There’s a perfect example of rewriting run amok: Frankenstein. Most people claim to know the story, but speak only of the mindless monster running amok. They’ve missed the heart of the story, the monster as a gentle, inquisitive, intelligent being and what the fear and loathing of the people around him drove him to. In fact, I’d bet half the people who claim to know the story think it was the monster that was named Frankenstein, not the doctor.
Personally, I’d say leave it intact, and if the kids aren’t old enough to discuss the attitudes in the book and the history behind them, then don’t teach the book yet.
ETA (way to close my other window, self):
But at least the author is around to say, “That’s a shitty translation,” and maybe one day have a new one done.
We were talking about localization (like replacing “color” with “colour” or “jelly doughnut” with “jam doughnut”), not translation, but either way I doubt many authors have the money or influence to arrange for a totally new edition of their book. I’m not sure that would even be allowed under most contracts. Most authors also wouldn’t know bad translation or even bad localization if they saw it, because that would require fluency in a foreign language/different dialect.
I don’t get it.
In the software world, “localization” also includes translation. Just saying.
But does “translation” include “localization”? It would strike me as rather misleading to say that one was “translating” an American book into UK English if most of the text remained totally unchanged with the only alterations being of the color/colour or jelly/jam type.
I think this is part of the disconnect. Why the heck would a simplified book ever be taught? The point is to provide an easy read like it was to its original target audience.
Frankly, I see a lot of people saying that they don’t like simplified versions, so, therefore there should be none. I don’t understand this. Why shouldn’t the people who want to read a simplified version be allowed to do so? They aren’t hurting anyone (except maybe themselves).
Finally, I don’t understand this idea that literature was meant to be studied, and not read for pleasure. Most authors either wrote to be read, with studying as a side benefit, or for both studying and reading. Quite a few were surprised their work was even worth studying. So, if now, doing both with the same text has become laborious, let the readers get a simplified version. The studiers can use the original, as they are the ones that most want textual accuracy. And maybe some in between. It seems to have worked for the most popular work of literature, the Bible.
Because I’m the arbiter of everything, goddammit, and everyone is going to like things the way I like them.
I think a lot of the objections come from the fact that texts that have been edited aren’t always clearly marked as such. If it were easier to tell which texts had been altered and how, people might have fewer objections. Too, what happens when the “modernized” versions become so popular that they stop producing the originals?
I’m fine with it as long as the first books on the list are the complete works of Dan Brown. Then maybe I can enjoy them.
Only fire can make his books enjoyable. Sweet, cleansing fire.
There have been more people saying that only simplified versions should be available–that nobody should ever bother with the old stuff, even in college. We’ve had one contributor opine that living authors ought to update their earlier books and another say that books should be allowed to die when their authors do. In short, some folks want old books “re-written” in a computer sense; the old file should be replaced by the new one.
Sorry, won’t happen. The old works will remain as they are, regardless of our changing language. But old books are translated & abridged all the time. Search Amazon.com for “Chaucer” & this translation into Modern English pops up. Students ought to get a taste of Middle English in school, but anybody who wants to read Chaucer’s Tales more easily can do so.
Anybody who can make it to a library or bookstore or that thing they call the “Internet” can find translations, summaries & annotated editions of older literature. Sources that show the original work next to a translation are especially valuable. You can just read the new stuff or dip your toe into the source.
You’re in luck! A respected and talented editor went through the Da Vinci Code and removed all grammatical problems, continuity errors, plot issues, bad facts, poor writing, and clumsy dialog. I had him email it to me, but for some reason the email was blank. I’ll let you know when it arrives, though.
NOTE TO THE HUMOR-IMPAIRED: Yep. I’m kidding.
Wouldn’t that actually leave you with a series of unchallenging “puzzles”?
As I read this, I’m struck by the amount of elitism I see here. Comments that books should be hard to read.
What’s wrong with good story as entertainment? Must everything be for the improvement of the species?
I’m in favor of updating language & grammar to modern standards for the sake of readability. I’m against changing the story for PC purposes. The stories can completely reflect their times and the author’s intentions using current language if done with care.
Heck, it’s not like the original can’t also be published for the elite’s use.
What’s wrong with putting in a little extra effort to get enjoyment out of something? If marathons were only five miles long, a lot more people would be able to run in them, but I bet you wouldn’t come into a thread where people advocated keeping them at 26.2 miles and accuse them of elitism. Not everything has to be watered down to the lowest common denominator.
