Probably the best example I can think of is Diane Duane reworking her Wizards series to make it modern-day, but there are others, including owners of a literary estate altering books left to them to make them compatible with current standards.
What do you think? Does it matter if it’s the original author or an inheritor?
It’s like people who do this don’t know there’s such a thing as a “period piece”.
Generally, I’m for it! But I agree it should be explicitly labeled as a revised version. I would especially love updated versions edited to remove outdated language/stereotypes/slurs. For example, you’d be hard-pressed to find a non-revised Nancy Drew book. I don’t really care if it’s the author or a ghostwriter doing it, a long as it’s labeled. As for updating it strictly to keep up with the times, like changing a rotary phone to a mobile, I’m not really interested in that, but it’s also not… harmful. Like, I don’t care that much.
Depends on the circumstances.
The book “Are you there God? It’s me, Margaret” had references to “sanity belts” for your period, which just confuses younger readers! Those haven’t been used in decades! So that’s fine.
But adding cell phones to “The Baby Sitters Club” is silly. Especially since it would’ve made it unnecessary to gather at Claudia’s house to dole out babysitting jobs!
Journey Between Worlds by Sylvia Engdahl is an example of where the author updated the book in a way that works. It’s a sci-fi YA novel primarily set on Mars in the future, and was originally published in 1970. When the author rereleased it in 2006, it was with updated descriptions of Mars and updated references to computer technology. The story itself doesn’t change, just some minor details that might throw someone out of the story.
If it’s making adjustments here and there to fix errors and/or improve continuity I guess I’m okay with it. Beyond that it’s a slippery slope. For example I’m fine with Stephen King restoring some material cut from his manuscript for The Stand, but the half-assed update to 1990 wasn’t needed.
As for the author or anyone else altering books to appease modern/liberal/conservative/religious/Martian sensibilities, I’m against it.
Best examples I can think of are Stephen King’s The Gunslinger and The Stand. His George Lucasing killed the vibe in the Gunslinget to make it look like he had everything planned out ahead of time and the Stand was already too long but now it’s way too f**king long. The best part is how you cant get the originals in any modern edition, hooray
Every time there was a new edition of a “Saint” book Leslie Charteris used to make changes to modernise it - change the cars, fashion, etc.
Acceptable but as a reader I’d rather he’d spent the time writing a new one instead.
If the author does it - it is their own right. If some other people do that - fuck them.
Well as an artist I can understand the wish to revise work that one thinks isn’t good enough anymore (or relatable enough) but I think overall it’s wasted time that could be spend on new works.
People still read old literature and love it, without the authors coming back from their grave for an update.
It’s a nice thought, but it’s not necessary and might even make things worse.YES, let’s rewrite all literature and make sure every character cast is multinational and multicultural. Remove all racism, sexism, bigotry and classism. Eliminate any and all text that is negative or potentially offensive. Get rid of difficult challenges and also make sure nobody gets hurt or dies in any story. No mentions of war or oppression and all romance narratives end happily for all characters involved or witnessing romance. Remove references to illness and also make sure all settings include natural environments that swath the characters in comfort and ease. No mentions of work or capitalism, absolutely no reference to danger and also make sure all stories have a happy ending yet also open ended so that endless sequels can be made. /s
Hate it. Art is not just representative of itself, but is a snapshot of the time, culture and society it was created in. To “modernize” a piece of art is to strip away it’s context, and to diminish it’s value.
I guess the counter argument is that not all art needs to be static. It can be multiple snapshots over time, as part of a continuous process of engagement.
One of the things I like about classical lit, for instance, is that the same text can have different meanings, and be understood or consumed in different ways, throughout history. I don’t HAVE to listen to The Iliad in fragmented ancient poetry, I can read it in English (and compare translations!) or enjoy one of many adaptations it. I don’t HAVE to take the ancient view of Hektor as a second rate hero, maybe I prefer the more modern reading where he fits out current standards of “honor”. Half the fun is seeing how the snapshots differ over the ages.
Also I don’t think the author gets to do that. That story isn’t theirs to do as they please, it’s been put out there, it belongs to everyone who’s read it.
