the ask@AAR: Should older romances (and books in general) be redone?
I have followed with fascination the uproar around the revised versions of Roald Dahl’s books. NPR has a great summary of what has happened. They write:
Instead of being called “small men,” Oompa-Loompas are now “small people,” the article says.
I confess that I, overall, am NOT a fan of rewriting earlier works to reflect modern standards. That said, the whole fracas got me thinking about whether or not there are phrases in romance that I’d rewrite. One thing that–perhaps–makes sense is adding footnotes that explicate a foreign or–OK–offensive phrase.
For example, I’m currently reading Kelley Armstrong’s Bitten. Early on, a character suggests that the heroine, Elena, use 411 and she protests that she doesn’t want to incur the charge. I was very sleepy when I read this and it took me a moment to remember what they were talking about and my bet is many who read this book will have no idea! A footnote–e-books would make this easy–might help a younger reader make sense of this now archaic concept. I’ve just read an upcoming women’s fiction novel in which the author references Sherry Thomas, The Napping House, and Cersei, just to name a few. I can envision someone from another time or culture having no idea what these references mean. Footnotes might be just the thing.
What do you think? Should older books be rewritten to reflect our values? Our culture?
I’m not a huge fan of Bill Maher, but he sometimes makes a good point. I think this is relevant to this conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aobui3r2-6w
No. Just no to any and all censoring of books. What a slippery slope.
I’m in favor of keeping the originals unchanged and uncensored. These books reflect a cultural moment, and that raises fascinating questions. For example, take Kathleen Woodiwiss and Barbara Cartland, who were the first romance authors I ever encountered. Reading their books made me wonder why virginity was such a big deal, and my curiosity about this eventually led me to an awareness of feminism. No, I would not read either author now and stopped reading them relatively quickly, but they opened a path for me to reading about sex and thinking about what many women accepted as “romance” at the time. My tastes have changed, but my fascination with the role of the romance novel in our society and what it reflects about how our culture sees women and how women see themselves remains just strong as it was over forty years ago when I started reading romance.
This is true for me. Art is a touchstone and a portal into our personal pasts. To experience something that shaped you when you were young is to often recall being so.
And it is often generational. Dr. Feelgood and I just tried, after a 75 year old friend said it was amazing, Peter Fonda’s Easy Rider. It was so dull, to us, we turned it off after 30 minutes. But the counter culture it espoused was revolutionary to those born in the 40s–I was born in the 60s and the world I was born into had already shifted to many of the mores that were so rad when the film was made in 1969. The film is NOT for me but I’m happy that many, for whom it was a touchstone, can still see it.
In defense of terrible, sexist, heroes who are rapists and the women who love them:
If I were to reread Kathrine Woodiweiss, today, I would put iany book by her and others down in about two pages. However, she set the template for the modern romance: she introduced sex. When “The Flame and the Flower” came out, I–and tens of millions of mostly women–couldn’t put it down. Woodiweiss read the zeitgeist of sexual freedom (the pill!), but at the same time, the need for “good girls” to remain virgins until they married.
Answer? Brandon who mistakes Heather for a prostitute has sex with her, as she ineffectively (she’s innocent, see, and doesn’t quite know what is going on) tries to fight him off. (“The Flame and the Flower,” the first modern romance)
Seeing the sales, publishers imitated what worked, and we have at least ten years until books changed. Almost ten years of abusive heroes who misread the innocent heroines who were identically unaware, tongue-tied and spineless, And virgins, until. . .
I remember reading a romance about 1982, and thinking, “Why, oh why, can’t we have decent men in romances? And why, oh, why can’t we have access to the hero’s thoughts?” and lots of other questions.
But such a dynamic kept the readers engrossed, as it supplied plenty of suspense. Nausea, yes, but sales, too.
A related question is whether it’s ok to publish abridged versions of classics? When growing up, someone gave my kids a paperback collection of abridged classics like the Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo. My son read an abridged version of Les Miserables in high school. They’ve read graphic novel versions of classics, and cartoon versions or child versions of the Bible. I am embarrassed to admit that at the time I never questioned this. I did not wonder about who was doing the abridging and whether there was any underlying agenda behind it, other than to make the work accessible to kids. Now I am wondering if in some/all of those cases, there was? How do people feel about abridged versions for kids? Has everything become so politicized that it is no longer possible to do an apolitical abridgement?
I think it depends on why it’s abridged and how it’s done. Those are fantastic stories, but having read both (and I’d probably include a lot of Dickens’ books in this, too) there’s a LOT of description and detail that would probably bore young readers who are likely to be far more interested in the swash and buckle – in the Dumas, at least – than in the descriptions of what people are wearing. I love Dickens, but blimey, he does go on at times, so again, I could see an argument for cutting down on some of the over-descriptiveness. I’d feel less comfortable about the complete removal of the political aspects of his books – A Christmas Carol is currently a GCSE English text which means students (14-16) are expected to understand and discuss those themes in their exam answers – but depending on the age group the abridgments are for, there are ways of setting out the issues he was discussing in a way that kids can understand.
