5 ms·
Are fiction books really that updated (in terms of the words, not formatting)? I'd argue that a movie's visuals are part of the experience, but something like
by mdasen 7y ago
Are fiction books really that updated (in terms of the words, not formatting)? I'd argue that a movie's visuals are part of the experience, but something like the font or pagination doesn't change the experience of a book in a significant way. Movies have been changed, but it's usually due to where it's being watched (like different screen shapes) or in more minor ways.
And when movies get changed, people have problems with it. People want to see the original Star Wars, but can't. Did Han shoot first? Still, the changes in Star Wars seem minor by comparison. Yes, they updated the special effects and made some edits. This sounds like they're changing the whole visual effect of the movie because it's weirding people out. Like, imagine if they updated R2D2 and C3PO to be completely different; imagine if they changed Darth Vader to David Prowse's voice after initially being released as James Earl Jones.
I think we historically haven't seen this in theaters because of the cost involved. It's not like a streaming service where you just get Netflix to encode the new version you give them.
Yea, things have always been altered, but this feels like it's breaking the shared experience of seeing Cats. Whether Han shot first is subtle and I probably wouldn't have noticed the change and I think people can ultimately share in the common experience of seeing Star Wars even if they've seen different versions. I guess it's just a matter of how drastic the changes feel and whether it will break the shared experience we generally feel. We don't know what "improved visuals" really means yet and how that will change the experience.
- shantly 7y ago> Are fiction books really that updated (in terms of the words, not formatting)? Sometimes, but not often enough, in the way that's under discussion, that it's a fair comparison to what's already done in the film world, I think. There are a few famous examples (The Hobbit having a scene significantly modified to better fit the LOTR, for example) but major modifications to different releases, for reasons other than censorship (which strikes film and books alike), aren't as common as in film, I'd say.
- lmm 7y ago> Are fiction books really that updated (in terms of the words, not formatting)? I read American Gods and was amazed that such a bloated story could have won the Hugo and Nebula awards. And it turned out it didn't; despite advertising those awards on the cover, the text I had read was 12,000 words longer than the one that had been awarded.
- whatshisface 7y agoWhy would they do that?
- catalogia 7y agoAuthor's ego probably. Or just an attempt to get people who've already read it to buy a second copy (the version in question was released 10 years later.) > A special tenth anniversary edition, which includes the "author's preferred text" and 12,000 additional words, was published in June 2011 by William Morrow. The tenth anniversary text is identical to the signed and numbered limited edition released in 2003 by Hill House Publishers, and to the edition from Headline, Gaiman's publisher in the UK since 2005.[2] The tenth anniversary edition marks the first time the author's preferred text has been available in wide release outside the UK.[14]
- tialaramex 7y agoWhy would you be surprised for a Hugo? The Hugos are deliberately pure popularity contest, they're a fan award. There is nothing wrong with that, but it makes winning a Hugo more like having a gold YouTube plaque than say winning a conventional literary prize like the Booker. It doesn't have to be any "good" whatever that means so long as enough members of the fan community like it. The Nebula has a smaller problem because its members are at least nominally actual authors, so you don't have fan contigents bloc voting like the Hugos and most SFWA members know something about what makes a good novel but it's still definitely there.
- lmm 7y agoYou seem to have posted a free-floating critique of the Hugo that has nothing to do with what I wrote. (If anything, I have more faith in the Hugo award to reject overwrought and overlong works than a more conventional literary award).
- tialaramex 7y agoSo, your theory is that fans aren't the ones who uncritically support overlong works? Presumably in your mind the Transformers and Pirates movies kept being made because although fans noticed they were long slogs with nothing left to say and stayed away, the critical acclaim ensured the studios reinvested? Wait, no, those franchises got horrible reviews and they were made because fans kept turning out to buy tickets for each iteration. Exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe. It's not a critique of the Hugos, they aren't pretending to be anything else except a popularity contest. A whole bunch of the voters (including some people I know) voted for that novel having read the version you feel is bloated. They liked it. That's fans for you.
- aidenn0 7y agoDiane Duane's young wizards series was updated to be less technologically passe. In particular, the second book of the series had a home computer as a major plot point, and it was described as booting to a BASIC prompt (I own the original, but haven't read the update).
- ars 7y agoAs best as I can tell the update was never released in physical form, only as an eBook. Pretty cheap too: $20 for the entire series. But I prefer physical books so I'm hoping it will be released. Also it's more than just old tech: the tech actually changes in between each book so there is no consistency at all. The new version puts all the tech at the same level. Oh and some scenes from the unreleased movie were added.
- oneeyedpigeon 7y agoBefore 1986, US versions of A Clockwork Orange didn't include the final chapter.