The author can do whatever they want. They are the artist. We can try to reject it, but to say it’s not theirs is absurd.
its absurd and also insanely entitled
I agree with you - I censored myself from saying that part
The genie def cant go back into the bottle but I like to think all art is an on going conversation. The author cannot be excluded from the conversation just cuz their audience thinks their post creation contributions are dumb. The artist can certainly choose to abstain from the conversation, refuse to participate. Which, is really funny to me because the authors who choose that route are equally shat upon by fanbases for “avoiding accountability” to their dated creations. Thats the entitlement at work tho isnt it–damned if they do, just as damned if they dont.
A lot of artist choose not to interpret their own works, which I think is valid. They don’t confirm or deny what other people get out of it. If they do want to take a stance, I think its just as valid.
A lot of writers say they don’t intentionally use symbiology in their books which a lot of people interpret. Even if they don’t do it on purpose, though it can be a subconscious thing. A Chekov’s Gun for example is foreshadowing even if it wasn’t intentional.
But it’s not though. As I said in another comment, it’s like when movie directors keep releasing director’s cuts and ruining their own movie, or when comicbook artists retcon stories from way before with new coloring that looks like ass because “new audiences wouldn’t like the old stuff”.
For an author to try and grab the stuff they published, which is now out there and which people have read, and to try and rework that and change the whole of the prose, it’s a shitty cash grab that more often than not takes the old stuff from circulation.
It’s like when George Lucas did the whole special effects things in the original Star Wars trilogy and took the original versions from circulation, as if he was the sole arbiter of all things Star Wars and not like his work of art had entered pop culture - and, therefore, isn’t just his to keep tinkering.
An author’s work is very different from a filmmaker’s role. An author usually works alone - the creation belongs to them entirely. An author also usually holds sole copyright and can do as they wish.
I think nobody should edit a book after it’s been published - neither the author nor the publisher or estate - except in a handful of very narrow cases:
-
In textbooks obviously to include new information, new research, update statistics etc. Absolutely doesn’t apply to prose.
-
Misspellings and grammatical errors
-
An extant manuscript or older unpublished version is found that clearly shows that the author (who is dead and can’t speak out on it anymore) intended something to be different, but it was misprinted, the author was browbeaten, talked out of it, censored, etc.
I’m absolutely against “updating” prose. I hate "X as a service"ification of things, I like to own books and movies and music, not have a subscription to them. This is that, but worse. And we all know authors (cough JKR cough) who would update their goddamn books every time they’re waiting on a dentist appointment or sitting in traffic.
Rowling never updated the books, just added weird extended canon.
-
Are You There God? It’s Me. Margaret was revised and thank the Lord because 80s me was soooo confused by the products she used - belts???
But the whole point is that 80s you learnd that we used to have to use belts. Maybe ask an older lady about a belt and have a good story and a laugh.
I guess that depends on whether the book is an artifact of its time or a functional tool for the reader. I think it’s both, so it gets messy.
That’s not a new trend.
It’s called ‘bowdlerizing’ due to an editor, Bowdler that did it with Shakespeare plays in 1818.
Wikipedia gives some other examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation
- A student edition of the novel Fahrenheit 451 was expurgated to remove a variety of content. This was ironic given the subject matter of the novel involves burning books. This continued for a dozen years before it was brought to author Ray Bradbury’s attention and he convinced the publisher to reinstate the material.
-
The video game South Park: The Fractured but Whole was originally going to have the name The Butthole of Time. However, marketers would not promote anything with a vulgarity in its title, so “butthole” was replaced with the homophone “but whole”.[24][25]
-
In 2023 new versions of Roald Dahl’s books were published by Puffin Books to remove language deemed inappropriate. Puffin had hired sensitivity readers to go over his texts to make sure the books could "continue to be enjoyed by all today”.[26] The same was done with the James Bond novels.[27]
I like “Fractured but Whole” it actually has some cleverness to the pun.
Hate it. This happened to most Lois Duncan books, like adding random sentences referring to someone’s cell being at home or some such crap. Like, it was written in the 70s, I think readers can understand why the characters didn’t have freaking cell phones.
Oh, weird. I thought OP was referring mostly to morality changes, like taking out ableist/racist language or something. Why the hell would you retcon the setting like that? Do they really think people don’t understand that cell phones haven’t always existed?