Children's Books discussion
Conversations: books & readers
>
Updating Technology in Re-Releases of Older Series
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
This Can't Be Happening at MacDonald Hall!
Go Jump in the Pool!
Beware the Fish!
The War with Mr. Wizzle
The Zucchini Warriors
MacDonald Hall Goes Hollywood
Something Fishy At Macdonald Hall
Is this not like altering a book to make a UK or USA edition? Does it not alter the author's intentions and writing style?
Mod
Definitely!! Reminds me of the changes in the HP series. I am not sure though if Korman agreed to the changes (and what bugs me is that online reviews for CM magazine all really praise these changes because according to the reviewers, the newer releases are selling better than the original series, but the original series also is no longer in print).
I think changing the technology in the story is different in a substantial way from changing the book for a UK or USA or Aus edition. Technology is specific to the era and makes the book into an entirely different experience. It is akin to steam punk, only in reverse. It can make an author look like s/he didn't do her/his research - a book about the 60s wouldn't have kids with cell phones texting each other. Heck, even my spell check doesn't recognize the word "texting", which is common vocabulary now. Changing "jumper" to "sweater" doesn't change the context of the story. I happen to think it was completely unnecessary, but it doesn't create anachronisms. Adding cell phones does.
I agree with Laura's comments. Technology is part of the specific world that an author or illustrator creates, just as much as clothing, music, manners, and word usage are.
Mod
especially if everything else remains the same, remains or at least can be seen as being from a specific time, it just looks strange and as Laura pointed out, makes the author appear as though he/she had not done enough research (and not just that, it makes it appear as though modern children are not enlightened enough to figure out the recent past, which I would resent, were I a child).
If the author thinks that some of the words might not translate across oceans, there is always the option to add a glossary at the back. Many books do this, some for reference, some humor's sake, e.g., Louise Rennison's Confessions of Georgia Nicholson series. At the very least, if they are going to revise the books to make them appeal to more current generations, they should be required to change the authorship, e.g., Gordon Korman and Somebody Else (revising author).
Mod
Most of the originals are available on sites like alibris and abe books etc. (I would only consider the new releases if you are intent on comparing/contrasting).
Abigail wrote: Take the Nancy Drew books, which were condensed and rewritten, in the late 1950s. Of course there, the changes were less technological - as far as I know, no one has put cell phones, and the like, into the original Nancy Drew stories - than lexical. I wouldn't be too sure of that. I have not read them, but there are many "new" volumes of Nancy Drew that -- based on its cover art -- may have new technology: Danger on the Great Lakes. Have you seen the 2007 Nancy Drew movie? I've not, but I checked out the trailer--lots of cell phones. There are also all kinds of different series about Nancy Drew as a kid etc. (Sleepover Sleuths).
I have mixed feelings about the updating of books. In general, I think it is a poor idea. Of course, that precludes that the book can still be in print and have sales in its original edition. Gordon Korman is a name that children today will recognize...but...if the book was written in a way that would confuse kids about its time period, then I can kind of understand why the publisher might try to update it to repackage and sell it. Little House on the Prairie doesn't need updating because it is clearly historical. The 80s? Confusing for kids. It is not the distant past and I bet many kids today would not understand that a color tv in your bedroom was a rarity. I guess that while I don't agree with publishers changing books in this manner, I have to say that I would not be surprised if the books would not "sell" in their original format. I pull books from my library from the 80s and 90s because no one is reading them. One example I find intriguing is The Babysitters' Club. I had two whole shelves of them from the 80s and 90s. Probably 50 books. They NEVER checked out. Then recently, some of them have been re-released with new covers etc. (don't know about the technology). Kids actually ask me about them now. I still wouldn't call them hot, but they are only interested in the new stuff. I kept some of my old ones, and no, they don't really want to read those. (Clearly I am not talking about ALL kids here--but generalizations count in marketing).
Mod
If a book originally published in the 80s is confusing, there are dictionaries etc. and children can ask questions. That is what I did when I read books published in the 50s and 60s and was unsure of some of the cultural norms (this was in the 70s and 80s when publishers actually seemed to still publish the originals and not automatically update them). I think we are mollycoddling and spoon feeding children to their own detriment (and children will leave school not being able to do independent research or ask relevant questions, they will just expect everything to fall into their laps, including books, research papers and the like). Not only that, but it also feels as though many publishers (and society in general) seem intent on selling children short, on automatically assuming that children are going to be confused about the 80s (just like I felt that publishers were and are selling children and their intelligence short by automatically changing British English to American English for the HP series etc., we don't seem to have much confidence in North America in the capabilities of our children and teenagers). On the other hand, I guess I can understand publishers changing and updating series if they believe that in order to sell the series, this must be done (but I still don't agree with it and when I write my reviews for the updated series, said reviews will definitely reflect my displeasure with the updated versions).
Those '50s Nancy Drews are still the most popular in my library....I was never a huge Nancy Drew fan--more of a Trixie Belden girl myself. :)
I sometimes find it dispiriting that kids are primarily soooooooo reluctant to read outside what is marketed primarily to them. (I always get a few kids that will try anything). But, I don't think the general public is interested in old stuff either. And I don't count Goodreads fanatics. We are not the general public.
Mod
I was never a huge Nancy Drew fan--more of a Trixie Belden girl myself. :)
I sometimes find it dispiriting that kids are pri..."
