3 ms·

Because it is the artists decision to make, not a committee by force of pressure from a small but aggressive and vocal group. For instance, Dahl changed the Oom

Because it is the artists decision to make, not a committee by force of pressure from a small but aggressive and vocal group. For instance, Dahl changed the Oompa Loompas description in the original book from African Pygmies to what they are today. Regardless of if there was pressure to do so, it was his choice as the artist. He doesn't exist any longer and his will makes no mention of editing his works. So doing so is a crime essentially.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 4y ago
Most traditionally published authors don't really get to decide these things entirely on their own - their publishers will have a word. In the case of deceased authors, ensuring your work is treated the way you want is why you put a literary executor in your will. In the absence of direct instructions, the literary executor gets to decide, and it's not relevant if there's no mention of changes in the will.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  I don’t care about the legal aspect. I care about the authenticity. It isn’t the authors work anymore after it has been changed without their consent. It’s abhorrent.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Dahl made a choice not to lay down restrictions in his will and not to appoint literary executors who he'd ensured would refuse to change things. He may or may not have disapproved of any given set of changes, but the absence of any such terms is implicit consent for his estate to do as it pleases. I have published books. They'll likely never be worth anything. But the absence of any terms about them in my will is intentional: Once I'm gone, I don't give a shit what my inheritors do with the rights for them. That's their business. As for authenticity, the originals still exist. Nothing has erased them. Deposit laws means the original editions will be on file at relevant libraries even if every customer got rid of theirs. I'm all for ensuring original editions remain at least somehow accessible, but this obsession with changes to books now just strikes me as comical given how long abridged, simplified or simply reimagined versions of classics have existed. Though chances are good that what you've read and consider "authentic" wasn't the original anyway, but one of the earlier revised editions. E.g. the version most people will have read was revised to change the Oompa-Loompas from African pygmies.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      He made those changes though. Possibly under pressure yes but he still made them. Any alteration to his work after his death is no longer his work. I should add: that may or may not be important to someone. To me it is. I don’t consider the altered version his work any longer but rather a derivative work or more accurately, a vandalization of his work.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vidarh 4y ago

Most traditionally published authors don't really get to decide these things entirely on their own - their publishers will have a word. In the case of deceased authors, ensuring your work is treated the way you want is why you put a literary executor in your will. In the absence of direct instructions, the literary executor gets to decide, and it's not relevant if there's no mention of changes in the will.

nemo44x 4y ago
I don’t care about the legal aspect. I care about the authenticity. It isn’t the authors work anymore after it has been changed without their consent. It’s abhorrent.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Dahl made a choice not to lay down restrictions in his will and not to appoint literary executors who he'd ensured would refuse to change things. He may or may not have disapproved of any given set of changes, but the absence of any such terms is implicit consent for his estate to do as it pleases. I have published books. They'll likely never be worth anything. But the absence of any terms about them in my will is intentional: Once I'm gone, I don't give a shit what my inheritors do with the rights for them. That's their business. As for authenticity, the originals still exist. Nothing has erased them. Deposit laws means the original editions will be on file at relevant libraries even if every customer got rid of theirs. I'm all for ensuring original editions remain at least somehow accessible, but this obsession with changes to books now just strikes me as comical given how long abridged, simplified or simply reimagined versions of classics have existed. Though chances are good that what you've read and consider "authentic" wasn't the original anyway, but one of the earlier revised editions. E.g. the version most people will have read was revised to change the Oompa-Loompas from African pygmies.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    He made those changes though. Possibly under pressure yes but he still made them. Any alteration to his work after his death is no longer his work. I should add: that may or may not be important to someone. To me it is. I don’t consider the altered version his work any longer but rather a derivative work or more accurately, a vandalization of his work.