Jane Eyre Jane Eyre discussion


976 views
Does it need sexing-up?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 225) (225 new)    post a comment »

Philip Lee When I rated Jane Eyre, I only gave it three stars, though I knew it was a good'un. A bit hasty and harsh of me. Having recently enjoyed watching the BBC One mini series version (with Ruth Wilson & Toby Stephens), I was thinking of revisiting the text.

Then along comes news it has been revamped with mild porn.

To me, the mind boggles.

I suppose a Lego version will be the next along?

What do other Goodreads folk think? Does Jane Eyre need more heavy breathing?


message 2: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy No, it does not. I loved Jane Eyre as it was originally. I realize pre-marital sex obviously did occur in the era of Jane Eyre, but the women of the esteemed classes were expected to be virgin brides. Although Jane was an orphan, she came from the class of people where the women were expected to be virtuous.


Yoli Amy wrote: "No, it does not. I loved Jane Eyre as it was originally. I realize pre-marital sex obviously did occur in the era of Jane Eyre, but the women of the esteemed classes were expected to be virgin brid..."

Philip wrote: "When I rated Jane Eyre, I only gave it three stars, though I knew it was a good'un. A bit hasty and harsh of me. Having recently enjoyed watching the BBC One mini series version (with Ruth Wilson &..."


Yoli No it does not, heavy breathing doesn't always make a story better.


Eris Michael Vakarian I cannot find words for what I looked like when I read this. So, I'll post this, then go somewhere and cry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...


message 7: by Amy (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amy Gideon I personally didn't like Jane Eyre all that much, but I don't think "sexing it up" would have made me like it any better. I think you either love it or you don't and adding sex won't change that.

On a sort of related, but not really, sidenote, I read a monster mash-up of Jane Eyre, called Jane Slayre and I have to say that the original was much better. Adding werewolves and vampires did not make the story more entertaining so I really can't see adding sex scenes to the novel will improve it.


Matty Davies Absoloutly not... It's a classic melodrama. Sexing it up would kinda ruin the whole tortured souls thing that Jane and Rochester have going on.


message 9: by [deleted user] (last edited Aug 04, 2012 12:09PM) (new)

Who cares? Any variation of the book does not invalidate the existence of the original text. Not only that, they are already other adaptations (films etc) and variants (sequels) to the text. Maybe if a little porn is what is required to have people read it, then so be it.


Casey Doesn't the whole last half of the book occur because Jane didn't just want to be Rochester's mistress?


Emily Casey wrote: "Doesn't the whole last half of the book occur because Jane didn't just want to be Rochester's mistress?"

I hadn't even thought of that, but you're right, and that's yet another reason why sexing up Jane Eyre is just...absurd.


message 12: by gertt (last edited Aug 04, 2012 01:48PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

gertt Philip wrote: "Then along comes news it has been revamped with mild porn.

To me, the mind boggles...."


Mild porn between whom??? There were no sexual encounters.

If you change the story then you writing a new book. Period.


You can't rewrite a classic.


message 13: by A.K. (new) - rated it 5 stars

A.K. Klemm I simply find it odd. Why not change the character's names, add your steamy bits, and then just call it something else entirely - make it your own instead of pornographic fan fic with a note of acknowledgement to the Brontes for being your muse. That sounds like a more respectful course of action. Instead poor Ms. Bronte will be rolling in her grave.


Jennifer Rockwell I think poor Jane should be left alone. But then, for any number of reasons I'm really not a fan of any of the literary mash-ups and re-mixes that I see becoming so prevalent these days. Come up with an original idea, for God's sake!

I do think, however, that there's more openness to sensual scenes in literature than there used to be, and while there's no dearth of examples of contemporary erotic novels or novels with sex in them, I think perhaps there is more of a call than there used to be for wonderful, rich literature that incorporates some of our more corporal pleasures.


message 15: by [deleted user] (new)

We live in the postmodern age. An era of remixes and mashups. I fail to see why some things should be exempt while others are fair game. If you say no to a sexy version of Jane Eyre, then you must say no to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies etc etc etc.


Carina I really do not see how sex would work in this book. As Casey pointed out Jane refuses to be Rochesters mistress, so I have no idea how a 'sexy' version would work.

