RARA-AVIS: Re: are authors the best judge of their work?

From: jacquesdebierue (jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com)
Date: 26 Nov 2009

  • Next message: sonny: "Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: are authors the best judge of their work?"

    --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, WALKER MARTIN <wamartin2@...> wrote:

    > -------------Often it's probably not a good idea to go back and change previous work, especially after several years. An example would be John D. Macdonald and his two collections reprinting some of his pulp stories, THE GOOD OLD STUFF and MORE GOOD OLD STUFF. These were stories written in the 1940's and I'd have preferred to read them as written and not updated or revised.
    > ------Walker Martin.

    I am almost convinced that he also updated some of his novels. My take on this is since everything is impermanent, it is futile to look at the past, which doesn't exist anymore. A different person did something, this person right now is related to the other person but not the same. Let the stories stand. A story about constant revision could be written quite easily -- it probably _has_ been written.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Nov 2009 EST