3 ms·

>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 charact

by 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.
allturtles 3y ago
You cold play this game all day. Maybe the intent of the author is that 32 years after they die someone substitutes the letter p for every instance of the letter b in their novels. The thing the author wrote was clearly their intent at the time. Anything else is speculation.

by slg 3y ago

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.

allturtles 3y ago

You cold play this game all day. Maybe the intent of the author is that 32 years after they die someone substitutes the letter p for every instance of the letter b in their novels. The thing the author wrote was clearly their intent at the time. Anything else is speculation.