IMHO it depends on what’s being edited and if there are footnotes about what changes were made. I would hate to have the archaic Elizabethan English of Shakespeare disappear just because some editor wants to get rid of thou, ye, dost, and other such archaic words and replace them with their contemporary equivalents. If such updates are made, they should be clearly marked, with the original text available, as well as having the original versions published separately.
I’ve been reading Walter Mosley’s novels. When writing dialogue that took place in the 1950s and 60s, the “n word” and variants are used, not gratuitously, but because that’s how the people he’s writing spoke.
I would hate to see his writing “cleaned up”.
I would argue in favor of no editing. You can say they were bigoted, but what they wrote is what they wrote. It’s essentially preserving history.
What’s next, rewriting Mein Kampf to make Hitler not sound so bad? If you do that, then you’re actually doing Hitler a favor. History is history.
In the same issue of the Times was an article about something more disturbing even than this one. It turns out that if you buy an ebook from Amazon (or anywhere else) it can be modified without your knowledge, to fix typos or make the changes we’re discussing. Though they may tell you that you are buying the book, you are only leasing it, and they have the right to make any changes to the book sitting on your Kindle or on your tablet that they want to. This has been going on for years, apparently. Non-fiction books get things added.
I haven’t seen the article you’re referencing, and I assume it’s behind a paywall, so I don’t know exactly what you’re referencing. But, if I understand correctly, this is something you can turn on or off.
ETA: The “or anywhere else” part of what you say is not entirely true. Some places that distribute ebooks leave it entirely up to you to download, store, update, etc. any books you buy from them.
This happened to me, I bought and read an ebook in 2016 from Amazon for my Fire. I decided to download the Kindle app to read it again on my phone last year, and the ebook that it downloaded had a chapter added but was now missing two chapters for some reason. And the two chapters that were missing explained the death of a MAJOR character who otherwise completely disappeared in the new ebook. It definitely seems like the writer decided to edit it down to remove that characters fate so they could potentially use it for a sequel.
Yes you can, and the article mentions this, but it is on by default. I’ll see of I can get a gift link to the article to share.
Wow, I had no idea Agatha Christie was so racist.
Casual racism was common; not sure that this usage would have struck anyone as odd at that time. See Kayaker’s comment above.
Some more detail on her willingness to have her works adjusted, after the Anti-Defamation League complained to her agent.
Thanks for that; that’s a really good and relevant article.
Which raises another point. I, too, did Cheaper by the Dozen, in high school. The high school script had excised the minstrel bit, but left in a line later on where Frank (I played Frank so I remember this) calls his physician “Mr. Bones.”
The nickname makes little enough sense even in the context of Frank liking minstrel shows, but without that, it makes no sense at all.
Editing needs to be sensitive to the work being edited. Otherwise things end up like TV shows with scenes whacked out to make more time for commercials.
Yes, thanks for that. Gives more nuance to the issue in the thread.
“Bones” is a common nickname for a doctor; see Star Trek; and also Bones. Why do you think it doesn’t make sense except in the context of minstrel shows?
“Sawbones” is a common enough nickname for a doctor. “Bones” the McCoy reference wouldn’t necessarily have been common when I did the play way back when (Star Trek being only a failed TV series at that time and not really a pop culture phenomenon.) “Mr. Bones” was clearly a call back to a minstrel show.
Which is why Tolkein’s famous letter to the German publisher stands out even more. He rejected the casual anti-semitism that was common:
On the time J.R.R. Tolkien refused to work with Nazi-leaning publishers.
Nevermind
Well, according to “The Word Detective”, “Bones” as slang for a doctor dates back to the 19th century:
“Bones” referring to a doctor apparently originated in the US military in the 19th century, where it was often used as a nickname or form of direct address for a surgeon (“Bones, our surgeon — Dr. Sawin outside the service — broke into the room,” 1893). This “bones” is actually a shortened form of the somewhat older slang term “sawbones,” again usually applied specifically to a surgeon, which was in use in Great Britain at least by the early 19th century and possibly much earlier (“‘What, don’t you know what a Sawbones is, Sir’, enquired Mr. Weller; ‘I thought every body know’d as a Sawbones was a Surgeon,'” Charles Dickens, Pickwick Papers, 1837).
My position is the same as it’s always been. It’s fine as long as the original remains available, and the changes are clearly marked. There can be competing purposes: one can be about preservation, while one is removing barriers to entry.
I don’t want, for example, people to ever think that Dahl didn’t say some bigoted stuff. But I also don’t think that people who want to enjoy his stories who would be hurt by said bigotry should have that only option.
Those who want the historical books should be able to get them. And those who want the “latest edition” should be able to get those, too.
There is of course a line in what you should edit, where it starts to make sense to release it as an adaptation or even homage. There still is the expectation from the reader that even the latest revision will be basically the same story. But I’ve not seen any of these edits that go that far.
Yeah, I tend to buy a lot of used books, so it’s not like you won’t be able to get the original book. Unless they start book burnings again.