I have nothing against re-writing books. I own Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Dawn of the Dreadfuls and Vampire Little Women - I don't think any of them are particularly good and would rather read the originals but it is very much each to thier own.


message 17: by A.K. (new) - rated it 5 stars

A.K. Klemm macgregor wrote: "We live in the postmodern age. An era of remixes and mashups. I fail to see why some things should be exempt while others are fair game. If you say no to a sexy version of Jane Eyre, then you must ..."

Not that I am correct in this, but for some reason adding sex seems a whole lot different than writing zombies. I find those spin offs hilarious, a new twist of the new author's own imagining. Adding sex just seems pointless, unoriginal. Make Rochester's wife an ex- Dr. Who comapnion and that's why she went off the deep end, or Jane a homocide detective in a more steampunk reality and then I feel as though you have put some work into it and truly have a vision of your own that needs to be written down. But sex? Sexy romances are a dime a dozen and it would take little effort or imagination to have Rochester and Jane doing the deed all over his mansion. But then the whole middle section becomes a moot point, she's already his dirty mistress, so why flee?


message 18: by A.K. (new) - rated it 5 stars

A.K. Klemm Tirzah wrote: "Going off on a tangent here, but how does the copyright/legal system work in cases like these? For example, I didn't know there were re-writings of "Pride and Prejudice" and "Little Women." Can peo..."

This doesn't completely answer the question, but I hope it helps: http://austenacious.com/?tag=pride-an...


Eris Michael Vakarian Anakalia84 wrote: "macgregor wrote: "We live in the postmodern age. An era of remixes and mashups. I fail to see why some things should be exempt while others are fair game. If you say no to a sexy version of Jane Ey..."

A story where Bertha was a Doctor Who companion? Brilliant! :D


message 20: by A.K. (new) - rated it 5 stars

A.K. Klemm Eris ~ I am Nemo wrote: "Anakalia84 wrote: "macgregor wrote: "We live in the postmodern age. An era of remixes and mashups. I fail to see why some things should be exempt while others are fair game. If you say no to a sexy..."

:-D


Hannah Adams NO! adding sex to the story would have in some way tainted the purity of there love


Vanessa Stone Copyrights expire after so many years, I believe it is 80, but I could be mistaken. Classic literature is not owned by anyone, though publishers can add something to their additions to make them unique and sell more books, which is why people can take such liberties, though plagiarism is another matter.

In regard to the topic of this thread, I do not understand why we have to put a modern imprint on a historical text. Wouldn't it benefit us more to learn about the past? Our social mores were not those of the past. We have to stop rewriting history and literature based on current thoughts of modernism, but understand our present based on a clearer picture of the past. While sex outside of marriage did occur, it was not the norm. We know this because they did not have access to contraceptive methods, or at least effective methods. There was a strong social stigma being born out of wedlock as well, and assured your child a position of scorn and a woman a life of shame. This was often a strong enough incentive to remain a virgin, as a woman's marriage determined her future more than anything else. Sexual freedom is really a concept of the past fifty years. Most of our grandmothers were married as virgins.

In the modern American social context, we forget that the distinctions of class were very relevant in the time of Jane Eyre, which is one of the important elements of the book. She would not have sacrificed her position or morals for Rochester's whims. Isn't this why he was drawn to her in the first place, her uncompromising principles?

So, yes, it is silly to make it steamy and turn it into 50 Shades of Grey, but if dumbing down America further by misunderstanding classic English literature is your thing, enjoy.


message 23: by Leti (new) - rated it 5 stars

Leti Mar Philip wrote: "When I rated Jane Eyre, I only gave it three stars, though I knew it was a good'un. A bit hasty and harsh of me. Having recently enjoyed watching the BBC One mini series version (with Ruth Wilson &..."

I agree the; Ruth Wilson version made me rethink Jane Eyre. It wasn't a real favorite until I saw this version. Now I have a better appreciation of it and think its sexy enough. No additional heavy breathing necessary.

Leti Del Mar
The Inadvertent Thief by Leti Del Mar


Jalilah No!


Amanda Eris ~ I am Nemo wrote: "I cannot find words for what I looked like when I read this. So, I'll post this, then go somewhere and cry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=..."

my reaction exactly. (BTW, love Nostalgia Critic)


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

Anakalia84 wrote: " Sexy romances are a dime a dozen and it would take little effort or imagination to have Rochester and Jane doing the deed all over his mansion."


