It has female characters with names like Pussy Galore. It's an adolescent fantasy that was mocked by the Austin Powers movies.
The character Q is a cheap plot device for resolving plot issues easily once the author has painted himself into a corner. Once in said corner, you go back in time and insert some gadget invented by some prescient genius that Bond will never use again and probably should have used at some earlier point but didn't.
James Bond is dated and really no longer works well. He was originally a ladies man in a conservative era when women did not readily put out who saw so much action because his wife died and he was all heart broken over that and women knew he was the marrying kind and blah blah blah. Now that everyone goes on Tinder and casually hooks up with random strangers, there's nothing special about James Bond getting laid left, right and center.
It's juvenile, it's out of date, it's misogynistic and generally ridiculous. It does not need anyone handwringing about trying to preserve its original form like there's something sacred there.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly watch the movies. But, no, they are not high art that requires special protection for the benefit of future generations.
What I find deeply concerning is not the distortion of the pristine original state of James Bond. What I find deeply concerning is the whitewashing of cultural artifacts and the implications of both the intent of such actions and the potential outcomes. The quality of the content itself does not reduce the cultural popularity and impact that the content had in its time, and altering the content can only cloud any modern examination of the past.
Old content that ages poorly should do just that - age poorly. We should look back at it and roll our eyes and wonder what we were thinking. We should draw conclusions from this more modern examination that help guide the creation of future content that doesn't perpetuate the same problems.
There is no progress without reflection and a place from which to move forward. And this quickly turns into a "First, they came for..." type of scenario, IMO.
Popular works being kept current so we can still enjoy them even though things have changed is nothing at all like "First they came for...."
It's more like the opposite of that.
Do we? Further, than translating from English to a different version of English?
> Westside Story is an updated version of Romeo and Juliette.
It is not, it’s an adaption at best.
Yes. Literally what you said, right here.
But if they use the original title and author, I expect the original work. Because that's literally what the title and author on a book cover mean - this work, as written and approved by this author, no different than the ingredients list on food. Anything else* is lying.
*Translations give the translator's name, and don't pretend they're the original. And editors probably should be credited, but at least in that case the edits are approved by the author.
If anything, neo-copyright should protect the original works from alteration by the copyright holders.
Why is that a negative? If it inspired other art, even as a parody, that makes it a valuable part of culture.
James Bond has inspired countless imitations, and has resonated with generations of people around the world. It doesn't need to be high art to be enjoyed. Everyone watching the movies or reading the books today will have a different perception of the material, in the same way we view art produced centuries ago. Art exists within the context of its period, and changing it to suit new generations produces strange results, completely disrespecting the author's intention.
Would you feel the same way if we started altering paintings someone considered offensive? That's as ridiculous as these changes.
Of course, this isn't new with books. Popular works go through many editions throughout history. We should be able to go back and read older editions, but sometimes these become harder to find, as new ones become more prevalent. Let's hope that won't be the case here.
Besides the point. A significant audience found value in its stories. Are you the arbiter of what is good or bad? You go down this road, there is no limit to what will be censored or deleted altogether. Even the stuff you personally find to be great art. It is literally trying to modify history.
It's not the choice.
But requiring notes; this is already assuming that the reader is an idiot that can't think by himself.
A two edition approach might work well.
One edition would have the text just as the author wrote it, with notes added or maybe even short articles to explain things to today's readers. That could include different attitudes toward race in the book's time, period slang that hasn't survived, other language changes, technology, clothes, government, housing, and more.
The other edition could be the story updated for a modern setting. If it is set in London for example and the protagonist frequently travels around town in a dog-cart, update that to a taxi. If the story involves a religion that people then thought was maybe some kind of shady cult but is now fairly mainstream, replace that with some current shady possible cult (e.g., if you were updating "A Study in Scarlet" you might change Mormons to Scientologists).
The annotated original edition would be the one you'd use in literature class, or read on your own if you wanted a period piece, or knew enough about the time the book is set in to not be slowed down to much by out of date references.
The updated edition would be the one most people who just want to read a good story could choose.
> But requiring notes; this is already assuming that the reader is an idiot that can't think by himself.
Most people aren't reading works of fiction to think. They are reading them to be entertained. If they like some characters in the book they will often adopt some of the attitudes or behaviors of those characters without even realizing it. This is especially true of younger people.
This appears to be an argument for banning or rewriting all fiction with any characters in who disagree with the current orthodoxy.
That seems like a terrible idea, other than it will provide employment for some zealous English grads who can't write their own stories well enough to get published.
Please explain how releasing an edited, updated version of a book that is more marketable in today’s world is censorship when the original works are fully available.
That is actually not what censoring a book means. According to the Oxford Dictionary [1]:
> to remove the parts of a book, film, etc. that are considered to be offensive or a political threat
Regarding your last comment:
> Please explain how releasing an edited, updated version of a book that is more marketable in today’s world is censorship when the original works are fully available.
That would be by definition.
Regarding your second comment:
> The original book will continue to be found in used book stores, church rummage sales, parents end tables, and so on for years and years to come. Scans are certainly available online at the various pirate sites, so likely available for my lifetime at least.
They would be around. They would become rarer and rarer overtime. Most people would grow up believing that the author wrote the censored version of the book. Moreover, they would grow up believing that the way the book was written was reflective of the setting of the book in our actual history. That is the way of things and the censurers know it.
[1]: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...
> You’ll never find an unbiased version of history whether it’s written by the victors or the defeated.
That is true. I think being unbiased is extremely difficult. Maybe impossible; I am not sure. Worse yet, there would never be a way of knowing whether something is biased or not.
This is falsification.