Are you ok with authors rewriting books?

[Anonymous]

In general, I think authors tend to make things worse when they revise books in this way rather than better. Stephen King, for example, has merrily revised some of his early works to make them far worse, see for instance, what he did to The Gunslinger. And I like the Stand but we didn’t really need 300 more pages of it or whatever it was. But if you’ve become a way better writer, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Do you think people would actually notice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think people would actually notice?

NP, but I've seen reviews where readers are ticked off because a book was renamed and the purchased it twice. I think they do notice, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.


Yes I caught that. Was referring to the Ronald Dahl example posited by PP.

[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.

Why?

[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.

Why?

DP. Author's intent. Editors foul things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Very bad idea.

Here's a better one: why not a "new and improved" edition, updating and expanding whatever would make it a better book?

[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.

Why?

Well, do you want to read Roald Dahl or whoever happened to be an intern editor last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Very bad idea.

Here's a better one: why not a "new and improved" edition, updating and expanding whatever would make it a better book?

Not seeing the difference here.

[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.

Why?

Well, do you want to read Roald Dahl or whoever happened to be an intern editor last year?

It depends on if the final result is better. I love RD but that isn’t to say no one can improve on his work, especially as times change. Good editors are worth their weight in gold, even if the author of the book they are editing has died.

[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.

Why?

DP. Author's intent. Editors foul things up.

What specifically was changed that misaligned with Roald Dahl’s intent?

[Anonymous]

Can’t you just call it second edition? With a different publisher & publishing date it can be updated IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why?

Well, do you want to read Roald Dahl or whoever happened to be an intern editor last year?

It depends on if the final result is better. I love RD but that isn’t to say no one can improve on his work, especially as times change. Good editors are worth their weight in gold, even if the author of the book they are editing has died.

If the original author and the original editor are dead, and some new editor comes along and makes changes -- that's called theft, lying, impersonation.

Feel free to write a new book of course. Under your name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think people would actually notice?

NP, but I've seen reviews where readers are ticked off because a book was renamed and the purchased it twice. I think they do notice, yes.

This has got to be extremely rare. Can you share examples?