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?

  • CerebusGortok@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

        • cressian@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 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.

    • Logan_Maddox@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • preaching-to-pervert@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.