Uncensored Dorian Gray

[Love.Forever.]

Interesting...I know I definitely enjoyed the novel.But I'll check this out though!

[Love.Forever.]

Ok so I just came from reading the article... I too wonder if it will be better than the original, I hope they publish it though, it will be interesting to see which specific parts they cut out.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by paola

well, from what I read in the Guardian (the link in the first message is to a newspaper that in turn reports the news from the Guardian) this looks like the original one

Well, the Guardian states, 'Stoddart [the editor at Lippincott who slashed out the objectionable material] also removed references to Gray's female lovers as his "mistresses".'

I did a search on that file, and there's nary a mention of mistresses to be found.

[Quexos]

How can a book ever be censored to begin with. How can they tell us what we can and cannot read, I am appalled by such a concept.

[crich70]

It has happened more often than you might think. Just do a search for Thomas Bowdler online and you can get quite the education on a past 'editor' who cut things out of classic books for the good of others. Or so he claimed. His name is the basis of the term bowdlerize. He even had the temerity to re-write Shakespeare so as to make it less objectionable. For example according to Wikipedia

Spoiler:

"In Hamlet, the death of Ophelia was referred to as an accidental drowning, omitting the suggestions that she may have intended suicide." Which would make it more difficult to know why her brother wanted to kill Hamlet I would think.

Originally Posted by Quexos

How can a book ever be censored to begin with. How can they tell us what we can and cannot read, I am appalled by such a concept.

[CazMar]

It didn't just have to be the "sin & sex" content that got the censors going either - a lot of the seventeenth century philosophers I am now reading had to tone down anything that might have been seen as opposing the church's dogmatic views. They often had to publish works anonymously to avoid losing professional appointments or even prosecution.

Ebooks have really opened up the whole "backlist" of published literature - some very good projects here for some of these works to be republished online. We need a lot more "Project Gutenberg" support - how about some of those big companies throwing a few dollars their way?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Quexos

How can a book ever be censored to begin with. How can they tell us what we can and cannot read, I am appalled by such a concept.

It is an editor's job to make changes to a book in order to increase its commercial sales potential. Homosexual content would not be been acceptable to a Victorian English audience.

The editor here was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. This is not "censorship".

[SensualPoet]

... and in any case, the changes were made with Wilde's full acquiescence. Wilde was a very successful author in his day and, had he been fussed, might well have had printed "private editions" for his friends.

This earlier unpublished edition is (presumably because at $25 I haven't read it) an interesting and potentially fascinating behind-the-scenes looks at what Wilde was thinking, a more private view of his way of expressing fondness for men.

We certainly should not take away from this (based on what I've read about reading about the new edition) that there is anything "new" in the story. Homosexuality was as common place in educated Victorian England as it is today in our world; the meaning of Wilde's texts for the intended audience were not lost in the published edition.

[wyndslash]

ah, i am curious :P

[darknessangel]

Very interesting. One of my favourite novels. And I also agree that that was not "censoring" in the straight sense, but rather editing. I mean, it's the job of the editor to avoid flops due to content that wouldn't appeal to the majority of readers.

[RichL]

I have now read current and the Lippincott's versions (thanks paola) and felt they say the same thing just using different words. I personally like the 'censored' version better simply because for me it flows better.

[Quexos]

It is censorship IMO ...
The issue being that some stuff is censored in the present, modern, advanced year 2011 and that appalls me. Also censorship in the past is unacceptable too but can be at least categorized as a "mistake of the past".

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is an editor's job to make changes to a book in order to increase its commercial sales potential. Homosexual content would not be been acceptable to a Victorian English audience.

The editor here was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. This is not "censorship".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Quexos

It is censorship IMO ...
The issue being that some stuff is censored in the present, modern, advanced year 2011 and that appalls me. Also censorship in the past is unacceptable too but can be at least categorized as a "mistake of the past".

No, editing is not censorship. It's the editor's job to make the book saleable. Very few authors are capable of writing books that are commercially viable without the aid of an editor.

[ST-One]

Sorry for the neco-posting, but I've started reading the paparback edition of that book today.

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

... and in any case, the changes were made with Wilde's full acquiescence.

No, Wilde was not informed about the edits, deletions and changes that were made to his novel.