Editor-in-chief here, happy to answer any questions, as always. We also recently celebrated Public Domain Day with an especially notable crop of books, including The Sound and the Fury, All Quiet on the Western Front, John Steinbeck's first novel, some Hemingway, Gandhi, two Dashiell Hammett novels, and more: https://standardebooks.org/blog/public-domain-day-2025
Another question - in https://standardebooks.org/contribute/producing-an-ebook-ste... you talk about "modernising" spelling, e.g. changing "some one" to "someone". This may be against the implicit goal of making these accessible for a general reader, but I prefer to read what was originally written, and it feels like it crosses a line into editorialising rather than letting the original feel stand as-is. (Although of course these texts have already been "editorialised" by their original editors!) Totally your decision given the amount of effort that has clearly gone into this, but I'd be interested to read the rationale for that decision.
I respect this choice of modernization, and I suppose some readers enjoy it, but it makes the publisher's whole work useless to me. When a text has been altered, I can't trust it respects the intent of the author, and any style inconsistency I find may be a by-product of the publisher's mangling.
So, when I care about a book, I never read Standard Ebooks' edition.
By the way, the modernization is more than joining a few words. Sometimes, Standard Ebooks replaces the word used at the time the book was written. For instance:
This time, however, the mountain was going to [-Mahomet;-]{+Muhammad;+}
The previous quote is from Galsworthy's "Forsyte Saga". The author used many French words and French spellings – like "Tchekov" for the Russian playwriter that was living in Paris. These subtleties are lost with the modernization.
I also think some alterations are plain mistakes. For instance in the same book:
if she wanted a good book she should read [-“Job”-]{+Job+};
his father was rather like Job while Job still had land.
Anyone who has read books for classes in high school and above knows that even classics are routinely fucked with by publishers. Even early in the work's history. I remember even in middle school someone would invariably end up with a different publisher's edition of a book for summer reading or whatnot and we'd find changes.
Unless the book is specifically declared to be the original text - and it may have to specify which original text - they're going to be edited.
However, in electronic form it should be possible to include both in one file, or two files with the original in a repo branch once all the document structure stuff has been added. That text will never change, so merging formatting-only changes should be pretty painless.
For every book, Standard Ebooks provides a hyperlink to the original scan, a hyperlink to the original transcription, and a full revision history in which all spelling updates have been clearly marked. To me, this already seems to be going above and beyond—most ebook repositories provide less. I can’t imagine that the marginal benefit from keeping multiple parallel branches would be worth the cost in volunteer time and labor, when maintaining pristine first editions isn’t even a goal of the project.
And of course, none of this matters in the slightest for translated works, which almost by definition includes the vast majority of works ever written.
"As it was written" is a very high bar that is simply not attainable for anything other than fairly recent works in your native language.
> I also think some alterations are plain mistakes. For instance in the same book:
That one appears to not be a mistake, [0] suggests that not quoting the name of the book of the bible being referred to (so [Job] rather than ["Job"]) is the style accepted by Chicago, MLA, and APA.
I respect their choice too, but like you the reason for my question was that I feel I can't trust the end product. Alex said "We only make sound-alike changes, like to-morrow -> tomorrow", which I could just about get along with, but Mahomet -> Muhammad creates an entirely different flavour for me. As Alex said, that's fine, in that it doesn't mean the other editions aren't available, but it is a shame for me when I essentially don't want to use something that has been put together so painstakingly.
I'm disappointed to learn of this editing in Standard Ebooks, having had the misfortune to buy a Barnes & Noble copy of the complete Sherlock Holmes that had a similar approach taken. Book looks lovely, but has an altered chapter order, Americanised spellings and lots of typos. There is a certain amount of editing needed to render the likes of Shakespeare and Samuel Pepys readable, as Middle/Old English is quite a different language, but slight variants from 150ish years ago, or dialects, or the correct spelling according to the Queen's English, add flavour and should not be altered.
That's fine! Our editions didn't erase any of the other editions you can find online and in print. You're more than welcome to select any edition that fits your reading preferences.
Apologies if that came across as at all critical. Genuinely interested in the rationale rather than it being a how-dare-you demand for you to explain yourself!
Spelling varies widely across the eras our ebooks were published in. Therefore we attempt to standardize spelling to what a modern reader might be familiar with. We only make sound-alike changes, like to-morrow -> tomorrow.
This is a common practice that editors and publishers have quietly engaged in for centuries. For example, today you are not reading Shakespeare in the way it was spelled in its first printing.
After reading this comment I couldn't help but picture medieval monks, toiling away copying old manuscripts into "modern" English. Normally a thankless task, so thank you!
Is there epub-specific html markup you could add to changed words to indicate their original spelling? Like alt text for images, but in a span around a word? There's the html "title" attribute, of course, which would work (mouseover shows the title attribute's value), but that isn't semantically correct for the purpose.
