I’m looking at a book on Amazon.
I see two different versions (different covers). The book in question is…
The first two on the list. One has 457 ratings and the other has 133.
Is there much different in revised editions of some books??
Not really an answerable question–the differences could range from “a little” to “a lot” and the only way you could tell is to read both of them. However, the revision seems to have happened in the 1996 version, so it and the 2011 edition might be the same.
I have three copies of Darrel Huff’s terrific book, How To Lie With Statistics from 1954, then 1983 and 1992. Same text, even the salary figures used as examples did not change. But other things did between 1954 and 1983 (the 1992 copy is identical to the 1983 one).
First, any occurrence of the word “Negro” (not used in any derogatory sense whatsoever) had been replaced by “black.” Pretty obvious, as the new word was optically pasted in a printed master, and the font didn’t match. Why the first word was capitalized and the other, not, probably means something.
Second, some of the drawings were replaced or removed. Just line-drawn cartoons, but the one showing how the right shampoo would change you from a frumpy housefrau wearing a housecoat to Marilyn Monroe in a one-piece bathing suit was removed entirely. Another drawing, ostensibly of some “Hottentots” in a South Sea Island, with bones in their nostrils and grass skirts around their waists was replaced with a much less stereotypical illustration. A third, intended to be natives from Africa (big lips, a tribesman holding a shield & spear with a grass hut nearby) was redrawn to show two white farmers, a chicken and a barn.
Demon Seed by Dan Koontz was significantly rewritten for a new edition. I had read a synopsis of the original, found a copy in a used book store, started reading it and soon realized that this wasn’t the book I thought it was. Found out later about the rewrite.
I think the first giant clue was the computer getting infatuated with Winona Ryder after seeing her pictures on the internet – a strange occurrence in a book supposedly from 1973.
In the specific example linked to by the OP, the revised edition’s product description explains:
But, as Darren Garrison says, it’s impossible to give a general answer.
Textbooks in particular frequently come out in new editions every few years. Sometimes they add substantial new content or update material that’s genuinely out of date, but sometimes it’s nothing more than an attempt to cut down on the used book market.
David Gerrold updated his The Man Who Folded Himself at some point. When I got my iPad I thought that would be a cool ebook to have and read whenever I wanted; I stumbled at the first “update”, tripped at the 2nd and never found a 3rd because I stopped reading.
That’s one of my favorite books. If you don’t mind me asking, what were some of the changes he made?
Stephen King’s The Stand’s original release (1978) differs substantially from The Stand: The Complete & Uncut Edition (1990), but I don’t consider these to be different editions so much as two releases of the same story. Both stories refer to popular culture, “current” politicians, and such. To be clear, I never read the original, so am unsure if King referred to Jimmy Carter’s inauguration date in it; he certainly referred to George H W Bush’s in the 1990 release. It’s still a favorite read for me.
Gerrold also made significant revisions to “The HARLIE was One” (which he called “When HARLIE was One 2.0”) and “A Matter For Men” (and in this case the revised version didn’t have any indication that changes happened (and as I recall, there were character names changed and a whole new chapter)).
Stephen Jay Gould’s* The Mismeasure of Man *included corrected versions of various calculations racist pseudoscientists used to justify racist beliefs.
Later editions of the book had corrected versions of the corrections, along with the interesting author’s notes that his original erroneous calculations had systematically erred in the opposite direction that the racists’ own calculations had. Gould used that to make a point about how systematic subconscious biases can be; Gould *knew *the racists were wrong, so when he himself made errors they leaned towards making the racists "more wrong".
David Weber’s novel Path of the Fury was re-issued as In Fury Born with "prequel chapters longer than the original book and some alterations of terminology.
One example that comes to mind is the translations of Sigrid Undset. My wife had never read Unset, so I ordered a copy. It seemns that there is a new translation. Charles Archer originally translated her works, in the 1920s, and it was a beautiful read in the classical style of literature of that era. In 1997, it was translated by Tina Nunnally, and was basically the story line told over again in the style of recent sweeping sagas, like “The Far Pavilions” and that ilk. Very disappointing. Archer was a memorable literary work, fitting the spirit of Undset’s original. Nunnally is a vacation read to pass away time on the beach, you get the story but you might as well see the movie.
Lots of books got rewritten, especially after movies came out.
Martin Caidin rewrote Marooned when they turned it into a movie.
Peter George/Bryant rewrote Red Alert completely to make it ** Dr. Strangelove** when they filmed the movie
Not all of them were movie rewrites. John Fowles famously rewrote his 1965 novel The Magus in 1977.
