In more innocent days...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Okay, I'm at the point where I think it would be fascinating to compare them. I wonder if there are an digital versions of the original Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys books to compare to newer versions?

The darknets for sure.
Don't know if BLACKMASK had any of them (or still do) but that I can check.
(Edit: Not at Munsey's.)
Used pbooks for sure but not cheap.

[FizzyWater]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with paper books. I moved a couple of years ago and gave away, donate, or sold over 4500 books. I don't ever want to get to that state again.

Okay, if I suddenly came into a huge sum of money, I'd build a house with a dream library. But that'll never happen, so I just go drool on other people's libraries.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If I am discussing the topic of fowl today, I will feel perfectly comfortable mentioning cock, a/k/a male chicken. Although granted, I would more naturally gravitate toward the term "rooster"...

So you would be the rooster looking for some young poultry then?

[Fat Abe]

When certain words in the English language began being hijacked by activist groups, the prior meanings of such words became irrevocably lost. Should Hollywood do a remake of the Gay Divorcee, most uninformed people would assume that the movie was about Portia de Rossi and Anne Heche. I prefer the double entendre meanings of most words, but I am in the minority.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Okay, I'm at the point where I think it would be fascinating to compare them. I wonder if there are an digital versions of the original Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys books to compare to newer versions?

Not as far as I am aware, but Applewood Books reprinted the original text versions in hardback several years back. Or you can check eBay and other used books sources for original text versions. I don't know specifics about the Hardys, but Nancy Drews 1-34 were revised.

I managed to put together a complete set of the original text versions of Nancy several years back and read through them, along with the revised versions. In some cases the stories are entirely new, but mostly they're just cleaned up to eliminate offensive portrayals of blacks and ethnics, and to make Nancy much more law-abiding and boringly perfect. Everything's just bland.

[Pulpmeister]

Maybe they should have special editions like Large Print; eg, Modified for Sensitive Readers Edition; Original Text Edition. Big letter M or O on the front.

More seriously, I prefer that books which have been in print for a long time should not be mucked about with willy-nilly for some surely transient sensitivities. I have three pbook editions of Agatha Christie's notoriously titled Ten Little Niggers, which became Ten Little Indians, and finally Then There were None.

This was one of her nursery rhyme inspired stories and the original rhyme, which I can just remember from my childhood, was indeed Ten Little Niggers. A nonsense rhyme, rather like 12 Green Bottles. The book had the original nursery rhyme in it, and the story revolves around it.

Change the title, perhaps. But the text? No. Rate it O for original (or maybe Offensive) and move on.

Some years ago John D MacDonald brought out a collection of his earliest short stories, "The Good Old Stuff". He updated cultural references, and a few other things, which to my mind didn't help. All that was really needed was to put the original publication date under the title of each story, and the reader can work it all out for themselves.

When some of the early Saint novels were reprinted, Leslie Charteris noted in a preface that he had contemplated updating them, since at the time they were written the fastest way from New York to London was by passenger liner, but decided against it. He invited the readers to read them as though they were historical novels.

I can remember my surprise as a 12-year-old, reading King Solomon's Mines for the first time, when I got to the start of the trek and the adventurers were setting off on foot. I was staggered. What about trucks, Jeeps, helicopters? I looked at the copyright date in the front; aha! Now knowing the era, I dived back into the book, happy.

Maybe publishers should give their readers a little credit for general knowledge.

[ingmar]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

... adventurers were setting off on foot. I was staggered. What about trucks, Jeeps, helicopters? I looked at the copyright date in the front; aha! Now knowing the era, I dived back into the book, happy.

This has happened a lot to me, both personally and when reading to my children. Just the other day (I think it was Blyton's "Five on Kirrin Island Again") my daughter asked why they couldn't use their cell phones to call for help? There was also all the domestic staff in Christie's novels that made me check the publication date when I first read them in the late 80ies. I could go on :-)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

I can remember my surprise as a 12-year-old, reading King Solomon's Mines for the first time, when I got to the start of the trek and the adventurers were setting off on foot. I was staggered. What about trucks, Jeeps, helicopters? I looked at the copyright date in the front; aha! Now knowing the era, I dived back into the book, happy.

Wasn't the "Author's Note", dated "1898", right on the very first page of the book, a bit of a giveaway?

[DiapDealer]

People are free to make/distribute any alterations/changes/translations/modernizations to works in the public domain that they like. That's what public domain is all about--and I fully support it.

I'm equally free to assume that those who distribute such altered works (without making it abundantly clear to potential buyers/readers that they're not reading the original words) are trying to push their own personal principles/tastes/opinions/agendas/worldviews/morals on me while hiding behind the reputation of the original author/work in a sneaky and under-handed way.

Make it your own--clearly and publicly? ... fine. I probably won't read it, but I have no beef.
Pretend it's still the original (through outright deception or complete silence [or buried small-print] concerning any changes)? ... shame on you.

[icallaci]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

People are free to make/distribute any alterations/changes/translations/modernizations to works in the public domain that they like. That's what public domain is all about--and I fully support it.

I'm equally free to assume that those who distribute such altered works (without making it abundantly clear to potential buyers/readers that they're not reading the original words) are trying to push their own personal principles/tastes/opinions/agendas/worldviews/morals on me while hiding behind the reputation of the original author/work in a sneaky and under-handed way.

Make it your own--clearly and publicly? ... fine. I probably won't read it, but I have no beef.
Pretend it's still the original (through outright deception or complete silence [or buried small-print] concerning any changes)? ... shame on you.

Exactly. +1.

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's right that modern editions of these books should be appropriately edited for today's multicultural British society, just as in the US the "Hardy Boys" and "Nancy Drew" series were.

This is expurgation by any other name, and what rights does a publisher have to edit the works of an author, now deceased? It would be more appropriate for the editors to write a new Foreward explaining the context of the language and social perceptions at the time of first copyright. Eventually, the tyranny of Political Correctness will even cause Shakespeare's works to be bowdlerized.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Eventually, the tyranny of Political Correctness will even cause Shakespeare's works to be bowdlerized.

Well, errm, yes, some day someone might actually think of Bowdlerizing Shakespeare, errrm, well, yes, who will that be, I wonder...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

This is expurgation by any other name, and what rights does a publisher have to edit the works of an author, now deceased?

In the case of the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, they can do so because these were "house works", written pseudonymously for the publisher as works for hire (there was never any such person as "Franklin W. Dixon" or "Carolyn Keene"). The copyright is owned by the publisher and they can change the books as the years go by to maintain their marketability. In the case of Enid Blyton, the books are edited with the permission of her literary estate, because they'd be pretty much unsellable as children's books today in their original form.

These are commercial products.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Willfully misinterpreting things is half the fun.

I'm glad you put the full in there...

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Speaking of Nancy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...?utm_hp_ref=tw

The quote you have given describes the originals as something I would consider worth reading. Both back years ago as a kid as wellas now.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And why,eventually, the originals become sought-after classics.

My take is that instead of altering the original the material should be used for teaching cultural history on the side, letting the kids see how things were and why things have changed, letting them learn that attitudes change over time, instead of pretending that current culture has always existed and always will.

^That. Supply footnotes as required and let the rest be.
As a kid I always valued educative (info dump) and explanatory footnotes in my adventure books