Name Error
... a relationship altered by a change of name. Last Saturday the lead feature in the Review section was an extract from David Lodge's new novel, Author, Author, in which, as the heading said, he "weaves fact and fiction" to explore the private life of Henry James, and in particular his friendship with George du Maurier.
Last Saturday the lead feature in the Review section was an extract from David Lodge's new novel, Author, Author, in which, as the heading said, he "weaves fact and fiction" to explore the private life of Henry James, and in particular his friendship with George du Maurier. It commanded the cover of Review with a portrait illustration, and three whole pages inside. The keywords here are "extract", "novel" and "fiction".
There was an immediate response from David Lodge: "You have given me a magnificent spread in today's Guardian, beautifully illustrated." However, his email continued: "But why oh why did you change 'Henry' to 'James' throughout, and without consulting me? It makes the discourse sound like biography, which was just the effect I was trying to avoid."
The intimacy and familiarity conveyed by the use of the first name rather than the surname was something carefully judged by the author to be appropriate to the fictional focusing of the work through "the consciousness and point of view" of Henry James. It is used almost throughout the novel.
The change was made, in fact, by a subeditor on Review without reference either to the editor of Review or to the author of the piece. The change was not detected by the section editor when the proofs were read. Both have apologised to David Lodge. The following note appeared in the daily corrections column on August 17: "In an extract from David Lodge's novel Author, Author, about Henry James, we changed the writer's use of the first name, Henry, to the more distant and detached second name, James, thus altering the tone of the fictional piece and making it appear more like reportage. Apologies." A correct version has been put on the website.
The first thing to be said is that there is no rule in the stylebook that sanctions such a change. Even if the stylebook expressed a strong preference for surnames in some situations - in news reports, for instance - one would need to question its application here. Indeed, the authors of the Guardian stylebook in their introduction make a point of saying, "the unthinking application of any style guide will create more errors than it avoids - these recommendations must always be applied with common sense, and (almost) all the rules may have to be broken at some time or other."
One of the stylebook's authors added, "Nowhere does it say in the guide to use surnames like that (though we discuss honorifics) and certainly not in a work of fiction. It's so obvious what not to do that we didn't think it necessary to point it out, but maybe in the next edition we should include an entry on extracts, saying leave well alone."
More importantly, Review has a commendable rule the application of which has played an important part in establishing the good relationship it enjoys with its contributors. That is that significant changes are referred to the editor of the section and back to the author. That clearly should have been done here.
Whether communication failed at some point in the handling of this particular piece I do not know. It is certainly a question to be asked. Another question might be: are we making too much of it? Since the extract preceded publication of the book by some weeks it was a mistake unlikely to be noticed or even to be sensed by more than a very few readers, if any. The fact remains, however, that it intruded upon and distorted the relationship the author wanted to establish with his subject and with the reader. The change perhaps seems a particularly strange one to make in a work of fiction, but it would, I think, have been just as ill-advised had it been an extract from a biography of Henry James in which the author had chosen to refer to him throughout as "Henry". It is the author's privilege.
The editor of Review says, "David Lodge is an internationally respected writer and a valued contributor whose relationship with Review has been built on the fact that we have treated his work with care and respect. No copy from any contributor is regarded as 'untouchable' but any changes, in fiction or non-fiction pieces, should be made in consultation with our contributors."
An "edited extract", by agreement, may be cut to size, and have the addition of any necessary explanatory notes to make clear what would otherwise be apparent only to a reader of the whole book. Taken further, the extract may cease to be an extract and become something else.
There was an immediate response from David Lodge: "You have given me a magnificent spread in today's Guardian, beautifully illustrated." However, his email continued: "But why oh why did you change 'Henry' to 'James' throughout, and without consulting me? It makes the discourse sound like biography, which was just the effect I was trying to avoid."
The intimacy and familiarity conveyed by the use of the first name rather than the surname was something carefully judged by the author to be appropriate to the fictional focusing of the work through "the consciousness and point of view" of Henry James. It is used almost throughout the novel.
The change was made, in fact, by a subeditor on Review without reference either to the editor of Review or to the author of the piece. The change was not detected by the section editor when the proofs were read. Both have apologised to David Lodge. The following note appeared in the daily corrections column on August 17: "In an extract from David Lodge's novel Author, Author, about Henry James, we changed the writer's use of the first name, Henry, to the more distant and detached second name, James, thus altering the tone of the fictional piece and making it appear more like reportage. Apologies." A correct version has been put on the website.
The first thing to be said is that there is no rule in the stylebook that sanctions such a change. Even if the stylebook expressed a strong preference for surnames in some situations - in news reports, for instance - one would need to question its application here. Indeed, the authors of the Guardian stylebook in their introduction make a point of saying, "the unthinking application of any style guide will create more errors than it avoids - these recommendations must always be applied with common sense, and (almost) all the rules may have to be broken at some time or other."
One of the stylebook's authors added, "Nowhere does it say in the guide to use surnames like that (though we discuss honorifics) and certainly not in a work of fiction. It's so obvious what not to do that we didn't think it necessary to point it out, but maybe in the next edition we should include an entry on extracts, saying leave well alone."
More importantly, Review has a commendable rule the application of which has played an important part in establishing the good relationship it enjoys with its contributors. That is that significant changes are referred to the editor of the section and back to the author. That clearly should have been done here.
Whether communication failed at some point in the handling of this particular piece I do not know. It is certainly a question to be asked. Another question might be: are we making too much of it? Since the extract preceded publication of the book by some weeks it was a mistake unlikely to be noticed or even to be sensed by more than a very few readers, if any. The fact remains, however, that it intruded upon and distorted the relationship the author wanted to establish with his subject and with the reader. The change perhaps seems a particularly strange one to make in a work of fiction, but it would, I think, have been just as ill-advised had it been an extract from a biography of Henry James in which the author had chosen to refer to him throughout as "Henry". It is the author's privilege.
The editor of Review says, "David Lodge is an internationally respected writer and a valued contributor whose relationship with Review has been built on the fact that we have treated his work with care and respect. No copy from any contributor is regarded as 'untouchable' but any changes, in fiction or non-fiction pieces, should be made in consultation with our contributors."
An "edited extract", by agreement, may be cut to size, and have the addition of any necessary explanatory notes to make clear what would otherwise be apparent only to a reader of the whole book. Taken further, the extract may cease to be an extract and become something else.
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
