What do you think of author's that update their books?

[Sir Auriel of Lionel]

Now I'm not talking about non-fiction books getting updated as research debunks or enforces findings or history nor am I talking about censorship or sensitivity revisions to suite cultural climates of today (I hate those too when a disclaimer in the beginning to preserve the period piece would resolve it) but when an author willingly goes back to change their books to give a modern face lift to reset their story into a modern time period. I've only seen one author do this and it was when I was searching their ebook library only to be disappointed in this change forcing me to hunt down old PDF scans to preserve them. Have you encountered any authors that have done updates or major revisions to their stories if so what are your thoughts? I generally don't include rereleases that got revised to include retcons from books later in series though, I understand those are done to fix flows of story or lore canon.

 

[Mr. SyS]

I'd rather they not in this cursed decade.

 

[hembruh]

I don't really care as long as the original version is available and somewhere large enough to notice on the back cover or something it tells you this version is different.

I'm not a Tolkien guy but I know he went back and changed some of the Hobbit to have better consistency with the Lord of the Rings and I'd assume you could get the original version too if you wanted. Not everything is going to be that culturally significant that the prior version would be guaranteed but if someone did that now I'd just want them to offer both versions.

I feel the same way about censorship and just changing things like the setting or year or whatever. It's fine as long as the original is still avaliable.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

I don't really care as long as the original version is available and somewhere large enough to notice on the back cover or something it tells you this version is different.

This ^

Not a fan of censorship or political correctness proofing your work but if the author feels the need to do it and the original is available, its not a big deal.

 

[Sir Auriel of Lionel]

Honestly this post came from my anger over the author modernizing her work in the setting of today, it really doesn't work for horror and thrillers that have to rely on the reader realizing this is the 80s where people didn't have cellphones, you had to remember phone numbers, not everyone had a landline (in a safehouse/outdoor cabin) or it could be cut off, and you could disappear with very little traces like few outside cameras everywhere or poor quality and store still taking checks that could get you supplies but bounce back weeks later after you book it.

 

[Raggs]

That sounds like a terrible idea. Better to let the Hollywood script hacks butcher the books.

Yes, I'm still salty how the LOTR movies cut off the actual end to Return of the King.

 

[LiberoVulpesLiberoVulpes's icon]

I don't see the point of doing it, its an easy recipe to get stuck in an endless revision loop of old works, instead of making new ones. What's done is done, let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Raggs]

I don't see the point of doing it, its an easy recipe to get stuck in an endless revision loop of old works, instead of making new ones. What's done is done, let sleeping dogs lie.

George Lucas and his unhealthy obsession with "improving" the original Star Wars movies

 

[RustySK]

I have never seen something like that personally, but I already hate it on a conceptual level.

I suppose changes made to fit in line with later continuity would be the lightest version of it, but even then I'd prefer the author try to find a way to adapt the story they want to tell to whatever they've already written prior instead of forcing established events into whatever shape they currently desire.

I get the impulse - more often than not, the best ideas will only hit you after the fact, after all - but I feel like you need to allow your projects to just be finished and done with at some point.
And when your book has already been published, I'd argue that's about the best point there could be for that.

 

[Bonkers225]

Well John Howard is dead, so he can't go back and write "I just had a really bad tan"

 

[DanVzare]

Honestly, I think when a work is finished, it should stay finished. Otherwise why would you ever make anything new when you can just endlessly revise it.

That doesn't mean you can't revisit a previous work. But then you have to acknowledge that you aren't improving it, but instead making an alternate version. Another way to experience it. (For example, that version of Twilight where all of the genders were swapped.)

People need to learn to treat the things that they make as art instead of content.
They need to show pride in their past creations, rather then disappointment in their past selves.

 

[hembruh]

I'm pretty much an absolutist on the subject that as long as the original is available and the new version is sold telling you it's not the same who gives a damn?

that being said, I do have mixed feelings on it in general for different reasons. first off, I have no problem with the original creator doing that, but I sort of think it's a waste of their time and effort. you're never going to be fully satisfied with anything you do or create, it's already out in the world, just move on. But I get the inclination to do it. I don't really care Lucas tinkered with Star Wars for 30 years, what I care about is the fact he buried the original version, after being one of the guys who told Ted Turner to shove it up his ass by only releasing computer colorized versions of the old black and white movies in the Turner library. if he had just sold both versions nobody would have ever complained about it.

I feel less okay about publishers doing it outside of the hands of the author, be it just because, or due to them being deceased. At least the former cases are the creator themselves. I think censorship is stupid and a waste of time in general, but I'm not opposed to it unless it replaces the original. I also think it's completely ridiculous to censor something intended for adults in the first place, when a disclaimer saying "we don't condone whatever is in this book because there's some racist and sexist shit in it because it was written years ago in a more racist and sexist time, if that bothers you even with the context buy one of our other books instead" would suffice.

In the case TC was talking about, I just think that sounds ridiculous too. Again I sort of understand updating the setting of a book for children so it's more relatable to them today, but a horror/thriller novel? Why bother? If it's effective it's still going to be effective set when it was written, and probably less so in the modern day. and if you're going to do it, just sell both. some people won't care and will buy either version, some people will buy the original, others might want something with a more modern flavor, and some people might buy both to compare them. You're throwing money away by burying the original copy.

