5 ms·

Well, if the authors believe it, the authors have all the rights to change their books. But not the rest of us. EDIT: if the Grimms edited their books, it was

Well, if the authors believe it, the authors have all the rights to change their books. But not the rest of us. EDIT: if the Grimms edited their books, it was in their rights. If we decide to edit Rolad Dahl (or the Grimms) and still call them Roald Dahl/Grimm's brothers we have no right to do it. It's as simple as that, regardless who the original author of the story was, the author(s) of the books are very well known, it's the Grimms (in this particular case) and we should not edit them and call them "Grimm's brothers works" but "The X works (based on the Grimm's brothers works)" and see how many copies it sells (I bet not many as exploiting the Grimms' name). Imagine Tolkien being rewritten based on "The rings of power" and still attributed to Tolkien or if Dune is republished as it is in the movies, with all the scenes removed, but it's still called Frank Herbert's Dune. Wouldn't it be disappointing? It is also about cultural heritage. These works are from different cultures, they are not native of the US, where the debate is taking place about them. Some time ago I read about rewriting Pinocchio. The majority of people think it is a Disney's story, they do not know or imagine that it is one of the most important piece of the Italian culture, written by Carlo Collodi and it's as important to us as Sherlock Holmes is for UK.

roywiggins 2y ago
They're fairy tales. They don't have singular authors. They were transmitted orally and almost certainly adjusted based on whoever the audience was at the time. Just because the Grimms fixed them in print (more or less) doesn't make us beholden to them: they're still fairy tales. Fairy tales have always changed. There is no canonical version of a fairy tale, and no ownership. Disney's Snow White is as valid a telling as anyone's. The original stories weren't even meant to be read to children. They got adjusted to be more child friendly even in the 19th century. It's very weird to insist that we must read children the original Cinderella even though 1) Grimm's story isn't the "original" Cinderella because there is no original, and 2) even the Grimms didn't think these stories child-friendly.
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago
  > They don't have singular authors True, but that is true for everything before the press was invented, it's also true for music, before music notation was invented or for kitchen recipes... What we are talking about here is publishing the Grimm's fairy tales, that are the most popular adaption ever of German folklore (we know they are mostly not original, but we can almost say they saved them from oblivion) and republish a sanitized version using the original title and the original authors names. We still adapt fairy tales when we tell them in front of a campfire, that doesn't change the fact that for some of them the author exists and we know who that is. Charlie and the chocolate factory, for example, is partly inspired by the author's real life experience with confectionery manufacturing plant Cadbury, it also contains more than one timeless archetype, inspired by a long tradition of orally transmitted tales, but at the same time it's also a completely original story, written by a man named Roald Dahl. Disney chose those fairy tales exactly because there were no copyright fees involved, ironically today they refuse to let mickey mouse go... EDIT > the Grimms didn't think these stories child-friendly AFAIK this is not what happened, the book was criticized for its content not deemed suitable for kids, given that the title "Kinder- und Hausmärchen" made people think otherwise. They decided to change them and made a specific version for kids, that had an immense success and was re-published many times (I believe it was 10 editions). We know that, we can refer to the original stories, tha doesn't mean Disney's Cinderella is not a Cinderella story, it means it is based on the Grimm's story, but it's not a faithful adaptation. I don't see what difference it makes for the sake of the argument if the Grimms decided to edit their books.

roywiggins 2y ago

They're fairy tales. They don't have singular authors. They were transmitted orally and almost certainly adjusted based on whoever the audience was at the time. Just because the Grimms fixed them in print (more or less) doesn't make us beholden to them: they're still fairy tales. Fairy tales have always changed. There is no canonical version of a fairy tale, and no ownership. Disney's Snow White is as valid a telling as anyone's. The original stories weren't even meant to be read to children. They got adjusted to be more child friendly even in the 19th century. It's very weird to insist that we must read children the original Cinderella even though 1) Grimm's story isn't the "original" Cinderella because there is no original, and 2) even the Grimms didn't think these stories child-friendly.

peoplefromibiza 2y ago
> They don't have singular authors True, but that is true for everything before the press was invented, it's also true for music, before music notation was invented or for kitchen recipes... What we are talking about here is publishing the Grimm's fairy tales, that are the most popular adaption ever of German folklore (we know they are mostly not original, but we can almost say they saved them from oblivion) and republish a sanitized version using the original title and the original authors names. We still adapt fairy tales when we tell them in front of a campfire, that doesn't change the fact that for some of them the author exists and we know who that is. Charlie and the chocolate factory, for example, is partly inspired by the author's real life experience with confectionery manufacturing plant Cadbury, it also contains more than one timeless archetype, inspired by a long tradition of orally transmitted tales, but at the same time it's also a completely original story, written by a man named Roald Dahl. Disney chose those fairy tales exactly because there were no copyright fees involved, ironically today they refuse to let mickey mouse go... EDIT > the Grimms didn't think these stories child-friendly AFAIK this is not what happened, the book was criticized for its content not deemed suitable for kids, given that the title "Kinder- und Hausmärchen" made people think otherwise. They decided to change them and made a specific version for kids, that had an immense success and was re-published many times (I believe it was 10 editions). We know that, we can refer to the original stories, tha doesn't mean Disney's Cinderella is not a Cinderella story, it means it is based on the Grimm's story, but it's not a faithful adaptation. I don't see what difference it makes for the sake of the argument if the Grimms decided to edit their books.