So it's a quality thing then? Steampunk is good because it's interesting and unique (spoiler: it's not) but sex isn't because it's unimaginative? Therefore, the distinction is completely arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder.


gertt If an author doesn't have enough imagination to write their own book, then perhaps they shouldn't be writing at all...whether copyrights have expired or not.


message 28: by [deleted user] (new)

Hannah wrote: "NO! adding sex to the story would have in some way tainted the purity of there love"

This might be the most unreasonable criticism of a pornographic or explicit version of Jane Eyre. I suppose it's predicated on the assumption that Jane and Rochester had pure love, and it wasn't a romance made of preconceptions, convenience and Jane's lack of life experience. Which would make a sequel, in which Rochester and Jane are essentially cast in the Lord and Lady Chatterly roles to be interesting and inevitable.


gertt A sequel is just that, a sequel. Rewriting the original to satisfy someone's need for lust, is in poor taste.


message 30: by [deleted user] (new)

gertt wrote: "A sequel is just that, a sequel. Rewriting the original to satisfy someone's need for lust, is in poor taste."

For whom is it in poor taste? I don't understand the arbitrary objections to this idea. Everything we watch and read is a remix, a re-imagining, a reboot, a remake, an old product with new packaging. Jane Eyre is a fantastic novel, but I'm not sure if it's so perfect that any variant would sully the reputation of the original.

I hate to pull this canard out so early, but we're all aware that all those Shakespeare plays we think are the bee's knees, many of them are remixes of previous stories, sometimes with added "low" humour. Old Will wasn't too shy about making sex jokes.

Not very many people are familiar with the source stories that Shakespeare reinvented or reimagined to suit a different audience with different social mores than the original audience. Those source stories have all been mostly forgotten, but you don't hear anybody complain about it now, right?

The implication here, the assumption, is that any new re-writing of Jane Eyre with sex will be automatically inferior to the original. Setting aside notions of "originality is a virtue" (which is a total myth), this new Jane Eyre could possibly be a masterpiece of eroticism that manages to interrogate the tension in mid-Victorian society.

I'm nervous about making assumptions about the people posting here, but I'm suspecting a moral objection to adding sex to Jane Eyre, not just a "it will offend my literary sensibilities". I'm not sure why, though.

Any argument you can make about how Jane Eyre is about not submitting to sexual passion can be worked into a remix that explores that very same delay, deferring sexual release until the very end, making it all the more satisfying. I'm not the first person to observe a common link between the suspense of a literary climax and a sexual one as well.

After all, the novel isn't just about romance - it's about passion and selfhood. Part of what makes Jane Eyre so good is that when Jane and Rochester finally fall into each other's arms, both of their selves have been irrevocably altered by the machinations of the plot. Their love is all the more passionate because of it.

Passion for sexual and romantic love, passion for religion, passion for trying to do the right thing. These are all part of the passion of the novel. Adding sex does not detract from the thematic structure of the novel.


message 31: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy macgregor wrote: "gertt wrote: "A sequel is just that, a sequel. Rewriting the original to satisfy someone's need for lust, is in poor taste."

For whom is it in poor taste? I don't understand the arbitrary objecti..."


If the sex were added early in the novel, it would change the entire plot of the novel - it absolutely would have to change the last half of the novel. The reason Jane leaves Rochester is because she doesn't not want to be his mistress when his crazy wife is still alive. If she gives in to her passions, there would be no reason for her to leave him; then, the entire second half of the novel would be their "living in sin" - then, you would have to throw the whole part with St. John, the school, etc. To maintain the plot, the sex couldn't/shouldn't come until the very end when they are reunited after the fire. I think the main objections people here see with the sex is it would damage the plot line of half the novel.


Jessica C. No sexing up. People really deny the civility (even if it's bullshit with a lingering smell of hypocrisy) that an author from the late 1800's or turn of century perpetuates in fortune of good merit. Why does sex with penis's and vagaga's mating at climax points in the plot be so necessary in order to captivate an audience anymore. I appreciate an anticipation, and letting my imagination run free as a stallion on a beach. lol. Read Lady Chatterley's Lover or whatever for sexed up literature.


Lilly First, let me state that I love sex. I think porn and erotica are wonderful. And I'm not a prude. (Also, I am a really crappy writer and my thoughts tend to be all over the place, so I accept your criticism of my (lack of) style.)

