to hopefully spare someone else the disappointment. I don't mean any offense to the person who told me the description was not wrong, but I was hoping for some second opinions on whether I was reading into this or not?
Date Posted: 8/2/2007 2:44 PM ET
Member Since: 8/9/2005
Posts: 20,024
Back To Top

If you add anything about it in the review it will be flagged as a condition. If its deemed ok then post it.

Date Posted: 8/2/2007 6:24 PM ET
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Posts: 828
Back To Top
I don't think it would be inappropriate to state that you disagree with the publisher's descript info in a review. As long as the info in your review could be applied to all copies of the book posted with that listing, it counts as your assessment of the book's content and is appropriate for a review.

Last Edited on: 8/2/07 6:25 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 8/2/2007 7:03 PM ET
Member Since: 11/14/2005
Posts: 6,421
Back To Top

I do not read in the description where it says that the book is going to be the same copy you have seen elsewhere, it says the new books will be "as close as possible to Beatrix Potter's intentions" at no point does it state that the contents are the same as the original nor that all illustrations are included. It clearly says to me, that it may be different than another edition you may have seen and I belive the desription is proper just as it is.

I typed this up to you yesterday when you posted it in another topic, Alana, but apparently never hit the post button. I remember looking up the book, and reading the description and looking for more information. I didn't intentionally ignore your question in the other topic. I had some company come in, and that may have been the point at which I changed my browser page without posting the reply.

If it were me I might state something to the effect that this edition does not contain all the illustrations and text that some others do, but I would not remove the editors description in the item, because I feel it does describe the book, but is just a bit misleading. So, as Leise says, there's nothing wrong with putting your opinion that the publisher does not clarify this in your review. Does that help?

Date Posted: 8/3/2007 4:26 AM ET
Member Since: 2/7/2007
Posts: 44
Back To Top

Sherry -

I did not think that you were ignoring me, I was just hoping for a range of opinions. Thanks for your response.

My main problem with this description is that it is the blanket description on this site and amazon for EVERY copy of Jemima Puddle-duck that I have seen. I don't believe that the publisher (which I believe is no longer in business) intended that description for THIS edition.

The original watercolors are not reproduced as they were in the originals. The text has been changed from Potter's. This was done not to accommodate printing techniques in this edition, but to abridge it as a board book.

I respect your right to disagree with my assessment of the text, and if this description had been given out with only this edition, I would let the matter drop. But it has been used as a blanket description for all editions, and I feel it is significantly misleading.  If the description is not changed, it won't be the end of the world (though personally I would have edited out all of the stuff about Peter Rabbit as it certainly adds nothing to the description of this book), but I would at least like to add an abridged to it somewhere.

Before submitting another attempt to get the description edited, I had hoped to get some input from other members. As much as your opinion is respected around PBS (by me as well), I would rather get a number of opinions on this particular matter.

Thanks for your help.

Date Posted: 8/3/2007 4:16 PM ET
Member Since: 11/14/2005
Posts: 6,421
Back To Top

Alana, I can see your point if it is being attached to other copies. This means it very well doesn't even apply to the edition listed??? I have seen other books that carried specific descriptions that weren't applicable to that copy as well, such as 50th anniversary editions and such. SO! I would then amend my opinion, and say that yes, if this is true that your copy with the exact ISBN listed does NOT meet that description, then I would change it also. I do see what you are saying, and am glad you took the time to expand on it.

Not that I'm trying to force my new opinion on you any more than I intended to make my first opinion seem that it had to be accepted. I apologize if I made it seem that way, or if I do in any other area, except in the specific guidelines in the editing topic. There I won't apologize, as we are trying for consistancy in the database, but I have contact with R&R whenever it is a real serious debatable issue. And I try not to be rude about it, and hope I didn't appear to be here.

Date Posted: 8/4/2007 3:58 PM ET
Member Since: 2/7/2007
Posts: 44
Back To Top


No you weren't rude. I hope I didn't make it seem like you were. I'm very glad you've taken the time to help me. As I stated, I very much appreciate your opinion. Mostly I posted to try to clarify my position (to myself as well) so as to come up with a suitable description/change request. I'll be submitting another soon.

Thanks for everything!