I’d be in favour of abridgement if it makes the books and language easier to understand for a younger age group, but not in favour of removing the social and political context of the stories.
My kids read tons of abridgements when they were little(r). They were clearly marked as such. Many many best sellers have adapted kids’ versions today.
Becoming by Michelle Obama
Born a Crime by Trevor Noah
Easy Classics by Dickens
My feeling is that adapted/abridged books are a great way to introduce an author!
As I’m reading through this very interesting discussion, it seems that there are really three separate topics being addressed:
1. Should older books (written by authors who are no longer living) be revised to change terms & attitudes that were perfectly acceptable at the time the book was published but are not so today?
2. Should living authors who choose to revise their previously published work feel an obligation to inform readers of what they have revised and why?
3. When books are revised (regardless of if the author is living or dead, and regardless of the reasons for the revisions), should the original publication still be available for comparison? This one is especially important in the ebook era when books on reading device can be updated without the readers’ knowledge or approval.
1. Should older books (written by authors who are no longer living) be revised to change terms & attitudes that were perfectly acceptable at the time the book was published but are not so today?
Mostly no.
2. Should living authors who choose to revise their previously published work feel an obligation to inform readers of what they have revised and why?
Mostly yes.
3. When books are revised (regardless of if the author is living or dead, and regardless of the reasons for the revisions), should the original publication still be available for comparison? This one is especially important in the ebook era when books on reading device can be updated without the readers’ knowledge or approval.
Absolutely yes.
(These are just MY opinions. YMMV and that’s a good thing!)
If someone wants me to even consider picking up a 70/80/90s bodice ripper packed with dubious consent it needs to be re-edited.
But as you already know that you would find that subject matter offensive, you can – and probably have – made the decision not to read it and to choose something else instead. I don’t think I’d want to read it either, but as someone said in another discussion here recently, a lot of them are still pretty popular as are their more modern counterparts of mafia, MC and dark romances etc. But at least you are in the position to make that decision and not have it made for you by a publisher or rights-owner (I’m talking specifically about non-authorial revisions here).
If the books ARE re-edited, then IMO, that needs to be very clearly stated and perhaps even an indication of what has been changed should be included.
I’m just not comfortable with erasing things because I don’t happen to like them, especially when I can make the decision to read something else instead.
“and probably have” no probably about it. :D
I just think re-edited edition of something in an attempt expand your customer base is a valid commercial decision. I wouldn’t eliminate the original works though, as there are those who aren’t as hothouse flower like as I.
Yeah–I get the different commercial variations but I do feel like the downside of that is a continued splintering of our culture.
And see I don’t want to see those books edited. They were what I cut my romance teeth on and I like to marvel at how far we’ve come.
I’ve read the discussion so far and I’m generally in agreement with the majority – that books shouldn’t be “sanitised” because they happen to contain words or concepts that may now be unacceptable or offensive. I think it’s important to talk about why we no longer use certain terms or why those concepts are no longer acceptable, and we can’t do that, we can’t educate ourselves and others and learn to do better without the context or the problematic. Having a foreward or footnotes in the original seems like the way to go. I’m an adult, and I object to being told what I can or can’t read or watch; as a parent, I object to someone else telling me what my child could read or watch – that’s my job, as a parent, to decide, and this continual “Disneyfication” of everything so that it’s all sweetness and light with nothing challenging really worries me. Getting kids to read AT ALL is challenge enough; if all they end up with is books about fluffy bunnies hopping merrily along to the carrot patch, I’m not sure I’d blame them for not wanting to read a book!
I think Maggie and Jenna have both made excellent points – in particualr, Jenna’s about it being impossible to create individual comfort zones for everybody, and Maggie’s about the decisions made by some authors to (in essence) re-write history as they want it to have been and not write it as it actually was. Not only is that dangerous, it also risks trivialising the very real struggles of women, of people of colour, of other underprileged and persecuted groups, so that in fifty years time, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will start thinking “well, that wasn’t so bad – I wonder why they made such a fuss?”
On the subject of Dahl particularly, I note that Puffin (the publisher) has announced that they will continue to have the original versions available alongside the Bowdlerised ones – which definitely seems like a money-grab to me.
Also, what is acceptable/offensive seems to be changing every five minutes these days, so by the time revisions are made, chances are they’ll be out of date anyway!
People’s thoughtful (and thought-inducing). beautifully written arguments refute–once again– that romances are read only by idiots.