That said, a sexed up Jane Eyre sickens me. It goes against the spirit of the book and the character of Jane herself. The fact that Jane isn't willing to jump into bed with Rochester is a pretty major point of the book. Adding sex would destroy Jane's character. Jane is staunchly individual. She believes she has value as a thinking woman, that she is not merely an object for some man's use (recall that she refused to marry St. John because he did not love her - she refused to be used even for his religious cause, in which she believed). Jane is strong and she does not bend to the passions of others (something that makes you realize that Jane herself is a towering inferno of passions, which is incredibly sexy, I admit). I definitely believe that Jane became a passionate lover to Rochester and that she deeply enjoyed every hot naked moment with him once they were married, but not a moment sooner. If someone wants to write an erotic novel about their days after the events of "Jane Eyre," I'll happily read it. But I won't read a twisted version of a book I love, because the heroine I love and admire would become tarnished and worthless in such a book.


Vanessa Stone Adding sex to a novel doesn't make it more thought provoking. Restraint is a much more difficult force to be reckoned with, something that Jane had to use much of in her very sparse and cruel existence. As others have previously commented, she was a principled character. All that she really had was her integrity.

Sex seems like an easy plot twist to draw a larger audience. We know Rochester has sex, as he has his illegitimate child that he still doesn't acknowledge as his, merely an obligation. All the tawdriness that is needed is in Rochester's character.

Of course we know sex happens. So do bowel movements, it doesn't make literature more profound to add those scenes. The absence of sex adds sexual tension to all the characters forcing them into a tumult of passion, making their love feel more urgent. A lot more can be accomplished without all of the sex. Aside from that, I'm tired of the notion that explaining sex in excruciating detail is somehow ground breaking literature. I think that it assumes a baseness and a lack of depth in the reader, who is looking for a thrill and not exploring the human condition.


message 35: by A.K. (new) - rated it 5 stars

A.K. Klemm macgregor wrote:

So it's a quality thing then? ..."


Every piece of fiction is in the eye of the beholder - absolutely! Fiction is like art. Person X likes Picasso, Person Y likes John William Waterhouse, but both have their place in THE world. Sexing up Jane Eyre just doesn't belong in MY world.


message 36: by A.K. (new) - rated it 5 stars

A.K. Klemm Lilly wrote: "First, let me state that I love sex. I think porn and erotica are wonderful. And I'm not a prude. (Also, I am a really crappy writer and my thoughts tend to be all over the place, so I accept your ..."

Well said.


gertt macgregor wrote: " I'm suspecting a moral objection to adding sex to Jane Eyre, not just a "it will offend my literary sensibilities"..."

I have no objection to sexual relations when they are part of the story and there is no reason for that to be implied.

Jane Eyre is a classic and always will. There is no reason to change anything.


message 39: by [deleted user] (new)

I suppose I'm in the minority in this thread, but undoubtedly, this will sell well enough and I will be vindicated. Who knows? Perhaps it will be a masterpiece and contribute to the cultural discourse in a meaningful way. Perhaps I'm an optimist when it comes to art.


message 40: by [deleted user] (new)

gertt wrote: "Jane Eyre is a classic and always will. There is no reason to change anything. "

"Classic" stories are always being remixed and retold over and over changing them and making them different. Oral literature is an constantly mercurial art form. Many of our most beloved stories are retold version of beloved stories.

If I said there was a sexed up version of Homer's Odyssey, would you object? What if I told you that the lead character, the Odysseus character, has a predilection for consuming urine and smelling his wife's farts? What if I told you that this new version of the Odyssey is considered one of the greatest works of art in the history of literature?

The Odyssey is perfect. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't change it!


Carina Macgregor, to me you seem to be totally missing the point of many of the above comments.

The main reason people dislike this idea is due to the fact that Jane was so against having sex with Rochester - if you add in sex where does the second half of the book go? This has clearly been stated by many people above.

Take another of the 'classic' novels, say Pride and Prejudice - now there is nothing in there (in my opinion) that was against the lead characters having sex, just the fact that it was not the 'done' thing for the classes that Darcy and Elizabeth resided in - so if you did add sex to that novel I wouldn't have such an objection.

The thing with retelling stories is that they do need to have some resemblence to the original novel - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is, on the whole, a straight retelling with some Zombies and fighting thrown in, the same goes for Little Vampire Women and, from what I have heard, Jane Slayre. To the majority of people commenting on here are simply saying that as Jane was so staunchly against sex with Rochester in the original them "doing it" all over the place would just totally ruin the second half.


