3 ms·

I'm well aware of how the editing process works. These changes are post publication... after the author's approval. Agatha Christie had no input regarding the

I'm well aware of how the editing process works. These changes are post publication... after the author's approval. Agatha Christie had no input regarding these changes.

true_religion 4y ago
So what? We translate books to different languages all the time, or edit original works for reasons of clarity with modern day prose. Just label the book as edited in the forward and there ought not to be a problem, right? The reason for this edit is similar to that of a modernization: to make it more accessible to a present day audience.
- marklubi 4y ago
  This isn't a translation. It's a change based on malleable societal norms. Instead of saying that changes were made in a forward, perhaps it should have a forward that discusses how societal norms have changed since the book was written. Changing the author's original text is not modernization, it is not clarification, it's destructive.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    The meaning of words change over time. Sometimes this means words that weren't too derogatory in the past become known as heinous insults in the modern day. I don't think these authors meant to be insulting and evoke bitter feelings in their readers. So this change better aligns the story with it's original intent so the mere mention of a word doesn't obscure everything else.
    - marklubi 4y ago
      > The meaning of words change over time. Sometimes this means words that weren't too derogatory in the past become known as heinous insults in the modern day. That doesn't give anyone the right to change someone else's writings without their approval. People need to be capable of understanding the context of the situation/time when something was written. They don't need to be pampered to because something might hurt their feelings.
      - morelisp 4y ago
        > That doesn't give anyone the right to change someone else's writings without their approval. You keep saying this, but it's not a realistic view of how publishing has ever worked. Entire books get posthumously published based on a few scenes or character sketches or even mutually contradictory drafts. > They don't need to be pampered Right, so this is just moralizing about what you assume readers need, not some real full-throated defense of authorial moral rights.
rsynnott 4y ago
Post publication re-editing isn’t all that unusual; virtually certain to have happened for anything more than a couple of centuries old, if only for legibility, but also with more recent stuff. Fun fact; versions of Sam Pepys’ Diary with the naughty stuff were not available to the general public until the 70s.

I'm well aware of how the editing process works. These changes are post publication... after the author's approval. Agatha Christie had no input regarding these changes.

true_religion 4y ago

So what? We translate books to different languages all the time, or edit original works for reasons of clarity with modern day prose. Just label the book as edited in the forward and there ought not to be a problem, right? The reason for this edit is similar to that of a modernization: to make it more accessible to a present day audience.

marklubi 4y ago
This isn't a translation. It's a change based on malleable societal norms. Instead of saying that changes were made in a forward, perhaps it should have a forward that discusses how societal norms have changed since the book was written. Changing the author's original text is not modernization, it is not clarification, it's destructive.
- true_religion 4y ago
  The meaning of words change over time. Sometimes this means words that weren't too derogatory in the past become known as heinous insults in the modern day. I don't think these authors meant to be insulting and evoke bitter feelings in their readers. So this change better aligns the story with it's original intent so the mere mention of a word doesn't obscure everything else.
  - marklubi 4y ago
    > The meaning of words change over time. Sometimes this means words that weren't too derogatory in the past become known as heinous insults in the modern day. That doesn't give anyone the right to change someone else's writings without their approval. People need to be capable of understanding the context of the situation/time when something was written. They don't need to be pampered to because something might hurt their feelings.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      > That doesn't give anyone the right to change someone else's writings without their approval. You keep saying this, but it's not a realistic view of how publishing has ever worked. Entire books get posthumously published based on a few scenes or character sketches or even mutually contradictory drafts. > They don't need to be pampered Right, so this is just moralizing about what you assume readers need, not some real full-throated defense of authorial moral rights.

rsynnott 4y ago

Post publication re-editing isn’t all that unusual; virtually certain to have happened for anything more than a couple of centuries old, if only for legibility, but also with more recent stuff. Fun fact; versions of Sam Pepys’ Diary with the naughty stuff were not available to the general public until the 70s.