Several Agatha Christie novels have been edited to remove potentially offensive language, including insults and references to ethnicity.Poirot and Miss Marple mysteries written between 1920 and 1976 have had passages reworked or removed in new editions published by HarperCollins to strip them of language and descriptions that modern audiences find offensive, especially those involving the characters Christie’s protagonists encounter outside the UK...The newspaper reported that the edits cut references to ethnicity, such as describing a character as black, Jewish or Gypsy, or a female character’s torso as “of black marble” and a judge’s “Indian temper”, and removed terms such as “Oriental” and the N-word. The word “natives” has also been replaced with the word “local”.Among the examples of changes cited by the Telegraph is the 1937 Poirot novel Death on the Nile, in which the character of Mrs Allerton complains that a group of children are pestering her, saying that “they come back and stare, and stare, and their eyes are simply disgusting, and so are their noses, and I don’t believe I really like children”.This has been stripped down in a new edition to state: “They come back and stare, and stare. And I don’t believe I really like children.”
I don't believe I really like sanitized literature. I quite understand why my favorite novel of hers had its title changed to And Then There Were None, but much of the rest of this is unnecessary and ridiculous.
but much of the rest of this is unnecessary and ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThat's because you don't get discriminated against.
Consider:
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression
https://medschool.duke.edu/sites/default/files/2022-02/explaining_white_privilege_to_a_broke_white_person.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
https://medium.com/views-of-other-planes/and-then-there-were-none-and-the-racism-of-agatha-christie-a3e94deba132
Another reason why some changes feel over the top is because the editors are trying to get ahead of the game a little, so that they don't have to update again in a decade. And because the editors are professionals they see way more offensive stuff than us mere mortals.
Furthermore, these editors are no writers so they sometimes don't notice when their edits destroy the original rhythm of a text. However, one would only notice those when comparing the two texts - which is a very rare event, only for literature students.
Finally, when you first were read the Bible, were you incensed it wasn't the first English translation from 1535? Or would you have preferred to learn Old Greek, Latin and Aramaic to continue reading? Cuz that's what islam forces you to do.
To finish, here's an original American text. It starts of just fine, but read till the end. Should that still be published that way?
Most editors are frustrated writers and probably more anal about the "rules" of writing (too many to mention) including how text flows and scans, than most authors are.
DeleteRegardless, I'd prefer for both versions to be readily available (so we can see how things have changed) but provided the edits don't materially affect the plot, then who cares? If the merit of a work depends upon an adroitly delivered racial slur then I won't miss it.
Sorry, forgot the last link: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/niagara.html
ReplyDelete(you can add that to the previous reply if you want)
I have no way to add to or modify comments written by any reader.
DeleteFWIW, I read that piece by Twain during my years as an English major back in the 60s (when there was no Bowdlerized version available AFAIK). Also his mockery of American tourists abroad, and his parodies of religious enthusiasts and his mockery of God and the Bible. I read them for what they were and wouldn't wish them otherwise.
DeleteI think that article has probably deliberatley picked the worst example of editing to elicit outrage - since it really doesn't read very well and they could easily have just left a reference to kids noses being disgusting, since they are, normally full of snot . How complicated all this editing is though - removing offensive direct racial slurs is fairly easy and a good idea because it kills the enjoyment of reading, but with the more subtle digs it must be harder to judge. Christie often wrote books about privileged rich white people in their own little rich bubble... -so some of the casual racism is totally in character - like the running gag of Poirot being so "Belgian" and how uncomfortable it makes his friend Hastings.... I would almost prefer that they just put a foreword giving a warning and historical context so the reader can just decide... and/or do what they do with movies - sell the story rights and let someone talented do a total re-write and move the story to a different setting. The enduring popularity of the Christie books may be due to the way they are written but mostly I would guess it is due to the warmth of the detectives. I would be interested to know how they have been translated in other languages. I decided I was not comfortable letting my child read "the famous five" in english because - . the language to describe a "baddie" is very stereotyped and offensive ( since the "baddie" is always visibly "other" in some way), and the "goodies" are so clearly privileged, oblivious people. My mum who was "other" also was very uncomfortable letting me read them, but let me because there was just less choice of kids books in those days. Now at least there are more options, even if too many of them involve unicorn princesses... Happily my kid is bilingual, and I am hopeful that the translations of the famous five have smoothed out most of the discrimination and just left them as pure, ridiculous, adventure stories... though I probably should get my dictionary out and check that...
ReplyDeleteGood point that translations often immediately took care of subtleties that didn't work across linguistic or cultural borders.
DeleteCase and point, it hurts my eyes to read some of the translated names of Harry Potter characters in Dutch, but nobody there knows any better, so they don't care. They do get confused watching the movies though.....
"To finish, here's an original American text. It starts of just fine, but read till the end. Should that still be published that way?"
ReplyDeleteI wonder did the comment moderation eat his quote. That'd be hella ironic.
Twain's Niagara sketch could not be published any other way than in it's original form.
ReplyDeleteTo 'clean it up' in any fashion would lose the point. You seem to me to be arguing both sides. Unless that's your point "circumstances dictate the needs"
It smacks of conspiracy theory, but someone speculated that some of these books are approaching public domain, and that by making edits the publisher can claim a new work and restart their copyright. I'm not entirely convinced but it's an interesting idea. If I understand it correctly the original edition would still become PD. The present rights holders probably might not bother quashing the odd book reprint but their deeper-than-thou pockets could conceivably deter attempts to make "unauthorized" feature films, TV shows, etc.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting thought. Thanks, anon.
DeleteThere is no place for censorship in a free society. None. Period, full stop.
ReplyDeleteProof positive, as though any more were needed, that we do not in fact live in a free society.
This is not about censorship, this is about capitalism.
DeleteNobody is forcing the Christie estate to make these changes, other than the simple capitalistic fact that no bookstore will sell "And then there were none" under it's original title because no one will buy it. It's a bit of a stretch to call them changing the books so they can keep making money of the sales 'censorship'. In fact, it's the opposite. It's the free market of ideas doing its thing.
Trust me in saying that "the media" (be it publishing, movies, games, news) is solely driven by profits, and nothing else. And because they're "the media", they're very good at not telling you that.
Great, clean up these books so we can deny racism and discrimination ever existed.
ReplyDeleteDeny that real people, our grandparents, talked and acted in a currently unacceptable manner.
xoxoxoBruce
Well said.
DeleteThe author is the only person who should have the authority to alter a manuscript. Dead author, dead issue. The marketing argument is unsound as it insists that the heirs of an estate are now de facto authors by virtue of having a financial interest in the nature of the literary content. This is the antithesis of "art." The argument that the author of this blog cannot legitimately object to alterations to these texts, because he "doesn't get discriminated against," is an ad hominem gambit--DOA.
ReplyDeleteThis is the antithesis of "art."
ReplyDeleteThis is nonsense. Art and monetization have always gone hand in hand.
Michelangelo made the David as well as the Sistene Chapel on commission assignments So those would not be art?
It is true that copyright lasts absurdly long. It's bonkers that patents only last 20 years, while copyright is death of author + 75 years. Agatha Christie's work should be public domain. The House of mouse is single-handedly responsible for that because they want to protect the Mouse.
"Hand in hand" is a "nonsense" metaphor as it suggests there has "always" been a harmonious relationship between art and commerce. As prostitution may be seen as an art form, the artist is often a prostitute. Bad enough the artist should be subjected to this indignity while living.
Delete