"Little" Errors in Sources Online: Chesterton's "The Last Hero"

The world of the web is one where personal and source attribution are rare, making much of its content less more questionable, which is a shame because it is so rich. Online one finds "The Last Hero" by G. K. Chesterton in many places, but a difference I immediately noticed between submissions exists between them:

The wind blew out from Bergen, from the dawning to the day
There was a wreck of trees, a fall of towers, a score of miles away

vs.

There was a wreck of trees[_] and fall of towers a score of miles away,

(To the latter was added [_] to point out that the first also has a comma.) Notice that though a small detail, this is a difference of major significance. In the former version the grammar equivocates "wreck of" and "fall of", "trees" and "towers"; in the latter, that's less likely, though a possible interpretation: it's more ambiguous (which may have actually led, in the mind of a reader, to the former); the second version is actually the original according to this poem's inscription in actual books as opposed to what is found on the web, and the former is a version found online wherever the poem has been submitted by one "Tom Burrows",

<http://plagiarist.com/poetry/7777/>

<http://www.eliteskills.com/analysis_poetry/The_Last_Hero_by_G_K_Chesterton_analysis.php>

<http://www.eliteskills.com/c/15764>

Though the Burrows version is attributed (to Burrows), no source for the text is provided. And neither version, on any website I've found, gives an origin for the text as the site displays. This isn't a rant, however, at why it's bad to use online sources, or their supposed greater inaccuracies than print editions, etc.. The latter excerpted version, the correct one, is found online as well. I found it first on a site dedicated to getting Chesterton's works online, <http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/last_hero.html>, which if you think about it, might by the nature of its purpose be counted as more reliable (have *some* trust, but verify...) as long as the worker or workers are careful. But the best source found online was a scanned-in book of Chesterton's poems itself, found in Google books, <http://books.google.com/books?id=hEHQAAAAMAAJ&dq=the%20last%20hero%20chesterton&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false>, unfortunately buried under new editions and compilations made probably for little reason other than to have a copyright and profit off the man's work, (and also other mens' work in some books), and fortunately not un-viewable, as often even public domain works are in Google books, because of confusion caused to the machine by such editions. (Note I didn't count the scanned book by google as a or on a website; though it's accessed through a website, it's displayed through, not built as part of, that site.)

Rather than the web being some terrible source of information, those who use it must be critical handlers of their information and sources, similar with the works of academics and scholars, peer reviewed or not, which is controversial these days given that academia hates to having any doubt thrown upon its approved literature or consensuses. But it's very true: a community that puts trust in such things just because members thereof have jointly approved something, or just because of consensus, is one where critical thinking has been lost. This little exercise was just one in textual differences, resolved quickly by finding alternative versions, from which one could know that somethings wrong, and another avenue, either weighing the nature of the sites and their contributors, or finding a more primary source, could be pursued to provide more information, whether questions to ask or answers to the origin of differences or resolution to the question of authenticity.

Someone is Wrong on the Internet, Or Errors Online

Whether someone or something, whether intentional ("wrong") or unintended ("[error] on the internet", though unintended errors are still wrong, and so the authors), this label or tag is tribute to xkcd 386. This post was published 2011-01-27 5:04MST but its publication date set to 2010-12-19 to push it below other posts with that label.

ON AMUSEMENTS, by Harvey Newcomb

Hmmm... It's been many years since I've read this <http: 27="" www.gracegems.org="" young_man22.htm>, and upon a glancing review found that linking to it may lend recommendation that should not be given unqualified, for example:

VII. Engage in no amusement which unfits you for devotional exercises. If, on returning from a scene of amusement, you feel no disposition to pray, you may be sure something is wrong. You had better not repeat the same again.

How generally vague, subject to abuse, and presumptuous, hmm?

IX. Reject such amusements as are generally associated with evil. If the influences which surround any practice are bad, you may justly conclude that it is unsafe, without stopping to inquire into the nature of the practice itself. Games of chance are associated with gambling and drinking; therefore, I conclude that they cannot be safely pursued, even for amusement. Dancing, also, is associated with balls, with late hours, high and unnatural excitement, and dissipation; it is therefore unsafe. You may know the character of any amusement by the company in which it is found.

Writing is associated with evil propaganda, and let's not forget the tongue: silence everyone! In all seriousness (see Newcombe's rule VIII., "Engage in nothing which tends to dissipate serious impressions."), however, is it not the word itself that praises drink as a blessing from God, or is it not our Lord or instituted the drinking of wine in remembrance of him? Now if "drinking" with the modern sense, very common among the practitioners thereof, to get drunk, I would agree, but otherwise Necombe is to be avoided on this, perhaps in everything, according to the apostles themselves. "Games of chance"? If he knew his Voltaire he'd know there is no such thing, "chance is a word devoid of sense"; it's the faith in, looking to, the cards and the greed accompanying these games, as well as sinister principle of pursuing gain upon another's loss without effort expended by either end to actually produce anything whether tangible or in service, only "win", that makes "gambling" evil, not any element of "chance": otherwise you'd better put away your "Monopoly", folks, or any number of other harmless amusements whether boardgame or otherwise. 

The judgment revealed, even if just by these few limited exerpts, is such that is not to be trusted, and so I don't think I'd recommend Mr. Newcombe as a great counselor any time soon, though perhaps as an interesting, sometimes worthwhile, Moralist...er, maybe for getting insight into the kind of shallow philosophical moralism that's common these days, and has been for centuries...er, perhaps that's too quick to speek and to harsh, so allow me to qualify with the following, "in these couple examples of advice".

Romantic or Stalker?

This I found quite funny. I used to say to friends back at the university that a women call an insistent man they've rejected a stalker, and one whose attentions are welcomed, a romantic; some gals there would protest seriously to this description, other gals I know or have known who've actually entered real marriage bonds, however, agree wholeheartedly and laugh at the description. There's two that come to mind: one a gal in Fort Collins whose husband she thought a loser (in any romantic sense, at least) and rejected outright as a romantic partner, whom she shared many friends with and eventually relented to and with whom she's now quite happy; another who is my room mate's wife and a friend since middle school: he was a masterful debater throughout his youth, winning competitions, awards, and even political attention for it, and he had to argue her into even giving him a chance (mutual friends of hers and mine actually sat outside the door listening to him at this; these two very much like each other, though unfortunately for these friends and this fellow, they're -1- not all that close and -2- so dissimilar and aggravating to each other that they likely never will be).

Actually, given the legal environment of our day where you are guilty of a crime if even an innocent comment makes someone "feel" uncomfortable, the regulation of intimacy, and the criminalization even of consensual contact between two people where later one or the other claims some kind of environmental interference such that legally smart people require consent forms even from their spouses before engaging in any activity describable as sexual, it's no wonder we don't see more lasting marriages: the cheap, silly, shallow, easy ones where two idiots who have nothing more than attraction are all that can produce marriages because the other potential unions end-up with the romantic in jail or imprisoned (in the overwhelming number of cases, probably a male) because the object of their attention has been indoctrinated about their right to feel comfortable and never ever be bothered again after rejecting even the first time someone has dared even approach them. I guess that means we have to re-interpret old fables, that is, if our legalist preachers have their way, making all those old, celebrated literary pieces of initial rejection followed by re-appraisal become a source of forlorn hope and example of stupidity where potentially the persistent one is a fool who could, and even after acceptance still can be, liable to punishment, rather than moral edification where the "debate" is a worthwhile endeavor.