I just picked up a BOMC (Sci-Fi book club) edition of "The Martian Chronicles" and I was astonished to find that "Way Up in the Middle of the Air" was gone and two other stories were inserted. Was this Bradbury's idea? Anyone know about this?

There's a discussion concerning this elsewhere on the board. Bradbury is notorious for revising his work for reprints, to the point of rewriting and adding to long-established works, but just as well-known for being opposed to change or censorship of it.

The question of revising one's own work is not necessarily a matter of self-censorship. In some cases, he changes dates to keep "futures" stories ahead of us, etc. Sometimes he may alter an ending or some dialog to accomodate his changed view of how a character would act or speak. These are just personal revisions -- not censorship.

If he were to change stories because he has buckled under external pressure to change something so as not to offend others; that, it seems to me, would be an example of self-censorship. For example, if he came out with a new edition of F451, where Captain Beatty became a woman, or Faber was black; this would obviously represent his efforts to curb criticism of his work. I can't imagine Bradbury doing that.

My own view is that once a work is completed and published, it ought to become fixed. Why do I feel this way? I'm not too sure. I guess I get attached to a story as it was when I feel in love with it, and it is unsettling to me to see it changed. I like to see literature as something that represents a fixed "take" on life. As an author's view of life changes, I would rather see that reflected in new stories, or in his or her own writings explaining what he or she would do differently. I love reading authors' forward to updated editions where they discuss changes they might make or explain why they made the decisions they did. I like the idea of a fixed version that can become a point of discussion. These discussions lose meaning if significant alterations occur in a story. Then any effort at critical interpretation becomes much more difficult.

In Bradbury's case, I have never really sat down and studied his revisions from one version of a story/book to another; so I don't really know how much this shows up in his writing.

There is very little I don't like/love in Bradbury's writing, but I do wish he would leave published works alone. When I buy (for example) The Martian Chronicles, I want to buy the one I fell in love with.

On the other hand, Bradbury's view (very reasonable) is that the work is his and if he wants to make alterations, then, he will make alterations.

It's one thing to add a story or update dates (certainly no big deal there), but to take out a story that already has taken criticism in schools (because of the infamous "n" word) sends an uncomfortable message, especially when dealing with the writer of "Fahrenheit 451."

I'd still like to know why stories were substituted.

I think the value of the M.C. (as well as any work of lit.) lies not only in what it says to the present reader but also in its historical context.

When were these changes made? I have a copy of Martian Chronicles from 1980 and it includes Way in the Middle of the Air. What exactly was changed, and when?

The changes are in the Book of the Month Club hardcover edition (I bought it through the Sci-Fi book club). It's copyrighted 2001 by Bookspan. ("This edition was especially created in 2001 for BOMC by arrangement with Avon Books, Inc.")

The two new stories are "The Fire Balloons" and "The Wilderness."

Does a writer NOT have the power to censor what he wishes for whatever reason?
I 'censor' my tongue every day. I 'censor' what I think, and that is many times an awful effort. If there was NO censorship (which I believe much of the world of Western Civilizationand the media is heading) then it would be bedlam.

The Question is:
Why Do we Censor Something and for What Reason? NOT... Censor Nothing!!

Old Fan, see the post here titled, "Way In The Middle Of The Air and The Wilderness - what happened?"
Nard, I believe that we should all self censor but that none of us shoul censor someone else. If we merely censor someone whom we think is dangerous or merely disagrees with us (instead of allowing them to express how they feel) then we are saying, "This topic is not open for discussion." Then no one learns or grows because someone who won't hear what someone else has to say, right or wrong, is probably not going to be listened to by that person, right or wrong.

Re-reading my post, I think I may hace not been clear. Censoring someone who we feel is wrong is simply cutting them off robbing them and ourselves an opportunity to learn and to teach, and stunting the growth of both. If we say, "Okay go ahead, what to you have to say?" Then we can respond and discussion is open and enlightenment can happen. Can is the key word here, for I know that it often doesn't but we need the opportunity or it never will.

