https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/

The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
I have never read any of them as I was older than the
targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".

Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
not a good place.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:23:04 AM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>
> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>
> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
> not a good place.
>

I saw somewhere (and it is verified on the Penguin website)
that Penguin has decided to publish both versions of 17 Dahl
stories, with Penguin being the imprint for "Classic" versions:
"...
We recognise the importance of keeping Dahl’s classic texts
in print. By making both Puffin and Penguin versions available,
we are offering readers the choice to decide how they experience
Roald Dahl’s magical, marvellous stories.
...."

Strange times,
Tony

On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>
> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>
> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
> not a good place.

I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
or the newspaper, or your blogger.

In article <4c0e42d5-81ee-43fa-afe3-df2d77bfddd5n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>>
>> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
>> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
>> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
>> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
>> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
>> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
>> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
>> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
>> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
>> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
>> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>>
>> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
>> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
>> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
>> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
>> not a good place.
>
>I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
>This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
>or the newspaper, or your blogger.

Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.

That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0

though I can't get the whole article.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Ted Nolan wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> Ted Nolan wrote:
>>>
>>https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>>>
>>> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
>>> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
>>> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
>>> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
>>> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
>>> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
>>> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
>>> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
>>> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
>>> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
>>> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>>>
>>> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
>>> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
>>> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
>>> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
>>> not a good place.
>>
>>I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
>>This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
>>or the newspaper, or your blogger.
>
> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
>
> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
>
> though I can't get the whole article.

You can try <https://archive.ph/Sg8rr> if you feel like it.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

In article <20230310a@crcomp.net>, Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>Ted Nolan wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> Ted Nolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>>>>
>>>> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
>>>> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
>>>> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
>>>> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
>>>> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
>>>> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
>>>> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
>>>> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
>>>> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
>>>> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
>>>> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>>>>
>>>> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
>>>> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
>>>> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
>>>> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
>>>> not a good place.
>>>
>>>I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
>>>This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
>>>or the newspaper, or your blogger.
>>
>> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
>> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
>>
>> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
>>
>>
>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
>>
>> though I can't get the whole article.
>
>You can try <https://archive.ph/Sg8rr> if you feel like it.
>

Thanks!

That confirms that there's no dispute that the text has been changed.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:26:35 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <4c0e42d5-81ee-43fa...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >>
> >https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
> >>
> >> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
> >> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
> >> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
> >> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
> >> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
> >> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
> >> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
> >> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
> >> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
> >> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
> >> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
> >>
> >> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
> >> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
> >> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
> >> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
> >> not a good place.
> >
> >I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
> >This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
> >or the newspaper, or your blogger.
> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
>
> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
>
> though I can't get the whole article.

I'm supposing that these books were edited in the publisher's
office, starting in 1992. Apparently they have been edited again.

I'm reading this as that the text underwent some revision
for the release as e-books, and if this happened before
the Roald Dahl thing came up, then no one cared, but they
care now, maybe.

Or perhaps this is about doing a controversial edit after
publication because no one noticed that these are
e-books now, so let's get noticed?

In article <8c4468a8-6850-40cf-8041-d1ee0a77c6efn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:26:35 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <4c0e42d5-81ee-43fa...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>>https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>> >>
>> >> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
>> >> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
>> >> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
>> >> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
>> >> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
>> >> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
>> >> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
>> >> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
>> >> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
>> >> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
>> >> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>> >>
>> >> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
>> >> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
>> >> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
>> >> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
>> >> not a good place.
>> >
>> >I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
>> >This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
>> >or the newspaper, or your blogger.
>> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
>> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
>>
>> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
>>
>>
>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
>>
>> though I can't get the whole article.
>
>I'm supposing that these books were edited in the publisher's
>office, starting in 1992. Apparently they have been edited again.
>
>I'm reading this as that the text underwent some revision
>for the release as e-books, and if this happened before
>the Roald Dahl thing came up, then no one cared, but they
>care now, maybe.
>
>Or perhaps this is about doing a controversial edit after
>publication because no one noticed that these are
>e-books now, so let's get noticed?

OK, I guess I see what you're saying more now. So yes, I would
agree that the books were edited for ebook release not particularly
recently (I think 2018 was the date I saw), and people are just noticing
now because it's a hot topic.