Obviously anyone who thinks that needs to be revised…..
I’m surprised the word “bowdlerize” hasn’t come up already. When I checked, the first definition mentioned vulgarity, but the second definition didn’t include that as a requirement.
My own preferences include:
If the author is still living, the only changes should be by the author AND clearly labeled as a revised edition.
If the author is dead, add front notes and footnotes for anything being addressed.
For ebook or web or other electronic publications, do a form of hypertext with a control that determines what the reader will see:
Default: the original text.
Bowdlerized: text altered based on whatever the editor(s) didn’t like.
Annotated: the original text with footnotes.
Contextualized: the original text with hotspots you can tap for notes.
I read a lot about Bowdlerizing when I was thinking about this column. It’s usually referenced as a bad kind of censorship but the goals were the same as many have today.
If a writer wants to revise older work, I might not like it, but I don’t think it is wrong. Customers are free to seek out the older version if they choose. That said, I do find it problematic that a stealth change can be slipped into an ebook without my knowledge or permission, and I do object to both the stealth changes and the digital rights rules that do not give me ownership of an ebook in the form I purchased it.
If a writer refuses to revise former work, that is their right. Customers are free to buy or not buy.
Posthumous changes, such as those to Roald Dahl’s books, are absolutely unacceptable to me. Customers don’t have to buy Dahl books if they don’t like the language. Readers — adults and children— can discuss why they like or don’t like any aspect of the story.
Do not mess with what the writer has written. This is a long-standing principle of mine, and dates to the time that I found out the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance included the inserted words “under god,” which the author of the pledge never included.
Note: Revisions are more complicated when the work is a textbook or factual work used as a textbook or reference. Subsequent editions may be revised, annotated, or footnoted. Scholarly editions do exist of Jane Austen’s work, for instance, with a wealth of information for the reader who wants it.
When I write, I think about my words. Sometimes they are hasty and ill-chosen. Mostly they are carefully reviewed. Unless I am writing for hire and you are my editor or own my copy, do not change my words. Was Dahl writing for hire and does Penguin own his words, as if he was a freelancer? I think not. Once an author and publisher agree on a work of fiction and publish it, any revision must be subject to the author’s approval.
I refuse to say “Under God” to this day. In elementary school, I wouldn’t even mouth the words. I was once sent to the principal’s office but I refused to budge!
I can understand (though I don’t approve of) why publishers rework books (they want legacy titles they can sell to modern audiences, specifically families who can pass works down the line to younger relatives as values have changed). As for back catalog romances, I’m fine with leaving them as they are. If it has subject matter I don’t enjoy, I’ll just give it a wide berth.
I am actually all for kids versions of things. My children had kids versions of lots of the classics. They’d never have loved The Count of Monte Christo had I read it them, but they loved the abbreviate, adventure version!
But for adults, I’m a lot less sanguine about culturally driven updates.
Yeah, I’m specifically thinking of the Dahl stuff, Dr. Seuss, etc.
Adults are adults and can decide what they want to spend time on/money on
My brother once summed up the current situation very well. He said that these days, everyone wants the world to be arranged such that they don’t have to face things that they find upsetting or offensive. They want others to adapt to their specific needs for what makes a happy, comfortable environment for them to live in. The problem is, in the US, there are over 300 million people, and it’s just not possible for us to create over 300 million unique worlds so that everyone is comfortable.
That said, while I think it is incumbent upon all of us to do our best to try to be very respectful of others and to avoid being offensive at all times, when it comes to re-writing the work of authors of other times, I’m firmly against it. Stories out of the past reflect the world as it was at that time, and to rewrite that by erasing things that contemporary society finds offensive (ie: changing “fat” to “enormous”) is simply trying to bury things we don’t like. Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. In the case of Dahl’s works, isn’t it better to keep those “offensive” things and then use them as a springboard for conversations with our children about how we don’t accept those things any longer?
I guess it is reasonable that if a current author wants to change his/her work, that is fully in their right to do so. But I just don’t see how it’s possible in this day and age to create any work that will not offend someone at some point.
My reaction to changing “fat” to “enormous“ was, what will the publisher do when “enormous” becomes as stigmatized as “fat” because language taboos don’t just disappear. For example, look at the constant struggle with words regarding intelligence, such as idiot, moron, and retard[ed].
Also, on the size scale, “enormous” seems to imply something monstrously larger than “fat” in my mind. I don’t know if others feel that way, but to me, there are plenty of people who might be described as fat who are not enormous. Maybe it would be better to use the more clinical “overweight,” but I don’t see “overweight” as being a word in Roald Dahl’s working vocabulary.
That’s an excellent point. And it also makes me ask myself exactly who these changes are FOR, because I’m not sure it’s actually for the children who read Dahl’s books.