 

[Graw]

The only examples of this I've read are the unabridged versions of Dune and The Stand. I prefer the abridged version of Dune but I like the additions to The Stand.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

I'm pretty much an absolutist on the subject that as long as the original is available and the new version is sold telling you it's not the same who gives a damn?

that being said, I do have mixed feelings on it in general for different reasons. first off, I have no problem with the original creator doing that, but I sort of think it's a waste of their time and effort. you're never going to be fully satisfied with anything you do or create, it's already out in the world, just move on. But I get the inclination to do it. I don't really care Lucas tinkered with Star Wars for 30 years, what I care about is the fact he buried the original version, after being one of the guys who told Ted Turner to shove it up his ass by only releasing computer colorized versions of the old black and white movies in the Turner library. if he had just sold both versions nobody would have ever complained about it.

I feel less okay about publishers doing it outside of the hands of the author, be it just because, or due to them being deceased. At least the former cases are the creator themselves. I think censorship is stupid and a waste of time in general, but I'm not opposed to it unless it replaces the original. I also think it's completely ridiculous to censor something intended for adults in the first place, when a disclaimer saying "we don't condone whatever is in this book because there's some racist and sexist shit in it because it was written years ago in a more racist and sexist time, if that bothers you even with the context buy one of our other books instead" would suffice.

In the case TC was talking about, I just think that sounds ridiculous too. Again I sort of understand updating the setting of a book for children so it's more relatable to them today, but a horror/thriller novel? Why bother? If it's effective it's still going to be effective set when it was written, and probably less so in the modern day. and if you're going to do it, just sell both. some people won't care and will buy either version, some people will buy the original, others might want something with a more modern flavor, and some people might buy both to compare them. You're throwing money away by burying the original copy.

There's a discussion to have about artists having a kill switch on their work. What it means for books, movies and video games.

I really think that it should be examined on a case by case basis. In the case of Lucas and Star Wars, I think the guy is a bit of a control freak, but the old versions are still available with a bit of searching, thanks to piracy. If the guy just don't give the option and has enough power to force his new cut as the only version distributed, then it's his right. Fanbases tend to be stupidly rabid about this kind of stuff, I think they've lost the mean to truly connect with the author and are only fetishizing their work.

Publishers have the tendency to force their marketing considerations to authors, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad... I think the best movie ever made is Terry Gilliam's Brazil, but there's an infamous cut that totally ruins it. On the other hand Jeunet's Alien 4 theatrical cut is IMO better than the director's cut.

I also think artists, just like anyone else, should have the right to be forgotten. For example If their work is utilized as memes for political reasons that don't fit their initial intent, they should be able to fight it. I think about what the guy behind Pepe the Frog is trying to do.

Some videogames have interesting concepts that makes of them artistic "events" more than static objects. Live services are in this category. I think it's good that they exist, but I hate that publisher utilize it like a kill switch when the game is not deemed profitable enough anymore. So I signed the EU petition "Stop Killing Games".

So yeah, there's no one size fits all answer for OP's question for me. All in all, if the problem made them motivated enough to search for their preferred version, then the more power to them, they now have the know how to source their stuff better, and even may be willing to share it if they meet someone else looking for it. Give the man a fish or teach him how to fish, that kind of stuff.

 

[Antilocal123]

Most of the one’s I like are 6 feet under doubt they can just revive and go “yeah nah I fucks with Nihilism HEAVY”

 

[Pseudo64]

I am with Wes Anderson on this one.

> "I don't even want the artist to modify their work," Anderson said, according to Variety. "I understand the motivation for it, but I am in the school where when the piece of work is done and the audience participates in it, we know it — I sort of think what's done is done."

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 3:07 PM

One more thing I would like to add, is that if you release a story, and feel that it wasn't satisfactory told or you could've done better, then instead of just re-editing that work, start a new work from the scraps of that earlier work. Something similar to what Haruki Murakami did.
He first released a short story in the 80s called The City And Its Uncertain Walls. He didn't like how it turned out, but instead of re-editing that, he told a whole new story with similar premise called Hard-boiled Wonderland And The End Of The Earth. But he must've been possibly not happy with that either, so just last year, he released a novel version of The City And Its Uncertain Walls. All three projects are their own separate entity. Yes they share some of the same premise/idea (like shadows not being allowed inside the city), but outside of that, they all have different approach in terms of narrative and stuff. So they feel unique in their own right. So instead of one edited and re-edited mess that went for eternity, we got three separate stories that offer different narrative and perspective on some of the shared ideas/premise.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

I'm fine with that as long as there's an actual reason to.

I remember loving Lee Mildred's "Sycamore Year" but being a bit daunted by the fact that I had to read it largely on a version of English that's simply not commonly spoken today. And yeah, the book is fifty years old and the tone and dialogue fit its time period perfectly, but the way characters address themselves, each other, and the adults in their life makes this gem a harder sale for younger generations.

 

[FrayGuillermo]

Just write another book, or if you end up wanting to rewrite an already published book, do as they do with music albums re-recordings and make it obvious that it's a new and different version that doesn't invalidate the original