{“[0]”: Original vision}[23rd August 1987]

[Redbook4:74-77][19870823:2220]{“[0]”: Original vision}[23rd August 1987]

19870823.2220

I have taken the original manuscript (as revised) and the latest typescript of '[0]' and am trying to the latter back into the former without losing the purely editorial work. The reason for this is that editing became an occasion for too-creative amendments and additions which (a) developed the original vision beyond its time (i) wrongly in places and (ii) rightly but anachronistically in others; and (b) muddied* it. It is this more creative editing which I am trying to cancel:** least in the case of background description, which is often fairly mechanical; more in the case of symbolic or potentially symbolic items (e.g. colours); most of all in the speech of the Archetypes, and descriptions of their actions.

Although this is based on what I did with '[2]', it is far less precise: rather a blunt instrument. I cannot simply use the manuscript (I believe) and re-key it because of the less 'creative' re-writing which I have done on typescripts (or print-outs), which I feel is beneficial and useful and do not feel able to do again. (Also, I don't wish to re-key it!)

I do about 55 typed pages a day, so I should finish within 4 working days: this tiring and headache-inducing rate is is because the work is so boring. I shall, however, have to read the pencil-amended t[ype]s[cript] through again.

*{“muddled”? – or “muddied”?}

**I became more sweeping, I think, as I proceeded in this.... <871003>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger12102016]