Why it is wrong to change an author's work (Agatha Christie) Pt 2
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Everything Else
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 28, 2023 02:45 PM)
Agatha Christie has become the latest author to fall victim to posthumous censorship. New digital editions of her novels, we learned at the weekend, have been edited to reflect “modern sensitivities”. In other words: just about anything that might conceivably offend a progressive 21st-century reader has been rewritten or removed. Especially if it relates to race.
I find this sort of behaviour from publishers odd. Because it suggests that, despite dedicating their lives to novels,
they don’t actually know what a novel is.
As much as anything else, a novel is a kind of time capsule: a record of the period in which it was written. It reflects the period’s culture, its language, its beliefs, its attitudes – and yes, its prejudices.
Older novels, therefore, have a special historical value:
they teach us about the past.
Indeed, they bring it to life – and far more vividly than a history book.
To literary snobs, the whodunits of Agatha Christie may seem like two-dimensional, throwaway entertainments.
But they have as much historical value as the work of any Nobel-winner.
And that’s why the parts that 21st-century readers find offensive shouldn’t be rewritten or removed. On the contrary, it’s vital they remain.
Christie’s novels, especially the earlier ones, often feature dialogue that is racist. In particular, stereotypes of Jewish people are commonplace. For example, in Peril at End House (published 1932), one character describes another as “Rolling in money, of course. Did you see that car of his? He’s a Jew, of course, but a frightfully decent one.”
Similarly, in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926), a character complains of being hounded for money by a couple of Scottish creditors. “They are usually Scotch gentlemen,” replies another character, “but I suspect a semitic strain in their ancestry.”
Note how casually the characters make such remarks. Note also how no other character objects.
This teaches the 21st-century reader something important about the period in which these books were written.
In the 1920 and 30s, middle-class, educated, well-mannered English people could, and would, give voice to nakedly antisemitic prejudice in everyday conversation – without fear of rebuke or disagreement. It was perfectly unremarkable,
at the time.
Antisemitism, after all, was not invented by the Nazis. It is an ancient and widespread prejudice. Reading an early Agatha Christie highlights this – and if it shocks the 21st-century reader, then good. It should.
Obviously antisemitism still exists in Britain today. But it tends to be subtler and less overt than it was in Christie’s time. And often it comes from people who profess to be staunch anti-racists – as demonstrated by the EHRC investigation into antisemitism in the Labour party.
In this case, though, it’s the contents of Christie’s novels that are being edited. And to remove the racially insensitive language, and other unpleasant or outdated elements,
strips them of their historical value. Not only that, it gives the modern reader a misleading impression of the past. It makes it seem as if the people of 100 years ago held the exact same views and values that we hold today. Which is, of course, utterly false.
After being subjected to this type of PC sanitising, therefore,
an old novel is no longer just fiction. It’s a lie.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 28, 2023 07:50 PM)
I completely agree, which is why I cannot understand this sudden move to sanitize history. In years to come, people will never be aware of the past and think that all that's been revised is true, when it's all a lie. A big, fat lie.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 28, 2023 07:59 PM)
Most definitely. I'm sure when 1984 came out, no one could imagine that ever coming to fruition. It was so wild, so out there, such a work of fiction. Fast forward and we're stepping back in time.
We're rewriting history, rewriting fictional novels, and bringing back death by firing squad. Yep, sounds like we're doing A-Okay. /s
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 28, 2023 08:00 PM)
Seems like unless the greasy dregs are simping for pics of tits or Donna gets her SIMS to work out her personal frustration, anything else is too high brow.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 28, 2023 08:04 PM)
Based on the frequency and attention to detail, that's got to take up at least 4 hours each day, if not more. There's quite amount of effort that's been put into her characters and each situation she coordinates.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith