this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Books
1 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hate it. Art is not just representative of itself, but is a snapshot of the time, culture and society it was created in. To “modernize” a piece of art is to strip away it’s context, and to diminish it’s value.
Also I don't think the author gets to do that. That story isn't theirs to do as they please, it's been put out there, it belongs to everyone who's read it.
The author can do whatever they want. They are the artist. We can try to reject it, but to say it's not theirs is absurd.
But it's not though. As I said in another comment, it's like when movie directors keep releasing director's cuts and ruining their own movie, or when comicbook artists retcon stories from way before with new coloring that looks like ass because "new audiences wouldn't like the old stuff".
For an author to try and grab the stuff they published, which is now out there and which people have read, and to try and rework that and change the whole of the prose, it's a shitty cash grab that more often than not takes the old stuff from circulation.
It's like when George Lucas did the whole special effects things in the original Star Wars trilogy and took the original versions from circulation, as if he was the sole arbiter of all things Star Wars and not like his work of art had entered pop culture - and, therefore, isn't just his to keep tinkering.
An author's work is very different from a filmmaker's role. An author usually works alone - the creation belongs to them entirely. An author also usually holds sole copyright and can do as they wish.