I appreciate this service you are doing, but it would be much much better to also have an original version with archaic spelling. Double bonus points for have optional (hidden by default) explanations of words. This would be tremendously helpful to some students.
> "Don't like it? Here is a full refund and you are free to read some other version."
That is not at all what I said.
> You can't claim to care about preserving the works while changing them, and that is changing them.
We do not and have never made that claim. We are creating our own editions of these public domain books, not engaging in historical preservation.
If you want to read classic books in their original spelling, then you must locate first editions. Editors and publishers have updated both spelling and punctuation as a matter of course for centuries. Just look at any three editions of any Jane Austen novel - and you could never read an edition of Shakespeare more recent than 1800.
I think it's important to note that in the past, typesetters and printers had a much more editorial role than the process today. Authors would submit handwritten manuscripts and the typesetters in many cases would have to fix the author's mistakes, spelling, etc. to conform the manuscripts to printing standards with the author having limited communication or ability to proof the final plates
Today, it's much easier for authors to have a greater say in the final presentation due to the digital composition process
You can't use an appeal to tradition as the argument for revision.
I don't see why anyone should care that publishers have edited in the past anyway, even in this particular discussion where my own argument is for conservation. Publishers have done all kinds of things that this very project itself criticises and pointedly set themselves apart by doing differently. So, it's a weak argument for them.
Aside from that, what any other publishers do, even if it's totally common and even universal, doesn't change the argument that they were making that they wish to suggest that those edits cross a line that fixing typos doesn't cross.
For what it’s worth, that’s also exactly how I read your response, which was (to repeat) ‘That's fine! Our editions didn't erase any of the other editions you can find online and in print. You're more than welcome to select any edition that fits your reading preferences.’
I think that Standard Ebooks is a great-sounding project, but I honestly found your response not just flippant, but passive-aggressively rude to the original poster.
But — full disclosure — I also think that it would be a good idea to preserve the spellings found in the original editions you are digitising. So perhaps I inclined to feel the bite of your response more than someone who just doesn’t care.
> I honestly found your response not just flippant, but passive-aggressively rude to the original poster.
I didn’t read it that way at all. How would you have worded it in such a way as to sincerely express the stated sentiment without coming across as passive‐aggressively rude?
> How would you have worded it in such a way as to sincerely express the stated sentiment without coming across as passive‐aggressively rude?
Something like ‘While we understand that some people would prefer to read the original texts (modulo typos, formatting errors and the like), we think that it is preferable to modernize spelling because X, Y and Z.’
In other words, the polite response to ‘I like most of what you’re doing, but I dislike this particular thing’ is not ‘Fine! You’re free to go elsewhere,’ with an implied ‘don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out,’ but rather to engage and explain.
Again, I have to admit my own bias against the policy and consequent bias in favour of the original poster.
It is what you said. And for the record, I love the idea of this project. I just agree with the other poster about the location of this line that's all.
The text you have in your “quote” is a lot more snarky and rude than the original message. Did they edit their comment or something? Otherwise—why not quote an actual quote?
Considering the thrust of my comment, I don't understand the question. Obviously paraphrasing someone else's words into ones you like better is a fine and acceptable thing to do. So clearly I am just illustrating the problem by example.
The real answer is twofold.
1. We don't have a special 3rd kind of quote or other punctuation mark for reinterpreted references.
2. The real one: This is not a quote that lies as you imply. It is a new message, that merely uses quotes to denote a speaker, as in a pure fictional work, where the characters dialog is in quotes, even though no actual human was actually quoted.
Are there any other conundrums and baffling mysteries I can clear up for you?
When you use that syntax it looks like you are calling out an explicit quote; you may think that it's a reasonable paraphrase but I think most readers will see what you did as a strawman instead of a paraphrase.
Better to write inline "I feel like what you said amounts to [...]" to reduce the perception they you're making up quotes they someone didn't say or even clearly imply.
No one literate is in any danger of misinterpreting this very basic technique. I don't care about anyone else because it doesn't matter, they will misinterpret regardless, deliberately.
> Obviously paraphrasing someone else's words into ones you like better is a fine and acceptable thing to do.
Wrong. Not only is it tasteless and dishonest (not "fine"), it is against the rules of this site. But regardless of whether it's allowed elsewhere, you still shouldn't do it. (See "tasteless and dishonest".)
What's the point of including books that aren't public domain yet in your collections?
It makes it hard to browse those collections to find actual books to read. The first 3 series I clicked on all said "not P.D." (which at first I didn't know what "P.D" meant - remember your audience does not have your level of familiarity with your context, perhaps a tooltip on that badge would help)..
Then I see "this book will enter public domain in 2050"..
I commend you for this project, it's really awesome work.. From a user's experience, it would be great to have a filter on your various lists that restricts only to books that are available, and excludes these books that are not yet in your collection.
