Books

1 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@metacritics.zone

What are your thoughts about authors revising their older works to make them more modern? (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by Melenduwir@alien.top to c/books@metacritics.zone

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Probably the best example I can think of is Diane Duane reworking her Wizards series to make it modern-day, but there are others, including owners of a literary estate altering books left to them to make them compatible with current standards.

What do you think? Does it matter if it's the original author or an inheritor?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cressian@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The genie def cant go back into the bottle but I like to think all art is an on going conversation. The author cannot be excluded from the conversation just cuz their audience thinks their post creation contributions are dumb. The artist can certainly choose to abstain from the conversation, refuse to participate. Which, is really funny to me because the authors who choose that route are equally shat upon by fanbases for "avoiding accountability" to their dated creations. Thats the entitlement at work tho isnt it--damned if they do, just as damned if they dont.

[–] CerebusGortok@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

A lot of artist choose not to interpret their own works, which I think is valid. They don't confirm or deny what other people get out of it. If they do want to take a stance, I think its just as valid.

A lot of writers say they don't intentionally use symbiology in their books which a lot of people interpret. Even if they don't do it on purpose, though it can be a subconscious thing. A Chekov's Gun for example is foreshadowing even if it wasn't intentional.