I’m a teacher so I hear kids calling each othernames every day, and they are certainly still using all the words you mention and plenty of others
I’m fat/overweight/insert preferred term here – but I would certainly not describe myself as enormous! And nor will kids stop, using those terms – certainly not when they’re probably all over places like TikTok.
I don’t think anyone SHOULD rewrite a book, but I do think it is perfectly fine for the original author to choose to rewrite their own book, whether because their values have changed, they feel they could do a better job now, or they see their sales tanking and want to give them a boost to appeal to a modern audience. A “New and Improved” notice should be placed on the cover with another note inside the front cover explaining the nature of the edits and the motivation for them.
In the case of a deceased author, I believe the heirs or other rights holder (in Dahl’s case, it is Netflix) should be much more circumspect about any changes. They did not create the characters or develop the story, so if they make alterations, it is no longer a book by the author, but a book by, for example, “Roald Dahl and a team of folks from Netflix.” This should be fully acknowledged on the cover and further explained in a note inside the front cover. The original books should also be published, at least as ebooks, for those who want that version. If more consumers support the original version, then companies might get the message that the sanitized version is unnecessary and unwanted.
If I were an author, I would stipulate in my will what could and could not be done with my works. Do not leave it up to Netflix!
I am vehemently opposed to school districts or governments banning or censoring books.
Authors revise, expand, and rewrite parts books all the time, for MANY reasons and people don’t usually gripe about it. Just look at all the “originally published, now expanded” quotes you see on books on GR. We’re singling out just a few things we don’t want to see rewritten.
Rewriting books has been going on for centuries. Most parents wouldn’t really want their very young kids to read The Brother’s Grimm with the original violent scenes at a young age, so we have the sanitized versions. There’s an article in the NYT today about this.
My feelings? If an author or right’s holder decides to rewrite portions of their books, they have the right to do so and I’m fine with it. It might disappoint us at times, but them we just don’t need to buy the book and move on. there’s plenty to read out there. Someone revising their 1970’s bodice ripper really isn’t something to get upset about. Author’s very well may want to freshen up a story to make it more readable and approachable today in order to increase sales, More power to them.
I’m much, much, much more worried about what states are doing to kill diversity in schools and ban books they don’t like.
This is the top of the slope that leads to states “killing diversity” and “banning books they don’t like.” At the heart of the issue is the same idea – who gets to decide acceptable ideals. And protecting the children is where it normally begins – whether you stand on the side of keeping violent content out of reach of children ( the Looney Toons debates) or you decide CRT is radical and dangerous and ban that from schools. Both come from a place of wanting control over ideas.
It’s really not the same thing, especially when authors choose to change their own work. I don’t think an author of a bodice ripper wanting to remove rapey scenes leads to book banning in Florida. That’s a big leap.
I’m actually don’t think it’s a great idea for Dahl’s books to be changed. My perspective is they can simply be allowed to fade from fashion. Out-of-date books can and should be allowed to fade away. I don’t think anything ever should be rewritten. My main objection is that the this author iss dead and this is just a way for Netflix or whoever to make more money off the books. It’s not sinister, it’s capitalism, basically.
It is capitalism, but it is something more, too. The Dahl books, for example, aren’t being updated to include things like cell phones to make them relevant for today’s readers, but language changes based on public reactions to said language are what is occurring. Folks don’t want their kids reading books that call someone fat, and they want the more inclusive term people used, even though for centuries, men/man was often used to refer to people. The same thing with the so-called rapey scenes in romance novels. Again, look at what is being changed. It is something that a group of people has decided – and loudly proclaimed on every venue available – is problematic. They aren’t updating to make the book more relevant but to make it more palatable to the PC market. These scenes were often central to the story, and much of what the book conveyed will be lost once they are gone. (Lots of studies explained why rape fantasy was popular with and relevant to women; my favorite is Helen Hazen’s Endless Rapture. )
The link with CRT is obvious. Like the parents who don’t appreciate the word fat being used, many opponents to CRT don’t approve of language that paints the founding fathers as racists. Just like people don’t like rape being turned into a fantasy by women for women, other people don’t like a view of history that lists only America’s failures to live up to its ideals rather than a history that celebrates those ideals and glosses over the failures. I am of the opinion that painful history is still history, and CRT should be taught, but I know plenty who call it indoctrination.
We lose something when we pretend the world that is has always been. i just think we need to look long and hard at what those losses might be before making choices we would regret. And I say that as a supporter of CRT and PC language. I am just not sure erasing the past is the best way to pave a better road for the future.
One thing I find fascinating is the difference between top down linguistic changes–Latinx is a great example of that–and language that the changes bubble up from actual usage–the word guys is a good example of that.
