We Love Lisa Kleypas discussion
Off Topic (Non-Kleypas Chat)
>
Old Versions vs. New "Improved" Versions
date
newest »
newest »
why not ask Marsha to comment?Personally I do not like heroes re-edited to suit our times. If Mr Darcy and Heathcliffe are unchanged two hundred years later then surely modern novels can be left alone.
That's a good idea, Mshj! I'll drop her a note.
Ok, here's the note I sent - Hello, Ms. Canham,
I'm a very active member of Goodreads and recently I've seen an increase in books that are being re-released after editing to tone down the language or feel of a story, in hopes that it will be more politically correct, or less offensive to new readers.
Over the weekend your book, Bound by the Heart, was being offered free of charge on smashwords.com, so I downloaded a copy. When I checked the Goodreads blurb, it included this note - "The Kindle/ebook edition has been re-edited by Canham and the "extreme" edges of the hero's character toned down to conform to current romance reader preferences."
As a avid historical romance reader, I find this very frustrating because if a book from the 70s and 80s is still being talked about, in a positive manner, in 2011, why does it need to be edited? To me, it's almost as bad as rewriting history.
I was hoping you could explain to me what might make an author decide to do this. What were your reasons, and in general, what are your feelings about this?
I'm probably not seeing all the angles, so I'm hoping for some insight from you.
If you'd like to see the discussion I started, here's a link to the thread on Goodreads - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...
Feel free to reply there if you'd like to.
Thank you so much for your time!
I vote for no re-editing.
Still no word back.
I would vote for no for re-editing as well. But a few things that came to mind when I started thinking about it. First, the original version is still available in the case of Ms. Canham's book, right? So you have a choice which you would like to read. Second, if there is re-editing to be done, I think it should be up to the original author, so in this case, if Ms. Canham feels comfortable and is alright with the revisions she does, I would think that's the only thing that matters, it is her work, she can do with as she pleases.Just my humble opinion!
One other thing, as an aspiring writer, I find I am constantly re-editing everything I write. Just because something is published, doesn't mean it can't be revised, it just means it's a new 'creation.' And if it gets more people to read, why not? As long as I have the choice as a reader, or the writer has the choice which can be published or read, I don't mind, just make it clear it's a revision, so I know the choices I have.
I guess I'm more thinking of even feeling like you need to rewrite something just to be more politically correct. To me, it almost seems like apologizing for history and rewriting it in a way.
UniquelyMoi *~*Dhestiny*~* wrote: "I guess I'm more thinking of even feeling like you need to rewrite something just to be more politically correct. To me, it almost seems like apologizing for history and rewriting it in a way."for example some of the Enid Blyton books
Mshj wrote: "for example some of the Enid Blyton books "I've not read anything by her, so I can't compare, unfortunately.
message 13:
by
Danielle The Book Huntress , Certifiable St. Vinnie's Ninny
(last edited May 23, 2011 12:14PM)
(new)
I don't agree with changing a book to make it more suitable for a modern audience. I felt that way about Whitney My Love. I feel like an author should stand by the first book they wrote. If they really have issues, put a foreword in the book to say that they might not have written the book the same way now as they did then.I feel that authors are artists, and they shouldn't feel the need to edit themselves to make their material more suitable or PC. If some readers don't like those kinds of books, they should avoid them and find books that appeal to their tastes.
To Shell's Bells' point, why not write a new book that incorporates the newer sensibilities, instead of changing the original?
If the author herself does it, I don't think I have a problem with it.I think an author would most likely do this with books that they think are really good but that are not finding a new audience because some situations make it unpalatable to current tastes. Authors may be artists but they need to make a living too and they probably all love to have a book that sells even 30 years after it's published. If the author can find another source of income by tweaking a book that she published in the past and didn't do too well, I say go for it.
![ᑭᑌᑎƳᗩ [Punya Reviews...] (sadeyes) | 241 comments](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1572968006p1/3840999.jpg)
I also prefer the original to revised ones. I feel cheated. Even though it's 'improved', the original is always the original, good or bad. I agree on "Whitney, My Love". And, also LK's "Only in Your Arms". When I read the book, I knew it was revised but didn't know the significance until I read reviews in GR and knew the hero wasn't as likable as I originally thought he was.Is the original of BBtH available as ebook?
message 16:
by
UniquelyMoi ~ BlithelyBookish, Your Humble Servant
(last edited May 23, 2011 02:21PM)
(new)
Punya H. wrote: "Is the original of BBtH available as ebook? "I haven't seen it as such, and from what I understand, the original is out of print.
In the case of Whitney, I was glad for the special release but only because so much was added at the end. I wish she, JM, hadn't softened up the one controversial scene.
UniquelyMoi *~*Dhestiny*~* wrote:"I haven't seen it as such, and from what I understand, the original is out of print"That kinda kills the fun. Anyway, thanks Dhestiny.
No problem.
Well said, Danielle! I totally agree and I won't buy a reworked edition. Being a writer, I have to be true to my voice, so I write to please myself. It's not about the money, but a love for telling a story that hopefully others will also enjoy. And before I submit my story, I will be totally satisfied with every aspect of it or I won't bother submitting it. Therefore, I'd never go back and intrude on my character's lives by rewriting their history.
I agree with all that is being said, it definitely changes things, and I don't like it. I prefer to read the original always. Give me the best you got from the beginning or don't bother submitting it for publication. However! I feel storytelling is an art form. Granted most artists don't go back and edit things, but who am I to tell an artist what to do with their work. But they should only do it if they want, not because their publisher wants to grab more readers and some may not appreciate the sex, or whatever it is they are changing. That is altering your art for others, and not being true to their own heart. That, I have a problem with. Also, I would never pigeon-hole an artist/writer to say they have to stay the same. Twenty years from now, I know my views/knowledge/craft will be different, and if I see something I did in my past that I want to correct or change because I feel strongly about it, why not?***stepping down off my soapbox now, lol. . . ***
What got me thinking of this was the free release of Marsha Canham's
So, I guess I'm getting kind of frustrated because I'm wondering if this isn't taking "political correctness" a little too far?
I'd love your input here. Maybe I'm being too picky, maybe there are truly legitimate reasons for rewriting stories so they're "easier on the senses..." I don't know.
Does anyone agree with me, or am I missing something here?