In addition to what Robin mentioned below, some of these placeholders are for books on our Wanted list. I also think it's useful to show readers that particular books are looking for volunteers to produce, and also to show that some books they might want are locked away by copyright for possibly decades. In that sense it's partly a political message.
Whenever we add a collection, the books that are in that collection but not yet in PD in the US get placeholders. But a filter might not be a bad idea.
Which ebook reader works well with standard ebooks in 2025?
(More concretely my reader is a 2nd-gen kindle which is basically useless these days and I’d love an idea of something that can display standard ebooks with all their advanced formatting)
I read on an old Kobo, using Kepub files. Their Kepub renderer is quite good.
I think Kindle's renderer hasn't changed significantly for many years, and it had always been pretty bad. I always say that Kindle seems to have been created by people who hate books.
The best renderer around is iBooks on an iPad, which as far as I can tell uses an up-to-date Webkit.
I read standard .epub files with KOReader on my Kobo Aura H2O. It's faster, nicer-looking, and more customizable than the stock reader, and the installation instructions were complete, correct, and easy to follow.
Kobo Libra 2 is a great e-reader. Works well one-handed (screen rotates for left/right hands), has buttons for page turns. Integrates with Overdrive (what Libby uses). Drawbacks are Kobo's bookstore is weaker than Amazon/Apple. Screen is also not flush which means some dust can collect in the recess.
A note for Kobo users: a lot of us (myself included) use Calibre to manage and upload our ebooks. Something about Calibre messes up Kepub files and strips out a lot of the formatting (including the book’s cover).
If I want to appreciate a nice Kepub from Standard Ebooks, I upload it directly to the Kobo.
A Kobo would be a great choice. I use a Kobo Libra 2 and love it a lot more than my old Kindle Paperwhite that got stolen: https://gl.kobobooks.com/products/kobo-libra-2 The Kobo Sage is also good because it has an 8" screen.
Fortunately, I had them backed up to a cloud folder. I remember almost deciding not to go to the trouble to back them up, but isn't that how it always works with backups? The Kobo also works with epub.
I recently purchased a Pocketbook Era. It is pretty much the perfect device for me - supports open standards and does not require any cloud account signups to start using it. It is not hostile to the user, 3rd party applications such as Koreader can be simply dropped in and they appear in the menus without any shenanigans like jailbreaking or custom launchers needed.
That’s calibre viewer, but it may require some customization to get something nice. Foliate is ok, but it’s a library. i’d say that’s OK because epub is a zip file and you need to extract it to read it.
I love this. However, I couldn't find an alphabetical list of authors, which is the way I wanted to browse on my first visit. Instead my only option is to show 48 on a page and paginate through, which is tedious. I know there are author pages - e.g. https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/william-makepeace-thackera... - so I presume it's feasible. An author index would significantly increase my likelihood of understanding what's available and engaging with the content.
I can tell you there is a lot of appetite for other languages. I looked at the project and the amount of stuff that would need to be rewritten to work with multiple languages was daunting. I would consider working on making your documentation and workflow functional with multiple languages.
Lots of people have tried similar projects in other languages but as far as I know none have persevered.
Personally I think it's important to have one person in charge who is able to approve of the quality of all the project's output; for now, at SE, that person is me and I'm only an expert in English.
Wonderful project! One thing I wish the website would have is being able to find the right book to read out of this enormous list — e.g. showing / sorting by Goodreads ratings (which I realize you might not want to do), or at least having some kind of a "Featured" section with the most critically acclaimed / must read books of the project on one page.
There are around a dozen collections on the (not prominently featured) collections page[1] like Le Monde's 100 Best Books of the Century and Modern Library's 100 Best Novels, etc.
Steinbeck was the first name I searched for, so this was great to see even if his major works won't be available for some time. I do wonder how badly the Steinbeck or Faulkner estates are hurt by the sudden loss of royalties? Imagine working hard to write a book to make a living and then just under a hundred years it's taken away from you. Also, AI.
Been using Standard Ebooks for a while now, but wanted to drop by here and say how great this site is! It's replaced P.G. for me (for whatever is on this site, at least) and I like the much nicer formatting on the texts. It's great on both my physical Kindle and Apple Books on my iPhone.
Each repo is a history of the ebook including editorial changes, typos fixes, and the like. Having a single repo containing thousands of ebooks and their histories would be pretty annoying to browse.
Presumably to keep the repo size reasonable. Say I want to make an ad hoc contribution to a book, if step 1 is "download this multi-gigabyte repo" then that's a fairly big hurdle.
Once you're very familiar with the process, you could get a draft of a basic prose novel ready for proofreading in a few hours. Then it has to be proofread and completed.
Beginners, and people working on more advanced books, can take much, much, much longer.
it varies widely depending on the length and type of book and how much free time the volunteer has to devote to it
Anywhere between 1 week for the simplest (straight narrative, not too much verse or endnotes) and ~1 year (thousands of endnotes, pages of verse, drama, in-line references to book titles, use of technical terms, etc)