Lots of the changes that are happening in the Dahl books are the former and thus likely to run into more criticism.
Latinx is an excellent example of a few making a decision for the many
I do think that is a reasonable response in that there are so many books.
There is this sense that we are what we buy–kinda icky IMHO–and that we must then make sure what we consume reflects who we are. (People are routinely like that about what one reads as well.) There are hundreds of thousands of inoffensive (to just about everyone) romances out there. Why not buy those? Why demand that all books reflect certain values?
Are people actually demanding it? Or are authors or rights holders changing things to make more money? I know people will make a stink about things they don’t like in a book, but most of the changes are like the Dahl situation. It’s about making the book(s) more commercially viable. In the end, the right’s holders have control, so they’ll do what they think best with the books they own the rights to.
It’s commercial viability driven by fear, I think. Publishers have seen books/authors ripped to shreds on social media for things that are deemed unacceptable and fear it happening to them and hurting sales.
There are some authors of older “bodice ripper” style romances who have reprinted their backlist once they got the rights back — but some have chosen to edit out some of the objectionable content. That’s their right as authors, but then, fans who like the old book are disappointed when they get the newer copy. (There’s a Goodreads group where fans accuse authors of “neutering” their backlist when they do that.)
For the writers, it’s a tightrope walk. Do you reprint the older book and put a disclaimer at the beginning — and then worry about one-star reviews from readers who aren’t expecting over-the-top “bodice rippy” content? Or do you make a few changes and then get accused of “neutering” your backlist? And even if you make some changes, fans of modern romances will probably still find something to dislike in older books — long separations, heroines being kidnapped by sultans, etc.
It’s no wonder some authors would rather not reprint their older books. (In some cases, they might also be embarrassed by them. :) )
My sense is that our Overton window for what is acceptable in books changes so rapidly currently.
There’s a good article in The Atlantic this month that says that the point of rewriting is almost always to address an injustice but that our responses to it become stronger and stronger the longer we don’t succeed in righting said injustice.
Is rewriting the words of the past going to make us less racist, violent, or sexist? Unlikely–studies show it also does the opposite–but you can see where the utopian impulse comes from.
If a writer who is still living elects to go back and edit some of their earlier work, I’m fine with that: it’s their work, and they can change it if they feel it no longer reflects what they want to say. However, if the writer is already dead, I think a better approach to problematic words, phrases, or passages might be a note at the beginning of the book indicating that the work reflects attitudes from an earlier time and that there might be things that would be unacceptable if the book were written today. I have an edition of the complete ANNE OF GREEN GABLES books that has that very thing at the beginning of the volume. I think a broader approach might be to begin all new editions of older work with a disclaimer along the lines of, “Times sure have changed…and things you find this book will show you how much!” Lol
If an author changes a book, I want to know. It is their choice AND I think readers should know what version they’re getting.
I don’t agree… a funny thing about reading old books is that they are testimonies of the time, it’s nice to read and see how everything was in romance, especially even though there are things that we don’t like now, it’s interesting to see what they loved in those times and which was considered a HEA for a woman as well as the hero ideal.
For the rest it is even dangerous to start the trend of eliminating a few offensive things nowadays because once this is done they can do more and more… who tells us that in 10 years from now something normal today in a comedy will not be socially offensive? romantic? Or that in 50 years our books today will not be culturally offensive? I would say that nothing assures us of that.
Also, the idea of ”let’s pretend that at that time the author was not racist/classist/etc. by removing some things from his books” bothers me. I think that even the defects of people and times are things that we must remember and the new generations must know . Footnotes are a great idea, I could even accept some modification if a note “before it said this but it was changed for x reason” is added.
As someone who grew up in an era where most in high school read Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, and 1984, I err strongly on the side of freedom of speech. That said, many books have been updated over the years–look at all the editions there are of Hamlet! So for me, the idea of using edits/footnotes to clarify or contextualize can make sense as long readers have the knowledge of what the earlier text said, what the changes are and why they were made.
It’s technically not a freedom of speech issue to rework older books since it private companies/individuals and not the federal government imposing restrictions. We need to be careful how we use those words. When our government starts doing it, like states banning books in libraries, that’s a freedom of speech issue, and I’m strongly against it.
The two arenas work in tandem. There’s an interesting Op-Ed in the NYT today that says this:
“First, the law of free speech is only getting more robust. Americans have more concrete rights to speak free of government censorship than they have at any prior period in American history. At the same time, however, according to a survey from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, a strong majority of Americans self-censor. They’re afraid to exercise their rights.
Critically, much of this fear isn’t rooted in concern about the government but rather about employers and peers.
