King does mention the sewer clown in other works. I know it makes a brief appearance in The Tommyknockers but isn’t named there.
The controversial sewer scene in the original IT wasn’t random: in the book, Beverly realized that they were not going to find the exit without being unified, as they had been before weakening and defeating Pennywise, and the only way she could find to rebuild that bond between them was by having sex with each of her friends. Of course, such a scene involving underage characters was extremely controversial and has been left out of all adaptations, but it has a meaning that goes beyond the act itself.
In 2013, Stephen King (through his office manager Marsha DeFillipo) shared on the message board of his official site what the controversial scene in the sewers represents, and begins by explaining that, at the time, he wasn’t thinking of the sexual aspect of it. Instead, he wrote it as the connecting link between childhood and adulthood, as the Losers Club knew they had to be together again, and described it as “another version of the glass tunnel that connects the children’s library and the adult library.” King added that he’s aware that, with time, there has been more sensitivity and attention to issues like the underage sex depicted in IT’s sewer scene.
Update:
The worldwide nightmare is over.
It seems to me rather likely that this was Penguin’s plan all along. Stir up a lot of public controversy about the bowdlerized versions, then come out with these “classic” editions which a lot of people will now go out and buy.
So shines a good deed in a weary world.
You have a lot more faith in corporate savviness than I do. Never attribute to 5d chess what can adequately be explained by cupidity.
For some reason, it feels like the word “agile” should get mentioned about now.
I’d almost say “Hold off on this one until you’re older” because it’s so good. But you’re ok with her reading about the graphic mutilation and murder, as well as the kids masturbating? (I’m 95% teasing, and 10% curious so feel free to skip this question).
Even the queen. (Not just a Connie Willis story!)
Well, I guess there were more of me. Including the Queen of England!
And pretty much everyone.
Side-by-side pieces in McSweeney’s:
Which is also perfectly fine. Rights holders for deceased authors’ works don’t have to publish “updated” revised editions of the works if they won’t sell well, either.
I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page (heh) regarding what it is that rights holders are and aren’t allowed to do with a dead author’s works, and to quash the mistaken impression that it’s somehow “dishonest” or fraudulent for rights holders to publish “updated” revised editions at all.
I get that rights holders are legally allowed to alter a writers words. I just think it’s the wrong thing to do.
I disagree. I think what would be actually a “wrong thing to do” would be banning original editions of dead authors’ works, or fraudulently misrepresenting a revised edition as an original edition.
But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the basic principle that somebody who owns the legal rights to a publication can issue revised versions of it. If an author doesn’t want to allow that, then they can do the testamentary due diligence required to prevent it.
Well I don’t think we’re going to convince each other. If Im going to read Dahl, I want to read Dahl, not some talentless hack. And even an army of hacks won’t change the fact that I’ll be reading a book wtitten by a virulent antisemite.
And I absolutely support your right to access original editions of Dahl’s works in some form or other from some source or other. I just don’t agree with you that the rights holders to Dahl’s works are under any moral obligation to guarantee that all new editions of Dahl’s works will be identical to the original versions you want.
Augustus Gloop was shamed and called a nincompoop for his alleged greed and gluttony much more than his girth. In real life, people should be accorded basic dignity and respect. This is fostered by teaching and modelling values in real life. Fictional stories often deviate from these principles. It may actually be unwise to build houses out of candy or straw, follow trails of breadcrumbs, take advantage of the hospitality of bears, wear glass slippers or chitter-chat with wolves. But it is not necessary to reduce every story to sanctimonious preaching.
If something is obviously offensive, the publisher should ask the author to remove it, as happened with the original Oompa-Loompas. If this occurs later, I’m not against estates making changes to things which are obviously offensive, but these should be minimized when possible. I don’t feel strongly about Dahl but the changes seem amateurish and of questionable relevance.
Where does it end? Mardi Gras should be renamed to “March Holiday” because it translates to “Fat Tuesday”? Alter expressions to read “the fuel is in the fire” or “Jack Spratt preferred a diet low in triglycerides”? Censure comedians like Fluffy, Jim Gaffigan or John Pinette who make fun of buffets and Hot Pockets? These things are not what fuel intolerance. What values children are taught and how they are modelled by parents in real life are often what fuel intolerance. Be a parent and do not subcontract this job out to books that are generations old.
Trust me, you can call it Fat Tuesday. You can imagine extreme examples to scare yourself and get those hits of
adrenaline all day if you must.