Vanessa Stone Great points Carina.
On the subject of the novel as art, and that being the basis of the argument for adding sex, I have this to ask, do you think we should paint more eyebrows on the Mona Lisa? Does Starry Night need lovers below the sky in their birthday suits? No one would dream of messing with the vision of those artists. As a writer, I don't appreciate someone changing my story into something it is not. We discredit the talents of the author and her vision. If you need sex, read a sexy book or watch cinemax. If Jane Eyre doesn't appeal to you on its own merits, it is not the book for you. Carina and others are right when they say that you completely unravel the story by adding sex. And why is it prudish to argue against adding sex, and not depraved to argue for sex?
Also if something is "perfect" it does not need to be changed, that would be what defined it as perfect. There is nothing you can do better to the story, therefore, a change would make it less than perfect.


message 43: by [deleted user] (new)

What if the sex in the novel, leading up to the climax, is between other characters, or in Jane's dreams?

Obviously, none of us have read this new version of Jane Eyre, so I'm trying not to be prejudiced. I'm trying to be optimistic!

Vanessa, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. If everybody in the universe thought The Odyssey was perfect, Joyce would have never thought to change it and provided us with similar but different perfection!


message 44: by Jenn (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jenn NO NO NO NO NO. This novel does not need sex added into the story line. classic romance novels were based solely on the romance aspect and kept things in the bedroom out of it. It goes with the times that sex and things like that were not talked about (well the were but not openly such as romance novels today).

The story is wonderful on its own without the sex. If classic romances are rewritten to add that in then every romance novel from the period like Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice will be rewritten, and that will actually make me cry. I don't believe in changing the authors vision. It would be the same thing as changing Michelangelo's David, or the Mona Lisa. One wouldn't dream of doing that, so why tamper with novels just to add what you want into it.


Alexandra I don't understand how you can add that into Jane Eyre. The entire concept is that Jane's possesses great ethics and self respect, which is so rare for a women in that era. If you add sex, it ruins the whole character aspect. Why not just write a whole new book then?

This actually bothers me so much. Bronte would be tossing in her grave.


Vanessa Stone I think that was beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'll let you have it, as I don't believe any work is ever perfect, and art is subjective.

If Jane Eyre was done as a modern tale, a total reworking of time, place, and culture, as Joyce did, then you could have something very interesting, and then, you could add the juicy parts. I still don't believe sex in and of itself enriches the story. Our own modern convention turns sex into a feminist right, though, it still has harsh consequences in today's society and very little consequences for the man, just as it was in Rochester's day, and the woman takes the fall and the responsibility. Sex in her day would have been catastrophic for Jane's position. We still believe that sex has no consequence, and yet women continue to carry the shame and burden for their sexual freedom. Baby Daddy is an expression in common use, as is single mom. And there is generally larger social stigma for the single mother. Men are not called sluts in high school but high fived for their prowess. Perhaps it is this same male perspective of little consequence for your own sex that drives your position.

Sex in the use of the written word or film is to get people off, and does little to propel the story. It doesn't need to be elicit if it moves the story forward. We know that Tess of the D'Urbevilles had sex, but we don't know all the little details, and that act was pivotal for the entire plot. We also know that Thomas Hardy was a bit controversial for his time.

I think Jane Eyre was a feminist novel, and Jane showed her power over the lure of Rochester, again restraint is more difficult than surrender to passion. We can assume that upon their marriage it was consummated, unless we assume Rochester incapable.

I'm personally not interested in 50 Shades of Grey. Aside from the bad writing, I don't need to read about sex, in fact, other well written novels have turned me off because they are too graphic. It just doesn't interest me, nor do I find it particularly creative. Some things need to be left up to the imagination, not forced down the audience's throat. Sex serves more as a distraction from weak story telling, and showing sex and writing in explicit detail about sex isn't ground breaking writing. It has been done and done again. To an earlier point about Shakespeare, sex within comedy is a different thing than sex for eroticism.

And call me a prude, but I would like to watch a film of Jane Eyre with my daughter that doesn't turn us both 50 shades of red because it is a novel I hope that she will read and enjoy. Who wants to watch a sex scene with her parents?

Macgregor, I suspect you like argument for arguments sake, as the same could be said of me, but why are you so adamant that sex is necessary?


message 47: by [deleted user] (new)

[Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of academic work in Jane Eyre, including papers on genre studies (Gothic and Bildungsroman) as well as postcolonial studies (Bertha, Rochester). This novel is near and dear to my heart, but I have no illusions about its flaws.]