Americans have read story after story (from across the political spectrum) of activists, corporations and colleges targeting individuals for speech that is squarely within the mainstream of either progressive or conservative thought. In other words, dissent — even thoughtful dissent — has become dangerous, in both right- and left-leaning America. Private organizations are acting punitively when the government cannot. This is the essence of cancel culture, the widespread use of private power to punish allegedly offensive speech.”
If you worry you’ll lose your job or have a video of you talking with your mom go viral, you’ll curtail your speech. Many jobs in both the private and public sector have the right to fire employees for speech violations outside of work.
Yes, I see that, but then we need to address those issues, not what I see as an non-issue, that rights holders are changing the material they own. That is their right.
To me, simply because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s an inherently good or ethical choice.
I love that phrase–“testimonies of the time.” Perfect.
I can’t remember the last book I read that had a smoker in it, and I read a lot of WWII novels that should have plenty of them. This is an example of us editing out actually history to make things more palatable to the masses. And I say that as an asthmatic who is strongly opposed to smoking in public places.
I’ve never read a historical romance where the heroine or hero hit their children, even though corporal punishment was acceptable and considered necessary back in the day. Still, I can’t say that this disappoints me.
Lynda X speaks of it more eloquently below, but put simply, the exclusion means what we are reading isn’t actually “historical”. It shows the world as we wish it had been, not as it was. There has been a long hard fight to get people to stop smoking, a battle that certain parts of the country are still waging. I would appreciate the look at how things were because I am old enough to remember not being able to see a movie because of the smoke from cigarettes. I understand that the world was not always as it is and that it will change again in ways that will surprise me. The important takeaway from including these reminders of what was is to tell people that it can indeed happen again.
You only need to spend a few minutes on Twitter to realize that the attitudes espoused in a Christie novel are alive and well. We may have updated the language used, but the underlying beliefs remain the same. When we refuse to make the knowledge of these things part of our everyday lives, we lose the wisdom that comes from growth. More, we lose the tolerance that comes from realizing that not everybody thinks the way we do, and we need to persuade them our way is right. Shouting them down doesn’t work. It causes reprisals. Reprisals we are probably not ready to deal with. Just my .02 of course, but I think there should be room on our shelves for both kinds of books.- light novels that sanitize the past and works that speak to what actually was.
My take on it is that as a PoC, I don’t need to be exposed to casual racism in novels (or on Twitter) to know that racism is part of our daily lives. I was once told by an immigration agent that I needed to bleach my face to pass my interview to get into Canada. After that, I feel as though I could do without offhand, unquestioned racism in books.
Again, though, I want to differentiate between nuanced, thoughtful discussions and explorations of racism (which I think are necessary) and the sort of throwaway comment or word I referenced in the Christie book, which I personally did not find necessary at all. I also agree that there’s room on our shelves for both kinds of books, just as there’s room for both kinds of opinions here.
As a Hispanic who has experienced plenty of real-life racism, I am more disturbed when I read a book written in/about the past and find no reference to it. It feels like the perpetrators are being absolved of their guilt, and the struggles surrounding race then become a thing of my imagination. I can still remember the old woman interviewed on TV who claimed this country didn’t have racial issues till Obama brought them up. She lived in a bubble that sanitized her behavior, a beatific world where her actions had never hurt others. I don’t want to read about that world.
One of the books in Jo Beverley’s Regency series about the Company of Rogues has a discussion about students being beaten in school. Several of the books allude to the instructors beating pupils. A number of Regencies include references to flogging as part of the British army’s discipline. In Beverley’s first Malloren book, My Lady Notorious, the heroine is subject to some vicious corporal punishment from her father and his henchman, and in one scene her brother witnesses and it affects his opinion of her behavior.
There are also a lot of Regencies where canings or switchings by fathers, uncles, guardians, or tutors are mentioned. Often this is background for an explanation of problematic relationships or certain behaviors. It is often pretty clear the author disapproves of the behavior. Several aspects of bullying, rape, and corporal punishment are key to the plot and relationships in Ethan, by Grace Burrowes.
So yes, I would say readers are getting an expurgated view of history because what were common forms of discipline by both “good” and “bad” people are limited mostly to “bad” characters. I think we need to be realistic and say that historical fiction is always shaped by the author’s worldview, and possibly more distorted by that worldview than contemporary romances are.
I read Enid Blyton books as a kid, and when I decided to start a collection of those as an adult, I quickly realized I had to buy the books published before a certain date. Otherwise there’d be changes like Dame Slap changed to Dame Snap. Most of the time, I like it when books set, what, seventy years ago reflect a different time and different practices.
That said, much as I like Agatha Christie’s mysteries, I was rereading Death in the Clouds a few days ago and there’s a subplot where a young man and woman go on a date and find they have shared tastes.
