Subject: Re: Digression of sorts . . .
From: Suzanne Morine (suzannem@dimensional.com)
Date: Thu Jul 12 2001 - 22:09:32 GMT
At 09:01 PM 7/11/2001 -0700, Cecilia Baader wrote:
>[..] the recent announcement by HarperCollins that
>they plan to reissue C.S. Lewis' classic series The Chronicles of Narnia
>amidst great brouhaha in an effort to trade upon the success of the
>Harry Potter series. We're talking action figures of Peter, Susan,
>Edmund, and Lucy, folks, not to mention old Aslan.
>
>Where's the rub? They plan to edit the books to take out the religious
>content, to make them more marketable for the general populace.
How would they do that? Would Aslan not die? Not rise from the dead? (The
article doesn't say.)
>I thought I'd put the question to the group: what do you think the
>implications of this move will be? Is this censorship as Greeley
>suggests, or just a good marketing move on the publisher's part? When
>does a novel become something other than what it was when edited so
>completely?
I think they shouldn't edit it but if they do, the book cover should be
labelled "abridged," "edited," or whatever is appropriate. It's not that
unusual, now that I think of it. But I don't see how you change plot
elements and just call it editing. Maybe they mean they take out large
parts of the book, leave the rest as is. Some of the rest of this message
assumes we're talking about actually rewriting plot lines -- sorry if that
is not what was meant.
>Or, to phrase this differently, suppose Salinger was no longer around
>and none of his descendents cared to protect the purity of his original
>work and they published another version of The Catcher in the Rye that
>had all mention of hookers and the word f*ck edited out of it?
If that's all, it wouldn't change it as much as attempting to remove
christian symbolism from the Narnia chronicles.
"I was the only one left in the tomb then. I sort of liked it, in a way. It
was so nice and peaceful. Then, all of a sudden, you'd never guess what I
saw on the wall. Another obnoxious sign. It was written with a red crayon
or something, right under the glass part of the wall, under the stones."
The first editions of the book, I believe, had f--- for the f word. This
isn't radical.
Under the example guidelines, the Maurice story line would be an argument
about something else or omitted entirely (but I think Holden has to get
beat up twice in the story or it's significantly marred) and Sunny would
either never appear or she'd be portrayed as Maurice's girlfriend or wife
who they were fighting about or something. Any of those would certainly
alter the story greatly.
Now, if they changed all that folks object to, that'd be an entire rewrite
of the book. The voice of Holden -- which is a lot of what George Will
objected to in his recent piece -- and he wouldn't be allowed to try on his
cap backwards, and certainly not drink or smoke. Doing all of that would
make the story quite different. It could be a sensitive well spoken boy
unaffected by the things he is surrounded by -- *bothered* by them to
distraction but he'd be pure and earnestly, dutifully, pointing out where
things could be better, puzzling about finding a path toward making things
better. There would be some action to keep it moving, of course.
You might even be able to make an ice show of it. :-)
>Would you be more interested in getting the work read by the groups that
>scorn it so they can see it (mostly) for what it is, or would you prefer
>that it be left precisely as written and to heck with those who
>disagreed with it in principle?
Well, in the hugely edited version I described, Holden's message wouldn't
ring as urgent, and it would have to be almost entirely re-written. If it
were just some minor changes like you described, it could be both more
acceptable to the censors yet still largely intact. More students would be
allowed to read that version, more people would permit themselves to read
that version. As part of the pea-green incorruptible company, and as
myself, I tend to prefer leaving it as it is: the book is great and calls
for no editing. If you get it, you get it and it's wonderful. But yet..
isn't that preaching to the choir? There would be some use for an abridged
version.
Suzanne
"Understanding the complaints of people with insight is not easy and it's
simpler to call it whining." Will Hochman
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:29:39 GMT