4 ms·

This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are

This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. I would not want my work rewritten in any manner after my death, if still associated with my name. Folks are free to write their own materials that properly reflect their vocabulary values. And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work.

slg 3y ago
>This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. Sure, and maybe the author had deeply held beliefs about typefaces and would be appalled that a user can now choose their own typeface on a Kindle. At a certain point, it is a little silly to try to fully understand and preserve every intent of the author. But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. >And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work. Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it.
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago
  > But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. The character is not going from a good person to a racist a due to their language. The character (in my scenario) remains entirely unchanged. What has changed is your (and most modern reader’s) perception of the character. Which is part of the point. Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. > Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it. Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Today in America we find it very difficult to view someone who uses the N word as an unequivocally “good” person. Was that the case in 1830? Re: publishers releasing revised copies — they’re a business, and business often undercuts artistic intention for a profit. So it goes. If you want to say “I have no problem with rights holders revising (someone else’s) work to which they hold a copyright, to remove challenging remnants of the past and better reflect the vocabulary of today, so they sell better” — I agree 100% that’s well within their rights (however much I dislike that state of affairs). But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead.
  - slg 3y ago
    >Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. Is this always the intent of the author? Sometimes authors want their characters to live in a world that is identical to ours. >A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Is this always the intent of the author? Reinterpreting work based on things that occurred since its creation seems to produce and inherent disconnect with what the author intended in the moment. >Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every story needs to be about every complex topic. We don't need to deal with slavery and child abuse for example in a story about a chocolate factory. The book already has its own complex topics that it directly intended to address. >Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every author wants their work to be reflective of a specific moment in time. Some stories are meant to be timeless. >But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead. You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy.
    - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
      > You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy. There is only one of us who is suggesting that changing the words in an author’s work after their death is a Good Idea. I am suggesting that the words be left alone entirely, given the objective impossibility of knowing a dead author’s original intent (so ably demonstrated by your excellent use of repetition!). You desire (or at least accept) altering the original material without regard to the original author’s wishes. That is your right. But such an argument would seem to require justification for the change. Leaving something as is generally does not. This difference in our positions explains why you perceive me as “speaking for the dead with perfect accuracy” while saying you do not. I am not speaking for the dead. I am letting them speak for themselves and pushing back against those who would alter their message. You are operating under the assumption that they’d rather their work continue to generate profit for modern businesses, and would accept editing accordingly. Maybe. Maybe not. But boy is it frustrating to hear endless arguments supporting altering existing work to line other people’s pockets, with any suggestion of “write something new, yourself, if it bothers you” being blown off with “this is what they would want”. Especially grating: the fact that this argument almost always comes out of those who have not generated any such material themselves. Perhaps if they did, they would begin to understand how carefully each word is chosen in any work possessing enough quality to last through the ages.

slg 3y ago

>This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. Sure, and maybe the author had deeply held beliefs about typefaces and would be appalled that a user can now choose their own typeface on a Kindle. At a certain point, it is a little silly to try to fully understand and preserve every intent of the author. But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. >And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work. Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it.

voltaireodactyl 3y ago
> But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. The character is not going from a good person to a racist a due to their language. The character (in my scenario) remains entirely unchanged. What has changed is your (and most modern reader’s) perception of the character. Which is part of the point. Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. > Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it. Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Today in America we find it very difficult to view someone who uses the N word as an unequivocally “good” person. Was that the case in 1830? Re: publishers releasing revised copies — they’re a business, and business often undercuts artistic intention for a profit. So it goes. If you want to say “I have no problem with rights holders revising (someone else’s) work to which they hold a copyright, to remove challenging remnants of the past and better reflect the vocabulary of today, so they sell better” — I agree 100% that’s well within their rights (however much I dislike that state of affairs). But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead.
- slg 3y ago
  >Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. Is this always the intent of the author? Sometimes authors want their characters to live in a world that is identical to ours. >A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Is this always the intent of the author? Reinterpreting work based on things that occurred since its creation seems to produce and inherent disconnect with what the author intended in the moment. >Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every story needs to be about every complex topic. We don't need to deal with slavery and child abuse for example in a story about a chocolate factory. The book already has its own complex topics that it directly intended to address. >Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every author wants their work to be reflective of a specific moment in time. Some stories are meant to be timeless. >But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead. You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy.
  - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
    > You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy. There is only one of us who is suggesting that changing the words in an author’s work after their death is a Good Idea. I am suggesting that the words be left alone entirely, given the objective impossibility of knowing a dead author’s original intent (so ably demonstrated by your excellent use of repetition!). You desire (or at least accept) altering the original material without regard to the original author’s wishes. That is your right. But such an argument would seem to require justification for the change. Leaving something as is generally does not. This difference in our positions explains why you perceive me as “speaking for the dead with perfect accuracy” while saying you do not. I am not speaking for the dead. I am letting them speak for themselves and pushing back against those who would alter their message. You are operating under the assumption that they’d rather their work continue to generate profit for modern businesses, and would accept editing accordingly. Maybe. Maybe not. But boy is it frustrating to hear endless arguments supporting altering existing work to line other people’s pockets, with any suggestion of “write something new, yourself, if it bothers you” being blown off with “this is what they would want”. Especially grating: the fact that this argument almost always comes out of those who have not generated any such material themselves. Perhaps if they did, they would begin to understand how carefully each word is chosen in any work possessing enough quality to last through the ages.