In the follow-up hinted at previously, Paul Debraski from I Just Read About That... took the time to compare the essays collected in Both Flesh and Not to the originals in his post, David Foster Wallace–original articles that comprise Both Flesh and Not (1988-2006) [a comparison]:
[...]As I mentioned last week, I decided to compare the articles in Both Flesh and Not with the original publications to see what the differences were. I had done this before with A Supposedly Fun Thing… and that was interesting and enlightening (about the editing process).
This time around the book has a lot more information than the original articles did. Although as I come to understand it, the original DFW submitted article is likely what is being printed in the book with all of the editing done by the magazine (presumably with DFW’s approval). So basically, if you had read the original articles and figured you didn’t need the book, this is what you’re missing.
Quite a lot of the changes are word choice changes (this seems to belie the idea that DFW approved the changes as they are often one word changes). Most of the changes are dropped footnotes (at least in one article) or whole sections chopped out (in others).
For the most part the changes were that the book version added things that were left out or more likely removed from the article.[...]
Check out all the difference over at I Just Read About That... David Foster Wallace–original articles that comprise Both Flesh and Not (1988-2006) [a comparison]
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