To which I would say that I'm not particularly surprised that nobody
noticed because after all, if you read it 30 years ago you're not
going to remember everything, and if you never read it before,
naturally you'll never notice it. That doesn't make it OK, especially
not about leaving the author in the dark.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:57:39 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <8c4468a8-6850-40cf...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:26:35 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <4c0e42d5-81ee-43fa...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
> >>https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
> >> >>
> >> >> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
> >> >> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
> >> >> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
> >> >> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
> >> >> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
> >> >> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
> >> >> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
> >> >> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
> >> >> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
> >> >> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
> >> >> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
> >> >>
> >> >> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
> >> >> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
> >> >> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
> >> >> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
> >> >> not a good place.
> >> >
> >> >I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
> >> >This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
> >> >or the newspaper, or your blogger.
> >> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
> >> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
> >>
> >> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
> >>
> >>
> >https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
> >>
> >> though I can't get the whole article.
> >
> >I'm supposing that these books were edited in the publisher's
> >office, starting in 1992. Apparently they have been edited again.
> >
> >I'm reading this as that the text underwent some revision
> >for the release as e-books, and if this happened before
> >the Roald Dahl thing came up, then no one cared, but they
> >care now, maybe.
> >
> >Or perhaps this is about doing a controversial edit after
> >publication because no one noticed that these are
> >e-books now, so let's get noticed?
> OK, I guess I see what you're saying more now. So yes, I would
> agree that the books were edited for ebook release not particularly
> recently (I think 2018 was the date I saw), and people are just noticing
> now because it's a hot topic.
>
> To which I would say that I'm not particularly surprised that nobody
> noticed because after all, if you read it 30 years ago you're not
> going to remember everything, and if you never read it before,
> naturally you'll never notice it. That doesn't make it OK, especially
> not about leaving the author in the dark.

If the new books have different words but similar ideas, does the author still get paid?

John

John Halpenny wrote:

> If the new books have different words but similar ideas, does the author still get paid?

Would make for an interesting case. English may be rich enough that you could substitute for every word except a, an, and the. I suspect it would be an obvious "derivative work" if you tried that as a strict experiment.

The important words they are NOT changing in these books are the titles and author names on the cover. Which acknowledges the copyright holder, if in copyright. _James and the Giant Eggplant_ has to pay [the estate of] Roald Dahl, _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ owes nothing to [the estate of] Jane Austen.

--
-Jack

On 2023-03-10 6:46 p.m., John Halpenny wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:57:39 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <8c4468a8-6850-40cf...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:26:35 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> In article <4c0e42d5-81ee-43fa...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
>>>>>> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
>>>>>> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
>>>>>> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
>>>>>> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
>>>>>> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
>>>>>> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
>>>>>> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
>>>>>> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
>>>>>> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
>>>>>> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
>>>>>> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
>>>>>> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
>>>>>> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
>>>>>> not a good place.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
>>>>> This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
>>>>> or the newspaper, or your blogger.
>>>> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
>>>> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
>>>>
>>>> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
>>>>
>>>> though I can't get the whole article.
>>>
>>> I'm supposing that these books were edited in the publisher's
>>> office, starting in 1992. Apparently they have been edited again.
>>>
>>> I'm reading this as that the text underwent some revision
>>> for the release as e-books, and if this happened before
>>> the Roald Dahl thing came up, then no one cared, but they
>>> care now, maybe.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps this is about doing a controversial edit after
>>> publication because no one noticed that these are
>>> e-books now, so let's get noticed?
>> OK, I guess I see what you're saying more now. So yes, I would
>> agree that the books were edited for ebook release not particularly
>> recently (I think 2018 was the date I saw), and people are just noticing
>> now because it's a hot topic.
>>
>> To which I would say that I'm not particularly surprised that nobody
>> noticed because after all, if you read it 30 years ago you're not
>> going to remember everything, and if you never read it before,
>> naturally you'll never notice it. That doesn't make it OK, especially
>> not about leaving the author in the dark.
>
> If the new books have different words but similar ideas, does the author still get paid?

I can't give 50 Shades of Gray a desperately needed rewrite and sell it
as my own work.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:46:31 PM UTC-7, John Halpenny wrote:

> If the new books have different words but similar ideas, does the author still get paid?

Oh, of course he does.

This is about still being able to sell the books, not about cheating
the author out of his royalties.

Now, if the author actually owned the copyright - which tends not
to be the usual practice - that would be even more certain, as anything
derived from a work must still be licensed from the original owner of
the work.

The poor saps doing the work of making the editorial changes, though...
*they're* likely the ones under a work-for-hire contract.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:57:51 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
> _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ owes nothing to [the estate of] Jane Austen.

Wouldn't that be primarily because Pride and Prejudice was by Jane Austen,
who died in 1817, over two hundred years ago?

Thus, the publishers of unedited editions of Pride and Prejudice owe nothing
to the estate of Jane Austen for much the same reason as nobody is currently
paying money to the estate of that upstart crow from Stratford?

