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?
I was reading Snow Garden by Christopher Rice and he mentioned removing dates from each chapter to make it seem more contemporary. I think they should have stayed, because the books message was contemporary enough, he didn’t need to remove them. To me it felt like the book was missing something
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?
Bummer, she was my favorite growing up. Guess I’ll have to hunt down old copies for my kids.
Judy blume’s younger books were exactly the same. The family my had a computer, but they didn’t use it. Dude. No.
That’s the first thing I thought of too! The random modernizations are so jarring because everyone’s manner of speaking and all of the situations are just so retro.
I support an author wanting to explore a new version of their work.
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.
I think if you go to all the effort of writing, editing, publishing, and distributing a book, you should make sure it’s what you want the world to read. Rewriting your book after the fact is either lazy or pandering in my view.
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.
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.
So if you put your car on the street people can do what they want with it? Come on, you can do better than that.
Don’t sound too patronizing now.
Also, it’s a work of art, it’s not a car or personal property. It’s like when George Lucas thought it fitting to change everything up in the prequels, then remove the older versions from circulations. It’s presumptuous of the author to think they hold the sole truth about something just because they wrote it years ago, and modernizing the prose is just a cash grab.
And you can always add context outside of the artwork itself! For example when it comes to problematic ideas or language in classics, I have absolutely nothing against printing every new edition with a foreword that comments on the problematic parts and provides context. So many editions of classics already come with commentary, anyway. Update the commentary. Just please don’t edit the work itself.
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.
I think it’s fine. If a book stands the test of time without alterations, fantastic. If it doesn’t, well, many oral stories evolve or die out so I don’t see why some written stories can’t do the same.
They are doing it with the Baby-Sitter club and I am against it. Although that was also my favorite series so I’m a bit biased and it is causing me to me judge mental. Those books got me into reading.
The wholesome nature should still be appealing but somehow isn’t. In an era where 10 year olds are watching tiktok of exotic dancers and learning how to put on makeup… 80’s stories are not going to mesh well.
An artist is the artist and they can do what they want with their work. “Art is never finished, only abandoned.”
That said, it rarely interests me to do such a thing and I wouldn’t read it in most cases.
Stephen King released the expanded version of The Stand with new dates for the events in the book and there was no reason to do that.
This confused the hell out of me because I read the original the first time I read it, and then somehow it’s in the 90s the second time I read it
If it’s the original author then I’m fine with it because they can do what they want with their art.
I hate it when companies that own the rights change the authors writing after they’re dead/incapacitated. Bowdlerizing an authors work to pander to markets or the superficial whims of “modern sensibilities” is grotesque.
I am not a fan… but I have not had to consider doing this, so I am sure there are reasons why the authors want to do it?.. but I don’t like it. Just leave it as it is.
I think authors revising their older works to make them more modern is a matter of personal choice and the author’s artistic vision. Some authors may feel that their older works are outdated or flawed, and want to improve them or adapt them to the current times…or they’ve grown out of racism, homophobia, and sexism. Other authors may feel that their older works are part of their history and identity, and want to preserve them as they are. As long as the authors are honest and respectful of their readers and their original intentions, I’m fine with it.
That said, both versions should be available.
I think it’s fine. The peril is that the author could make it worse. But maybe they’ll make it better!
I don’t really have a problem with the concept, broadly.
I’m not a published author or anything, but with a lot of creative stuff I’ve done I haven’t so much “finished it” as I have “sucked it up and decided to share it at a certain point even though I wasn’t 100% happy with it.” And I can’t imagine it’s much better for a lot of professionals.But when someone says it’s to make the work “more modern…” That’s not a red flag, but it’s yellow for sure. That description can cover a lot of ground.
And it’s definitely a red flag when that version outright replaces the older one. It’s giving George Lucas.Sometimes it seems to pass unnoticed. Many years ago, I was discussing details of Asimov’s “Foundation” online with another reader, and we found that I kept quoting passages he could not verify. In the end we realised that some time in the early 1980s, “Second Foundation” was stealthily edited, modifying a couple of data that were inconsistent with the two previous volumes and removing or altering a few phrases. While I had the original edition, he had the revised one and therefore was unable to find my quotes!