Are you ok with authors rewriting books?

[Anonymous]

A bit of market research here!

I'm a published author who recently reacquired the rights to some of my older books (publisher went out of business). I'm thinking of cleaning them up and self-publishing them, but I'm concerned readers might see that as an admission that the quality wasn't there the first time. I don't think that's the case - they're 20+ years old, so it's more a style thing - but what do you think?

[Anonymous]

Don't think I would notice or care if it's a good book.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

I've noticed three pretty big names change things between editions and it doesn't bother me at all. The average reader wouldn't even notice, but I did because had read the books multiple times. It was interesting and made me really pay attention when reading!

[Anonymous]

I think it can be a useful thing, particularly if you find that you've put in anachronistic things, or used language, like slang, that hasn't held up well and does not serve an otherwise useful purpose. Anything that significantly detracts from an otherwise good story is worth rewriting. You don't have to think of it as "bad" the first time, rather no longer helpful to the story.

[Anonymous]

I don’t mind! I think it usually just means the attire has improved or wants to revert changes their editor originally inflicted on them or they feel some of the original content was dated and want to tidy it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind! I think it usually just means the attire has improved or wants to revert changes their editor originally inflicted on them or they feel some of the original content was dated and want to tidy it up.

"Inflicted" is definitely the right word when it came to a few of the editors!

Thanks, DCUM. I'll keep going with the tidying.

[Anonymous]

I didn't know authors did this. I do know that I have no interest in updated versions of books. I would prefer to read them in the original form, example the recent Roald Dahl controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know authors did this. I do know that I have no interest in updated versions of books. I would prefer to read them in the original form, example the recent Roald Dahl controversy.

The original will still be available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know authors did this. I do know that I have no interest in updated versions of books. I would prefer to read them in the original form, example the recent Roald Dahl controversy.

The original will still be available.

In my case, the publisher has given up their rights, so the originals won't be available.

[Anonymous]

What kind of book? That makes a difference to me.

If you're writing nonfiction, it's very common. If you're rewriting fiction that's odder.

[Anonymous]

So few people are going to read a self published version of a 20-year-old, no-longer-published book. Your time is better spent writing something new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know authors did this. I do know that I have no interest in updated versions of books. I would prefer to read them in the original form, example the recent Roald Dahl controversy.

I have an example. In the original print version, the main character dresses up like a stereotypical Chinese person.

The ebook now says the character wore a disguise.

The kind of disguise has zero impact on the story. Does it bother you that the author removed the description?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know authors did this. I do know that I have no interest in updated versions of books. I would prefer to read them in the original form, example the recent Roald Dahl controversy.

I have an example. In the original print version, the main character dresses up like a stereotypical Chinese person.

The ebook now says the character wore a disguise.

The kind of disguise has zero impact on the story. Does it bother you that the author removed the description?

NP here: yes. It’s Orwellian. it’s one thing if an author makes changes themselves, but having this done to their work after they have died is an abomination. Anyone who cares about literature should agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So few people are going to read a self published version of a 20-year-old, no-longer-published book. Your time is better spent writing something new.

No, backlists are a thing. Pay the bills, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know authors did this. I do know that I have no interest in updated versions of books. I would prefer to read them in the original form, example the recent Roald Dahl controversy.

I have an example. In the original print version, the main character dresses up like a stereotypical Chinese person.

The ebook now says the character wore a disguise.

The kind of disguise has zero impact on the story. Does it bother you that the author removed the description?

NP here: yes. It’s Orwellian. it’s one thing if an author makes changes themselves, but having this done to their work after they have died is an abomination. Anyone who cares about literature should agree.

Sounds like OP is still alive.