only this is the actual question under discussion. and the answer is lol yes
2 Likes
where have you gone Maxwell Perkins*? our nation turns its lonely eye to you.
-* famous editor who objected to hemingwayâs use of profanity
It may be bad or dumb or inartful, but I donât think itâs really harmful. Copyright law also protects bad art. I donât see a difference between making bad edits to Dahlâs books and writing an original bad book.
This is all just stupid shit that doesnât actually hurt anyone. My point is I think people are getting worked up over something inconsequential.
2 Likes
lol? Writing an original bad book doesnât destroy a good book. Diminishing Dahlâs books with bad edits does and keeps people from enjoying the original art.
you understand an active editorial process with a living artist is not the same as the heirs and a publisher of a dead one trying to make buck.
2 Likes
Yes, Hemingway didnât have final say over what was written in
checks notes
his works
1 Like
What if good edits enhance a bad book? Should those be allowed?
90% of classics editions you have ever read had been edited by someone hundreds of years after. and donât get me started on translations
weâre getting closer to an analogous situation, but not quite there yet
lol what if layabout heirs improve their dead relativeâs art? Logically possible I suppose but not likely. If theyâre talented enough to improve good art maybe they should make their own. I donât see why copyright law should be written to encourage such a thing.
Feel free to get your fainting couch but there is no need for anybody to be upset over this.
Yes, homages and remixes and reimaginings and inspired bys are totally fine, but thatâs not what weâre talking about.
I can put it like this: one of my favorite songs is Prison Sex by Tool (not sure if top 50 but definitely top 100). After listening to this song dozens if not hundreds of times, I still donât know all the lyrics and I donât think I want to know. The parts I do know are unsettling and Iâm assuming the rest stays that path. But the guitar riffs are fucking fierce son!
But, when I listen to this song I donât think âhmm this is melting my face but itâd be great if it was about âprison hugsâ or better yet just âhugsââ because that is what an utterly deranged person would think. I engage with the artistâs art on their terms. And I certainly donât play it for children like âcheck out this face melter little guys⌠and btw âprison sexâ is what happens when a daddy who was imprisoned by the carceral state loves another daddy who was also imprisoned by the carceral state very muchâ because Iâm gonna go out on a limb and say thatâs equally deranged.
1 Like
I actually gave VFS credit for a sec for going back and editing in that parentheses.
Copyright law should be written to be neutral towards such a thing, indifferent as to whether the copyright holder, whether still-living creators or their heirs, make such changes.
1 Like
Roald Dahl 21st century library edition doesnt seem to claim itâs the original
Donât worry weâre getting there. I think Iâm just dusting off the feeling that Iâll get banned at any second.
wat
thatâs what iâm advocating. edit to whatever you want. mark it as such.
Oh right, I meant to add that changes along with footnotes are a great idea, but Iâm inclined to believe that if a child can navigate footnotes they can navigate bad words.
Anyhow this is all bush league stuff. The big league topic: Chronicles Of Narnia. Go.
Why?