This is not only cringeworthy but so unnecessary. It doesn’t shine a spotlight on prejudice or have any significance characterization-wise. It’s got nothing to do with the plot either. So I don’t think the book would lose a great deal if this was gone.
Really? To me, that word is so powerful there. It lets you know, these are a kind of people you will struggle to care for.
The problem is, I don’t think Christie thought her readers would “struggle to care for” those characters when she wrote those words. In her worldview, it was a given that “decent” people would dislike loud people, noisy restaurants, and…other elements. I love Christie for her plotting and her incredible sleights-of-hand (in fact, DEATH IN THE CLOUDS, the book from which the above passage was taken, is a perfect example of how well Christie could leave a pivotal obvious clue in plain sight but include it so smoothly that most readers won’t even see it), but there’s no doubt her books are full of casual racist, colonialist, and anti-Semitic attitudes. I wouldn’t change a word of what she wrote, but I’d definitely put a disclaimer in the front of each new edition regarding language and attitudes.
Again, disclaimers and footnotes feel like a better solution than rewriting.
Today, one of my favorite Kristan Higgins’ books, The Best Man, is on sale. It has a cross dressing character whose portrayal today is cringeworthy. Higgins’ more recent books are as inclusive as you can get. So I’m comfortable with reading the earlier work as is because I know that the author wouldn’t write them today but, when she did, those attitudes were the norm.
And if Higgins wants to redo her books, she has that right. But I’d rather see a note at the end that says, “I wrote this when I didn’t really understand what it meant to be trans and I apologize if my uninformed perspective is offensive. In my more recent books, I hope I’ve done a better job of making all feel equal and valued.“
Yet what a great opportunity to rewrite parts of the book to be more inclusive instead of having a “cross dressing” (that language is also out-of-date) character who makes encourages stereotypes. And if it’s just going to be a note, it needs to be at the FRONT of the book, not the back.
But Higgins wrote this and it was her writing at the time. Her new books are super trans friendly.
I think you and I will never see eye to eye on this, Carrie. I don’t believe that changing books, films, art, etc…. is an effective way to combat injustice. I understand the impulse–it comes from wanting to make our current world a better place. I share that impulse but we don’t agree on the best pathways to do so.
I think it’s difficult for me to know what it’s like, or what is helpful since I’m not a PoC. I think if they say coming across casual racism in books, after dealing with it all day, after dealing with overt racism in almost every area of their lives, is unnecessarily upsetting, then I think I’ll chose to believe them. It’s not a little thing.
Thank you, Carrie.
I think at some point the educational value of showing readers that racism existed in the past is outweighed by the offensiveness/hurtfulness of the racism in an older book (for me, especially when that racism is presented as something good people practice).
I admit that if it is the author who wants to modify his books because he believes that he can improve the story, now that is fine, equally if the author decides that a certain story should be rewritten but there are stories that simply do not work by rewriting them. It’s modifying a dead author’s books to sound nicer that I have trouble with especially since once he’s dead you can’t tell if the author changed his mind or not, once they’re gone I prefer their books to stay as they are. testimonials from other times.
For example, an old story where a freeloader redeems himself after threatening the heroine with taking away her virtue or something like that today would be frowned upon. That hero threatened to rape her, he is not fit for love! but maybe the story wouldn’t be as powerful without that kind of change in him if we make him more likeable from the beginning…I mean already change something a bit like “removing virtue” by the threat of “stealing a kiss” gives a different perception of the character.
Not sure I agree that such a rider should ever be tagged to a revised version. It is enough to issue a new edition saying “new and revised version” without the author going on a guilt trip. Frankly, that would put me off completely as it’s as cringeworthy as whatever the author (or their editors/publishers) felt must be amended in the original version. Who really knows if it’s a genuine statement or added at the behest of editors enforcing their worldview on their writers. Sorry, but much of what is going on in this current situation smacks of groupthink, mind control and overwhelming condescension. I will read what I want to, not what I am told is “right and proper” or conforms to what is seemingly enforced by whomever shouts the loudest about whatever they believe is correct. I do not need a reading nanny.
That’s a call I’d totally leave up to the author.
I didn’t want to include spoilers, but one of those characters is not only innocent of murder, but is portrayed as a good person who deserves a romance and a happy ending (and who will eventually get them).
So to me, Christie was not using the word, or the racism, to show anything illuminating about the characters.
I understand that. But the writing tells us so much about that time–I tend to err on the side of those who forget the past are way more likely to repeat it. We can read Christie’s work and see her biases. We can read her and think about what kind of world made her, with her prejudices, the best selling author in the world.
Personally, I would prefer not to read books where the prejudices of the time are presented in an approving way. Or even where there’s some exploration of these prejudices, rather than a casual throwaway comment.