ETA:
Also, if people don’t enjoy the books the way they’re written, why read them? Why not just go find something they **do **enjoy reading? My suspicion has to do with cachet.
I know I’m not saying exactly the same thing as Belrix, but let me explain my position:
The people who wrote many of these books decades or centuries ago did not intend them to be inaccessible, hard-to-read, or challenging. They have become so only because of changes in language and society. I don’t see a problem with having a “modern English” version of an old classic as long as the old classic is still available–that way students of history and archaic language can read and enjoy the original, and other people can read a version of it that’s about as difficult to follow as the author intended it to be.
The King James Bible is still very commonly known. Anybody able to cope with that can cope with the Tudor and Jacobean playwrights and poets. What might not come through is contemporary pronunciation. It’s usually pointless bothering about the spelling because Shakespeare even spells his own surname three different ways and even the earliest editions vary slightly. But sometimes it is important. When Donne writes
«
Goe, catche a fallynge starre
Get with childe a mandrake roote
Tell me wheere all past yeeris are
And who cleft the Dyvil’s foote
»
(And proceeds to lambast deceitful courtiers, politicians and women)
‘Yeeris’ can’t be pronounced ‘Years’ or it won’t scan.
Granted that half of Shakespeare’s jokes are knockabout about as funny as a blister and the other half utterly filthy if anybody knows the slang, but he was trying to pack 'em in against the attractions of bear-baiting and the occasional good hanging as well as other theatres, so it didn’t start life as boring as it usually ends up. In fact there’s every chance that we’d find the original ludicrously hammy with inappropriate ad-libs and answering audience heckling and the occasional clown dance thrown in (especially by Will Kemp the clown who got fed up and danced from London to Norwich instead - the original Nine Days’ Wonder because that’s how long it took him). When it is presented with that sort of background instead of all awe and reverence the language rarely proves a problem even if modern standard pronunciation is further from it than Virginian.
Chaucer’s a different matter. I don’t see the point of doing it at school. I did (The Franklin’s Tale) but at higher level in the original. You either do it like that or not at all as far as I can see. It is a different language. Read properly it sounds more like Dutch than English. Knyghtes jousting on a pleyn really is something like K-nikhtes yoosting on a pline and even the cultural background is far removed from Shakespeare’s. What exactly was a Nuns’ Pardoner? For that matter what was a Franklin? It’s important because they are stereotype characters. The moment we hear that the Miller plays the bagpipes we know he’s going to be one for the bawdy and fart tales. For that matter, when it comes to translation, Mark Twain’s phonetics are harder to understand. Even if anybody still talks that way they probably don’t realise they do.
Some literature is just downright odd. I find Jane Austen far more familiar than Charles Dickens. His London is a third world city. Her Bath even has a wonderful Boy Racer boring the women rigid going on about the paint job on his carriage and the horse that “cannot go less than ten miles an hour” (and the heroin’s observation how his friend gets a smoother ride without the need for such elaborate cursing).
Yes, the point has been made in the thread before–but that doesn’t change the fact that no update will work perfectly. Things are going to change–things that the author may have never intended or approved of. And beware of blanket statements–it’s just as inaccurate to say that none of the authors intended for their works to be challenging as it is to say that all of them did.
**All **we can know of an author’s intent is what they produced. As soon as we start making changes, we introduce new factors, ones that may be in line with what the author wanted, but some that probably won’t be. Maybe there are some colors I like better than others–should I insist that museums recolor paintings to use them? I also tend to enjoy modern art more than classical; perhaps I should request that older works be redrawn, painted, or sculpted in more modern styles.
Why is it so terrible a thing to encourage people to broaden their horizons? Something as simple as changing a Harry Potter book to say “parking lot” instead of “car park,” for instance: is there some reason it’s a bad thing for American kids to learn that a term is different in British English? Does it oppress you to have to read:
instead of something like:
?
Oppress? No. Of course not.
But your average person is going to have to do a bunch of research (or read a bunch of footnotes) to understand that. Why should that person be denied the opportunity to read a book that was intended to be readable by the masses?
I do NOT advocate taking the originals off the market. I advocate adding some choice to the market by giving the people with less time and education a chance to enjoy the same literature you do.
Anyone who says “you all” probably sounds just like Uncle Remus to me. I’m not fond of any dialect literature. It’s just too grating. It’s like watching a James Bond movie and everyone starts out speaking with a Russian accent. After the first scene, we get it already, and the accent just gets in the way so they let it soften or disappear.