I guess I should not consider myself as a typical kid (I was not, and yes, I would read anything that was remotely interesting, actually, I was often more interested in older books and series, both then and now).
They have done the same thing with the Hardy Boys. I have the collection that my dad had when he was a boy (most were published in the late 20s, early 30s). I compared the book The Tower Treasure with its new counterpart and the story has changed dramatically. Not only did they change technically but also made politically correct as well. I know that things were different in the 20s than they are now, but why change the story?
With the Hardy Boys--Frank Dixon was several people--many people wrote under that name and while reading the older books, there were mistakes made (the Hardy's mother had different names). So I suppose that someone or ones took over that roll and maybe the copyright expired so they could do that. I do like the older books; they have so much character to them and when the stories are changed, that's lost.
Mod
But as Michele points out, I'm not the type of buyer the publishers are marketing to. So, I just remind myself to check *original* publication date when in doubt.
Mod
One of the newer books like the Warriors (cats) are written by Erin Hunter and she is actually 2 women writing the stories. Right off hand I can't think of any others except maybe what Cheryl said about Carolyn Keene with Nancy Drew.
Mod
message 20:
by
Cheryl, Host of Miscellaneous and Newbery Clubs
(last edited Mar 13, 2015 07:59AM)
(new)
Mod
Otoh, one can't make a story more or less racist or sexist or bigoted by taking out the N word or calling an adult aide a woman instead of a girl. It's silly, not to mention dishonest (as Beth points out) to try. Sanitizing and bowdlerizing is a bigger deal, and publishers can't just casually mess around and hope nobody notices, as they sometimes can with technology updates.
I do like Laura W.'s suggestion about adding the adapter's name to the title, but I don't think it would work. And, again, usually the changes are so minor that the adapter doesn't actually do much more than a proofreader would. Ime.
Mod
Also, I think with "technology updates" (same with that boneheaded move to change Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for North America) really insults children and children's intelligence.
Beth, a case in point, the MacDonald Hall series by Gordon Korman (the first books of which came out in the late 70s/early 80s when I was in junior high school) has recently been updated to now include emails and the like (but the books still have an 80s feel to them, and the updates really grate and often feel totally fake and as you have stated, an anachronism). And in one of the books, The War with Mr. Wizzle, much of the humour actually stems from the fact that a new teacher, Mr. Wizzle, wants to computerise the school and the students rebel (with the updated technology, the students' animosity towards Mr. Wizzle and his computer does not make all too much sense). I love this series, but I would only recommend older (and usually out of print) books of the series, and not the in-print ones with their ridiculous technology updates.
Mod
And WHY WHY WHY are publishers doing this?
Or I suppose more importantly, the author is still..."
If the author is agreeing to the changes, that is sad, but I think it is actually even sadder if the author is being forced by the publisher to do this.
Gundula wrote: "Sanitising (or rewriting) older fiction insults readers' intelligence and also has the (I think very dangerous) tendency to paint the past in different colours than they were originally painted. Pretending the past was not racist and/or sexist when it was is simply wrong and gives the wrong impression of the former."I'm a bit of a purist, so I'm with you on that one. I find it somewhat dishonest to try to gloss over crude things that very much happened in the past.
As for replacing certain dated vocabulary or maybe slang in particular, I can understand that in some cases it might salvage books and make them accessible to a new group of readers. And I’m assuming that when references to technology are modernized it’s because young readers themselves claim it makes all the difference to them?! It does seem awfully shortsighted however. Are they going to rewrite the books every fifteen years to update the names of all gadgets and accessories? And I hope they make it clear that the new versions are modern “adaptations”, I would feel really cheated if I were to only accidentally find out they weren’t the original text.
Mod
I think a lot of times though, certain publishers simply assume that young readers will not "get" older technology (which I would find horribly presumptive and insulting if I were a child today).
Gundula wrote: "I think a lot of times though, certain publishers simply assume that young readers will not "get" older technology (which I would find horribly presumptive and insulting if I were a child today)."Well, that is my question. I don't know if anyone here has insight into publishing, but I would hate to think that they were going to great lengths rewriting books without at least checking whether that is what the readers really want?!
Mod
But even if young readers want this, is it necessarily a good thing? And I think both you and I kind of think that it is not.
Children's Books
Books mentioned in this topic
The War with Mr. Wizzle (other topics)Danger on the Great Lakes (other topics)
Sleepover Sleuths (other topics)
Little House on the Prairie (other topics)
This Can't Be Happening at Macdonald Hall! (other topics)
More...
So you basically get (especially with the earlier books of the series) a delightful 70s, early 80s feel that is, unfortunately, now kind of marred with and by 90s and 21st century technology (feels kind of jarring to me, so much so, that I have actually purchased the original series). I don't know, but it feels like you are in a way reading an older book that has somehow received a very incomplete paint job of mordernisation. And why?? Do publishers really believe that today's children will not know what a colour tv is and that in the late 70s it would have been a novelty for a student to have one in his school dorm room, sigh. And much of the updating is very superficial, the feel of the series remains 70s, early 80s, so the updates do not only seem unnecessary, they also don't really work with the general feel and theme of the series.
I am in the process of reading and reviewing the entire Maddonald Hall series. I guess what I will end up having to do is to read both the older and the newer versions and write the appropriate reviews (I guess you can tell by my ranting, that the newer versions will get a less positive review). And for those of you interested in the series, if you can find the original series on ABE Books and the like, I would definitely recommend the earlier, original series over the newer versions.