The most recent addition to the complete review is my review of Massimo Carlotto's The Master of Knots, just out from Europa Editions in a US edition.
As I often note, many aspects of the publishing industry mystify me -- so also now the copyright page of this book, which includes the following 'information':
Maybe this edition differs from the previous English publication -- but surely the original edition, published by Orion in 2004 deserves some acknowledgement.
And, of course, it's always horrifying to see a translation copyright not in the name of the translator (though at least he's given some credit here) but rather of the publisher -- though, again: why is there a 2014 copyright date on a 2004 translation ? Has it been that radically revised ?
While possibly not dishonest the dates here surely are, at the very least, misleading -- bad metadata, and confusing to anyone who looks at or uses this sort of information. Is there so much to be gained by being able to fool people into thinking a book is entirely new ?
As I often note, many aspects of the publishing industry mystify me -- so also now the copyright page of this book, which includes the following 'information':
Usually, with a translated work the original publisher's (here: Edizioni E/O) copyright date would be when they first published it -- not so here (it was in 2002).Copyright © 2014 by Edizioni E/O
First Publication 2014 by Europa Editions
Translation by Christopher Woodall
Original title: Il maestro di nodi
Translation copyright © 2014 by Europa Editions
Maybe this edition differs from the previous English publication -- but surely the original edition, published by Orion in 2004 deserves some acknowledgement.
And, of course, it's always horrifying to see a translation copyright not in the name of the translator (though at least he's given some credit here) but rather of the publisher -- though, again: why is there a 2014 copyright date on a 2004 translation ? Has it been that radically revised ?
While possibly not dishonest the dates here surely are, at the very least, misleading -- bad metadata, and confusing to anyone who looks at or uses this sort of information. Is there so much to be gained by being able to fool people into thinking a book is entirely new ?