It would also be pleasant, when reading an Agatha Christie book, to focus on the brilliant mystery rather than being distracted by racist and anti-Semitism. Just my take on it.
That’s totally fair. But then why do you need to read Christie? There are so many other brilliant mysteries. Why not just say she’s not for you? Read Walter Mosley or P. D. James or even more current writers whose values reflect your own?
I’m genuinely curious here–I completely support your position and would love to know more about why you have it!
I like that period in history, and I enjoy Christie’s plots. Plus, I grew up in Sri Lanka where a lot of people read older British authors like Christie, which was how I was introduced to her books when I was eleven or twelve, so there’s a big nostalgia factor that I would not get from reading other authors.
I don’t feel that Christie is not for me. I feel that part of Christie’s work clicks perfectly with me, but another, smaller part turns me off completely.
But do we really want to live in a world where you read the version that works for you and I read the version that works for me and Maggie reads the version that works for her? Doesn’t that just silo us?
If not that, how do we pick the version that is the right one? Who makes that call?
I do not have answers to any of this.
But I do think we should pay close attention to whom is changing books and why they are doing so and ask that both things are transparent to readers.
I am new to this blog and hence my belated response to this thread. The quote below is from opinion writer Amy E. Schwartz in the Jewish American publication Moment on Dorothy L. Sayers’ (considered one of the four Queens of Golden Age of Crime) anti-semitism in her novels: “The continuing affection for such work—for Sayers and the world she’s created—provides a good incentive for a reader to push back a little against the present moment’s tendency to take instant and maximum offense at any questionable reference to anybody. Continuing to read and savor Dorothy L. Sayers offers us a chance to hone our ability to sort out which kinds of questionable comments about Jews are seriously bad, which are bad but forgivable, which are dangerous and in need of denunciation and which are essentially trivial and best ignored. And this is a life skill that will not lose its value any time soon”.
I am a woman of color and have experienced plenty of major and micro racist aggressions on a daily basis. Yet, when I run into misogynistic, racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic references in novels, I make constant mental adjustments as to whether I want to continue to read those novels or any work by that author. And I use the yardstick suggested by Ann Schwartz above. I have enjoyed reading some of Dorothy L Sayers and Agatha Christie. But then there are also novels that I will never ever read again: any book by Rudyard Kipling or Gone with the Wind. But I am on principle opposed to removing these from the libraries or editing/revising to soothe contemporary sensibilities. These novels shine a light on the world that existed when they were written and are records of the misogyny, racism, anti-semitism and homophobia of that time. (The pervasive and long rooted anti-semitism in Europe and in Britain explains a great deal as to why all of Europe turned a blind eye to Holocaust.) Without knowing how it was then, how can we imagine and fight for a world that is free of all these ills?
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
We have two bad choices here–rewrite offensive parts of books, movies, TV programs, and Wagner’s operas, etc. OR leave them in, offending and hurting people.
If you leave them in, for those people who like to think, such casual cruelty (seen by today’s values) makes a powerful point about the past pervasiveness and acceptance of prejudice. When you watch old movies in the 30’s, the casual endorsement–by both men and women–of domestic violence is common and shocking. Such shock is useful to the individual and to the society.
Some schools use the altered version of “Huck Finn” that omits the N-word. Such rewriting sugar coats the racism of slavery and prevents our thought and discussion (in the classroom). It also dilutes the power of Huck’s love and evolution about Jim, the slave.
I am rereading and thoroughly enjoying Loretta Chase’s “Lord of Scoundrels” where Dain, the dark-skinned Italian hero, refers to himself repeatedly as a blackamore. One erotic scene shows his sexual reaction to seeing his dark hand against Jessica’s white, feminine one. He says that a terrible, neglectful mother should be beaten. Dain’s whole characterization hinges on his self-hatred, planted and watered by his father and his society. Do I want Chase to take out those phrases and scenes that would never have been included, today? Not on your life.
Original, offensive stereotypes, dialogues, and prejudiced plot devices are opportunities for discussion. That said, after the first teaching of “A Merchant of Venice,” I never taught it again because I see it as anti-semitic.
It’s simple. If a book offends you, don’t read or teach it.
PS My use of the euphemism “n-word” is my attempt to ensure that my comments would be posted.
I see a difference between racism used to show characterization or make a relationship more meaningful, and a casual throwaway comment that a heroine dislikes negroes. I agree that there are no non-controversial, obviously good choices here, but at the same time, I don’t feel that all instances of racism or anti-Semitism in older books are useful.
It’s easy to say “if a book offends you, don’t read it”, but it’s more difficult to apply this principle to books where I enjoy the vast majority of the story except for a deeply offensive line or two.
I will say I was taught Merchant of Venice in high school AS an anti-semitic text. In 1978!