Something that really interested me: When you compare the versions of "Whitney," you seem to make very little of the difference between Clayton *planning* to hit her and *actually* hitting her. They both have the same effect for the story. But the "book jail"/"depiction = endorsement" crowd would actually consider this a huge difference. (Hence the comments you get about the original being much worse.) There's so much room for a hero to contemplate doing things that would disqualify him from "good guy" status if he actually acted on them. Even in the very rigid morality people impose on these characters, there's an acceptance that they will still obviously WANT to do the bad things-- and that desire doesn't compromise our admiration.
Enjoy CHELS revisiting "Whitney, My Love", a 1970s historical romance classic by Judith McNaught. I read the original and enjoyed the book for its bold reimagining of what a young women/heroine should be, and how she should behave, in the era of the story. I abandoned historical romances in the early 80s when contemporary novels hit the market with settings and stories I could better relate to. I just want to say that the 'controversy' over the edits made to the McNaught novel in the reissuing years later, suggests attempts at 'revisionist history'. In other words, changing the original to suit the sensibilities of a late 20th, early 21st Century audince. It's a disservice to the author and the original story...but, sadly, no different than what we're experiencing in the last few years of the attempts to change books written more recently. It all skirts on the edges of censorship. It makes far more sense, and is less self-serving, if readers simply not read a work of fiction rather than to dictate that work needs to be revised and changed to suit a handful of individual tastes. Thanks. Sandra Kitt, THE MILLIONAIRES CLUB: Book #1 Winner Takes All, Book #2 The Time Of Your Tife.
What an insightful essay; so glad I saved for Sunday morning. There is such a wonderfully balanced tone to your writing! I nearly lost it at "(“Venus!” most of the party-goers guess, as though they’ve never been tempted to pull a maiden underground)." I am inspired to finally pick up the old copy of Whitney I have sitting on the shelf!
Loved this (as usual).
Something that really interested me: When you compare the versions of "Whitney," you seem to make very little of the difference between Clayton *planning* to hit her and *actually* hitting her. They both have the same effect for the story. But the "book jail"/"depiction = endorsement" crowd would actually consider this a huge difference. (Hence the comments you get about the original being much worse.) There's so much room for a hero to contemplate doing things that would disqualify him from "good guy" status if he actually acted on them. Even in the very rigid morality people impose on these characters, there's an acceptance that they will still obviously WANT to do the bad things-- and that desire doesn't compromise our admiration.
Enjoy CHELS revisiting "Whitney, My Love", a 1970s historical romance classic by Judith McNaught. I read the original and enjoyed the book for its bold reimagining of what a young women/heroine should be, and how she should behave, in the era of the story. I abandoned historical romances in the early 80s when contemporary novels hit the market with settings and stories I could better relate to. I just want to say that the 'controversy' over the edits made to the McNaught novel in the reissuing years later, suggests attempts at 'revisionist history'. In other words, changing the original to suit the sensibilities of a late 20th, early 21st Century audince. It's a disservice to the author and the original story...but, sadly, no different than what we're experiencing in the last few years of the attempts to change books written more recently. It all skirts on the edges of censorship. It makes far more sense, and is less self-serving, if readers simply not read a work of fiction rather than to dictate that work needs to be revised and changed to suit a handful of individual tastes. Thanks. Sandra Kitt, THE MILLIONAIRES CLUB: Book #1 Winner Takes All, Book #2 The Time Of Your Tife.
What an insightful essay; so glad I saved for Sunday morning. There is such a wonderfully balanced tone to your writing! I nearly lost it at "(“Venus!” most of the party-goers guess, as though they’ve never been tempted to pull a maiden underground)." I am inspired to finally pick up the old copy of Whitney I have sitting on the shelf!