I think we're getting bogged down in two conflating problems: 1) the manipulation of a hitherto text considered classic and 2) sex as destructive to the plot of Jane Eyre. Of course, these problems aren't mutually exclusive but we're conflating them to a rather unproductive degree.

I object to objections that classics shouldn't be changed. That's my essential position. Anybody who thinks classic literature should be locked up in an ivory tower and merely observed is no friend of mine. Art is, after all, extremely reactive and quick to diffuse.

Part of art's prerogative is to interrogate and explore tensions within society, either by the creation of tension or reaction to observed tension. That is to say, in regards to Jane Eyre, Bronte was exploring the tension between conscience and passion, collective religion versus individual belief, eroticism and restraint, among other things.

The argument that the inclusion of sex would ruin the novel needs to be unpacked, and I will do the work for this.

Firstly, does sex ruin the practicalities of the plot? It does if Jane has sex with Rochester before abandoning him for her proselytizing cousin St John. However, my rebuttal to this is that women of middle and lower class did indeed have sex. Her journey through the wilderness and into St John's home can be reframed as a redemptive journey, out of the wilderness of unrestrained passion into the confining arms of religion, as it were. Thus, the practicalities of the plot are saved from the disastrous consequences of including sex.

Secondly, the inclusion of sex can be destructive to the themes of Jane Eyre, it can be argued. Well, that depends what you consider the primary theme of Jane Eyre to be. Obviously, we can all agree that Jane Eyre is a complex matrix of theme that work concurrently to fulfill the novel's intention of a Bildungsroman. I've argued before that Bronte is using the structure of a Gothic novel to artificially induce maturation in Jane Eyre, and her success in navigating the novel as a protagonist is due to her very familiarity of the Gothic novel.

However, and so begins my rebuttal to the thematic objections, is that if we agree that Jane Eyre uses the trappings of a Gothic novel, that doesn't mean that sex is totally antithetical to the novel's themes. In fact, Gothic novels are often considered to be psychosexual, in that they are the sublimations of the protagonists' desires and wishes.

Thus, if Jane Eyre is Gothic, and a primary feature of the Gothic is the oneiric, then a sexy dream featuring Jane and Rochester is not only within the confines of the genre (Gothic) but also in the vocabulary of Jane Eyre, the novel, itself (dreams and portents).

Dreams and fantasies are only one way to counteract the objections to the inclusion of sex to the plot and to the themes of the novel.

Going back to my original point though, Jane Eyre's status as classic should not mean that the novel cannot be tweaked or completely altered. Wide Sargasso Sea is an extreme example of this, and that novel is absolutely loved (at least in academia).

Any objection to sex as part of any novel is culturally specific and I'm not sure if I need to state my position on that, as it's probably obvious.


message 48: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy macgregor wrote: "[Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of academic work in Jane Eyre, including papers on genre studies (Gothic and Bildungsroman) as well as postcolonial studies (Bertha, Rochester). This novel i..."

Put this way, in a context of dreams/fantasies, I can see your point completely. Very intelligent post, macgregor.


Autumn My main objection is one I would submit in any argument about any novel: the book was printed the way the author wanted it to be printed (if the author later makes changes that's a whole different ball of wax, of course). Not every book in the 'classic' canon will appeal to everyone, nor are they sacrosanct because they are old. What is (or should be) sacrosanct is their right to determine how the story they created is presented.

Writing is not easy, especially once the author gets down to the nitty gritty in editing. Each word has been CHOSEN by the writer, with intent. It is THEIR creation, and should as far as possible be left the way they wrote it (allowing for translation, if necessary).

If a writer or publisher want to screw around with a classic story, they should do as the writers of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" and that genre do and make it clearly their own work.


Carina Just to make it easier: Bildungsroman - A novel dealing with a person's development or spiritual education.

Thought I would add that incase anyone else had no idea what that meant!

Macgregor - you make a fair point in that dreams/fantasies could be included within the novel and not spoil the 'second half' which I think I made clear is the main objection by myself and others.

Perhaps this is a conversation that would be best to wait for the book to be made available - after all this is pre-order only in the UK (not sure about other countries) and the way in which it is ammended will obviously impact peoples arguments.


« previous 1 3 4 5
back to top