Arthur C. Clarke rewrote The City and the Stars as Against the Fall of Night.
It’s not exactly the same thing, but Isaac Asimov’s novelization of Fantastic Voyage from 1966 was not otherwise related to the film. It apparently always bothered him, because he basically rewrote it as Fantastic Voyage: Destination Brain in 1987.
But if I had to put money down, I’d bet that the difference between the new version, and the old “revised expanded version”, is just the title and the amount of white space. When it came time to do a re-publication, they thought that calling it “revised expanded” again would lead only to pain: And if it had new content, they would have called it 3rd Ed.
“The far distant Oxus” is and was a brilliant older children’s book from 1937. Then it was re-published with the references to the servants and the natives clumsily edited out.
Text books used to be republished with revised and expanded introductions and student exercises. Because after you publish the content, and people like it, there is a motivation to put in the extra work to make it a better textbook. (Now of course they are published with revised and expanded student exercises as a cynical exercise in market manipulation)
My father’s favorite book is James Clavells “King Rat”, but apparently after the authors death the family had the book reprinted in a new edition with material that Clavell had originally edited out due to pacing issues, which my father agreed with as slowing down the story as it included multiple entire chapters.
However the weird thing is it’s hard to even know this happened since Wikipedia and the current editions on Amazon don’t mention it anywhere. The only reason I know the current editions include the previously deleted materials is a few Amazon reviews that bring it up.
Wikipedia is bad that way. I think I mentioned elsewhere in the forum how Contac once included a small amount of atropine, many years ago. But since Wiki only acknowledges the current version of anything, it doesn’t tell you what that atropine was for. Or perhaps it could, if somebody who knows the answer decides to update the article. So far, that hasn’t happened.
It depends entirely upon the book. In this case, I would say that it likely added addenda. Henepola Gunaratana is a religious leader in the Buddhist style which means he set up what is essentially an ashram (although Buddhists don’t use the term) gathered some followers and spends his days preaching about meditation. It takes money and book sales provide some of that capital. An easy way to get more capital is to re-release books to the faithful with addenda so they buy another copy for the new insights whatever they may be. I doubt that you’ll find any particularly earth shattering differences between the two.
Richard Wright’s original version of Native Son was bowdlerized into a much less “offensive” book at the request of the Book-Of-The-Mouth Club.
Some books end up trimmed because, well, if they reprinted the original book at full length and with all the illustrations, it’d cost more, and it probably wouldn’t have been reprinted.
That happened with L. Sprague de Camp’s Science Fiction Handbook, which I first picked up as a slim paperback (I got de Camp to autograph it later, too). at the time, reviews uniformly condemned the book because, although it did update some of the stuff, it also cut out a LOT of material – much more than had been added. I finally got hold of an original edition a while back and compared the two. the original was a hardcover book that was part of a series for writers. the newer edition was a stand-alone paperback. I don’t think they could’ve reprinted anything as long as the original – even updated – and made a profit. so a lot of de Camp’s explanations and observations got cut, and his pros was made a lot sparer, at some detriment to the language and the flow, although not its comprehensibility. If it hadn’t been cut, I wouldn’t have been able to buy my copy.
When they reprinted Hugo Gernsbach’s Ralph 124C41+ as a paperback in the 1950s they cut out all the illustrations. This was pretty much unforgivable, and I only found out that earlier editions HAD illustrations until much later. But there had been plenty of standard-size paperbacks with illustrations. They apparently figured that no one would pay a bit extra to see them.
Another unforgivable case was when Goldner and Turner’s book the Making of King Kong, originally published in 1976 as a large-size paperback got reprinted as Spawn of Skull Island: The Making of King Kong in 2006. A lot of the pictures and illustrations are gone, some replaced by others, a lot reproduced in small, hard-to-see images. The additions were added chapters on King Kong sequels, which doesn’t add that much.
I’m not sure why, but I’m interested in joining this book club.
Somewhere in the very first chapter, maybe even on page 2 or 3, there was a reference to using the internet or a computer. The book was written in 1973. I first read it in like 1976 or '77, so this kinda stood out to me. I put it down and looked it up online and found that yeah, he had ‘updated’ it. I never looked at it again.
Just like Frank Zappa used to piss me off by re-doing earlier finished works, writers who do the same piss me off. Any artist, in fact. You fucking made something. It’s made. Don’t un-make it. Artists make things. Leave it alone and go make something else. Make another new one of those, if you want, but don’t fuck with the ones that are already finished. No, not even to ‘fix’ a mistake. Perfection is not the point.