Is it okay for an author to go back and revise his work several times?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Sorta a spinoff from the Star Wars 2004 thread:

It seems like the reading public historically is a lot more forgiving of multiple rewrites of parts of novels as compared to films.

I can understand dissatisfaction with films that release super-extended editions that were never meant to be and might not even be legitimate directors cuts (don't even get me started on the bastard version of Dune...). Generally with books, though, people tend to want the last edition unless there were giant things taken out or whatever. There are exceptions of course, but usually authors just kept on adding to their works, so no reason not to demand the last one.

So Lucas is still fiddling with Star Wars. What's wrong with that? It's his movie trilogy and his vision. I agree that it'd be nice to have DVDs of the original theatrical version c. 1977. However, no one's forcing anyone to buy the new 2004 DVD edition, so why all the whinging?

'Cause we'd totally let him get away with this as a writer. No one I know bellyaches about the revisions John Barth made to his first five novels.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Friday, 10 September 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, and before my moderator privleges were unceremoniously blasted out of the airlock along with the alien i'd smuggled aboard Planet Greenspun, i did so frequently

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:36 (twenty-one years ago)

All the Lucas tweaking actually makes me think of Asimov's attempts at tying everything together towards the end of his life.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

see also Severed Heads "Op" album. currently up to version 2.3

― the surface noise (slight return) (electricsound), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I could be totally wrong on this, but I get the feeling that most revised versions of novels come out after the author is dead. Or not. Either way, yeah I'm willing to cut authors a lot more slack than directors for a number of reasons. Film is, usually (tho obv. not always but we are talking about Lucas-sized productions here) a collaborative act. Novels can be, but still not to nearly the same extent.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Lucas would tweak his arse if there was money in it.

― Sexual Air Supply (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:40 (twenty-one years ago)

The venture, not his arse.

― Sexual Air Supply (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:40 (twenty-one years ago)

also the amount and type of work that goes into each is so different.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:40 (twenty-one years ago)

ass dollars again!

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:41 (twenty-one years ago)

money's only paper, dude.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:42 (twenty-one years ago)

the type of ass-tweaking surely depends on the amount that's in there

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Well Star Wars is a giant arse, and he's spent most of his life tweaking it and making loads and loads of money.

QUICK!! NEW STAR WARS FEATURING 1.2 SECONDS OF NEW MATERIAL!! NOW GIVE ME MORE MONEY!!

― Sexual Air Supply (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Avaricious fuck.

― Sexual Air Supply (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

No I'm not fond of Lucas.

― Sexual Air Supply (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Henry James rewrote almost all of his novels correct?

anyway i think the main problem people have with lucas is that he is making the films worse. star wars is a time capsule, a fun reminder of the time it was made, childhood memories, etc. lucas treats it like an uncompleted masterpiece.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 10 September 2004 02:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I was thinking about this same thing myself. Except I couldn't think of hardly any examples of authors actually going in and re-defining their early works. For example, whatever version of Star Wars will be released on DVD will be for all intents and purposes definitive (who watches VHS anymore?), whereas books can have multiple editions.

Also, there are pretty obvious differences of timing with books vs. movies. One small scene screws with the whole timing of a film.

xpost w/ryan: mostly, though, yeah the main problem is they're getting worse.

― Richard K (Richard K), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:02 (twenty-one years ago)

walt whitman dudes

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I sing the special effects electric

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Walt Whitman and the Development of Leaves of Grass

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

well when they do it well it's fine, when they fuck everything up like lucas did, it's not! that is my rule

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i preferred lucas's earlier, more blatantly sexist work

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:10 (twenty-one years ago)

it's always fine, as long as a copy of the previous version(s) is preserved

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:10 (twenty-one years ago)

this ties into what amat was saying, but yeah you can still get facsimile first editions of Leaves of Grass.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:15 (twenty-one years ago)

aaron are you a moderator?

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:19 (twenty-one years ago)

what lucas does is pretty different than what john barth did (unless i'm wrong and barth used new, previously unavailable writing techniques to get closer to his original "vision" than he could when he first wrote his novels. maybe he did!)

also i'm not crazy about the whole "original vision" thing, i guess i don't really care what lucas's OV was, especially if it included that horrible adult-contempo replacement ewok song

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:20 (twenty-one years ago)

new, previously unavailable writing technique

i like this idea

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:25 (twenty-one years ago)

"also i'm not crazy about the whole "original vision" thing, i guess i don't really care what lucas's OV was, especially if it included that horrible adult-contempo replacement ewok song"

OTM. also that musical sequence they added to the jabba's palace part of the movie...echhh! it made me cringe and slide back in my seat when i saw that in theaters.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:41 (twenty-one years ago)

so bad

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 10 September 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

omg adult-contempo ewok song? I thought adding a girly shriek to Luke's Darth-defying fall was the pinnacle of his asinine addendums. I guess I have to see the Return Of The Jedi special edition after all.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 10 September 2004 07:09 (twenty-one years ago)

aaron are you a moderator?
-- amateur!!!st (---...), September 9th, 2004 9:19 PM. (amateurist) (later)

No, are you a brain surgeon?

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 10 September 2004 07:20 (twenty-one years ago)

what's that story about the artist breaking into the museum to do a few touch-ups on his masterwork at night?

― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Friday, 10 September 2004 07:23 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.