Agatha Christie Lovers discussion

Readers noticed the changes and news outlets confirmed them. I both agree and disagree with this trend. I'd rather people read updated Christie than no Christie at all, but these updates do gloss over history that ought to be acknowledged. Is there a way for readers and writers to discuss this topic rationally?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...

Nobody ought to rewrite books, but not because of some nonsense reason like history, but because the original books would be changed. When I read about Enid Blyton's Faraway Tree series getting censored, I got irked not because of history but because of unnecessary alteration of text.

As a writer, I certainly don't take kindly to having my words edited. As a researcher, I think every opportunity to remind people of history is far from "nonsense." But as a reader, I'm just not going to read what I don't like. The better option seems to be offering alternative versions so books at least get read rather than forgotten. It's kind of like movies "edited for television." We watched them anyway and later saw chose to see the full-length versions.

Kate wrote: "As a writer, I certainly don't take kindly to having my words edited. As a researcher, I think every opportunity to remind people of history is far from "nonsense." But as a reader, I'm just not go..."

I retire my use of 'nonsense' and replace it with 'non-monetary'. I think that makes more 'sense'.

Gotcha. I did wonder, though, about whether Puffin had a monetary scheme going when they announced they would re-issue the original Roald Dahl books only after their first announcement about the reworked versions got everyone's attention.

Kate wrote: "Gotcha. I did wonder, though, about whether Puffin had a monetary scheme going when they announced they would re-issue the original Roald Dahl books only after their first announcement about the re..."

You are right about this. Remember the awful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory cover a few years ago? Same motive, although a bit more devious.

Sometimes I feel it's too much, like when they think a description as "black marble" or "brilliant white teeth" are potentially offensive. I'm part of a "minority" myself and i totally acknowledge how my ethnicity can be usually perceived. What's really offensive is the type casting that minorities seem to be getting - minor characters usually in servant/hospitality roles. It's not something that can be helped with old stories but can be rectified by contemporary authors.

I think it's enough to publish a disclaimer at the beginning like they did with Ian Fleming's - "the sentiments and attitudes herewith were acceptable at the time", acknowledging history and putting into perspective how far we've come.

Still it is a good thing that they have edited out slur words and racist comments.

Certainly doing the profitable thing is important to publishers, but what is "profitable" depends, I suppose, on public opinion and what people are actually buying. I think discussions like these are necessary so we ("the public") know what's going on before we "vote" with our purchases. The disclaimer seems like a good idea, and well-identified versions have a place, too. Being sneaky about changes does not seem like the best option.

Ceecee wrote: "Still it is a good thing that they have edited out slur words and racist comments."

My belief is that it is much clearer to eliminate certain flags and take down certain statues. But when it comes to books, I don't think that is as clear cut.

Luffy wrote: "Ceecee wrote: "Still it is a good thing that they have edited out slur words and racist comments."

My belief is that it is much clearer to eliminate certain flags and take down certain statues. Bu..."

True.