Of course, one can't be *completely* sure in this area, since look what the
government of Prince Edward Island has managed to do with Anne of Green
Gables.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-03-10 6:46 p.m., John Halpenny wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:57:39 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <8c4468a8-6850-40cf...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:26:35 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >>>> In article <4c0e42d5-81ee-43fa...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 13:23:04 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
> >>>>>> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
> >>>>>> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
> >>>>>> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
> >>>>>> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
> >>>>>> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
> >>>>>> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
> >>>>>> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
> >>>>>> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
> >>>>>> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
> >>>>>> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
> >>>>>> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
> >>>>>> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
> >>>>>> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
> >>>>>> not a good place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I expect they were edited in 1992 before any child saw them.
> >>>>> This is somebody just looking for attention; either the publisher,
> >>>>> or the newspaper, or your blogger.
> >>>> Not sure what you're saying here. My takeaway is that the hardcopies
> >>>> from 1992 deinitely have different text than the current e-books.
> >>>>
> >>>> That certainly seems to be the gist of what "The Times" is saying
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goosebumps-author-horror-books-rewritten-2023-95k6kjmp0
> >>>>
> >>>> though I can't get the whole article.
> >>>
> >>> I'm supposing that these books were edited in the publisher's
> >>> office, starting in 1992. Apparently they have been edited again.
> >>>
> >>> I'm reading this as that the text underwent some revision
> >>> for the release as e-books, and if this happened before
> >>> the Roald Dahl thing came up, then no one cared, but they
> >>> care now, maybe.
> >>>
> >>> Or perhaps this is about doing a controversial edit after
> >>> publication because no one noticed that these are
> >>> e-books now, so let's get noticed?
> >> OK, I guess I see what you're saying more now. So yes, I would
> >> agree that the books were edited for ebook release not particularly
> >> recently (I think 2018 was the date I saw), and people are just noticing
> >> now because it's a hot topic.
> >>
> >> To which I would say that I'm not particularly surprised that nobody
> >> noticed because after all, if you read it 30 years ago you're not
> >> going to remember everything, and if you never read it before,
> >> naturally you'll never notice it. That doesn't make it OK, especially
> >> not about leaving the author in the dark.
> >
> > If the new books have different words but similar ideas, does the author still get paid?
> I can't give 50 Shades of Gray a desperately needed rewrite and sell it
> as my own work.

Note that that book began life as a Twilight fanfic.

Pt

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 6:56:08 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:57:51 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
> > _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ owes nothing to [the estate of] Jane Austen.
> Wouldn't that be primarily because Pride and Prejudice was by Jane Austen,
> who died in 1817, over two hundred years ago?
>
> Thus, the publishers of unedited editions of Pride and Prejudice owe nothing
> to the estate of Jane Austen for much the same reason as nobody is currently
> paying money to the estate of that upstart crow from Stratford?
>
> Of course, one can't be *completely* sure in this area, since look what the
> government of Prince Edward Island has managed to do with Anne of Green
> Gables.

What did they do?

The book is free and clear in the US and Canada, but the maker of dramatizations
in the 80s and 90s is claiming that a current adaptation is using elements he
Invented, and to which he holds copyright.

Pt

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:23:04 AM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> Still, it's where we are, and it's
> not a good place.

I, for one, can't wait to see what they will do with Farnham's Freehold.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:17:59 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> What did they do?

When the book was still under copyright, they, by the sheer force of being
a provincial government, thus with jurisdiction over the civil law, grabbed
half the royalties of the author's estate, on the grounds that the work was
making money off of the scenic character of the province.

And even though it's now out of copyright, they're also also suing someone
making a current adaptation, on the grounds that their province is eternal.

John Savard

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:23:04 AM UTC+11, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> https://victorygirlsblog.com/goosebumps-books-getting-woke-edits-without-author-approval/
>
> The Times of London discovered that what has been happening
> to the Roald Dahl collection and the James Bond novels was
> now happening to the kids horror series "Goosebumps", written
> by R.L. Stine. The series debuted in July 1992 (disclaimer:
> I have never read any of them as I was older than the
> targeted age at the time of publication, and horror has
> never been my jam) and were hugely popular. According to
> the Times of London, the "Goosebumps" series was recently
> re-released in ebook format -- and has now been "cleaned
> up" of all that "offensive" and "hurtful" language for new
> readers. You know, words like "crazy", and "plump".
>
> Never read them myself, being in my 30s when they started, and I
> acknowledge, given the pulp-like frequency and packaging of the
> series, that there could be fine print in those contracts letting
> Schoolastic do what they are doing. Still, it's where we are, and it's
> not a good place.

The issue here is that the publishers are doing it without the author approval
Barring an extremely shit contract (which is quite possible, a hell of a lot of authors get stuffed over) this is a massive legal own goal by the publishing company, never mind morally

I'm fussed about the text being changed if the author or their representatives are ok with it, iirc Dianne Duane's young wizards series has made some revisions in later editions
Removing a reference to MTV video rappers makes a lot of sense for a kid book seeing as MTV is no longer a music channel
Changing individual descriptions isn't unreasonable, but it's not something the publisher should be doing without the permission of the author