Jeeze! Let's play a game called, "Find Greentown's typo." Sorry, all.

Man, I hate to wade into this quagmire again.

Greentown, you and I have discussed this issue under another heading before so there's no sense in re-hashing that argument.

To re-cap my position, since you've re-capped yours, I favor censorship in some instances. Yeah, yeah, the question then becomes, who'll be the judge, and I've addressed that before: I will. You're free to have a different opinion and we'll let the marketplace of ideas decide who's right.

But what I'd really like to get into for a little bit here is the question of author self-censorship. As a struggling writer, I think an author's work ought to stand as originally written. I have no patience for "director's cuts" of films or re-tooling old music albums to include additional "bonus" tracks or "re-mixes. I think the artists in all of these cases put, or should've put, what they believed at the time was their best work for consumption. They were paid for it, hopefully handsomely so, and, in most cases, thanks to copyright law, the work really no longer belongs to them. (At least in that particular form. The issue of just what rights are sold when an artist sells his work is another topic.)

Ray most likely had some kind of input in the revision of this edition of MC but I would argue he, or whoever made the decision, lessened the work slightly. Certainly Ray is not the same man who wrote MC so many years ago and perhaps he felt the deleted pieces no longer worked to strengthen the whole. And, he might be right. But I say leave well enough alone and let the original piece stand on its own and if an artist no longer feels the way he did when inspired to create the first work, let him create another one instead.

Pete

=======
pterran:�
=======

While ago, I read a NEW copy of 'The Martian Chronicles'...and couldn't believe that someone changed the chapter dates.
What happened to 1999, etc etc. in the old editions? Now it was years ahead, as if Ray wrote it when he was suddenly inspired to write about things with greater certainty... For instance, Men to Mars, is a definite possibilty by 2015 thereabouts, according to NASA. (That is, if we don't blow up more things on the way upstairs or down...) Now, to the novice reader, it may seem that Ray originally wrote it that way.
Yuk!
To me this was merchandising. Maybe it's 'ALL' that! Maybe the publisher recommends it, not Ray. I'd say that it is the publisher who recommends or insists upon it.

( And another thing ):
Before Ray's stroke, I was somewhat concerned, let's put it a little stronger... I was a bit 'disturbed', that his publisher was sending him out on these 'field' trips, to sell his book. What? Sales down? Not selling like the previous couple years? So out goes Ray to these book signings way, way outta town. I never heard of him going out so frequently and far before, and I thought...now wait one darn moment. Ray isn't 44 anymore with lots and lots of vim, vigor and vitality and all that. His stroke followed not that long afterwards. I know ! I don't have all the facts, and I'm talking about something I don't know about. So what! It bothered me then, and it still bothers me. I think they were pushing him too much.

That is off the topic....
So, let me end, closer to the topic in mind....

No, I don't really like editing and changing from the original. If so, put it on the cover,

�� ""Re-edited Version By Publisher's Suggestion To Help Sell More Books"" �

I haven't seen that done yet on Ray's works. Cover blubs make no mention of it. Nonetheless, I would perfer to read the original. It has something to do with the 'mystique' of the past.

===========
From
Greentown,
Illinois:�
===========

About NOT censoring another's works:

It's the nature of all things, to clash, attracting and polarizing readers, writers, buyers, and sellers. No one is satisfied unless they belong to something likened to their own clique. At least, it is more hospitable there...



[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 10-09-2003).]

You make some pretty good points, Nard. I'd like to think going out and about to his signings and plays and such helps Ray keep active but maybe he's being pushed beyond his limits. Someone had mentioned on another, earlier, and unrelated, posting of a "rude" handler who kept Ray from his fans. Well, perhaps he could use such a handler now to keep him from being worked too hard.

About your point of changing works but putting it on the cover, I remember a column by Bob Greene, the now-disgraced but formerly great (In my view, at least) Chicago Tribune columnist, that pointed out with the advent of downloadable music, we will possibly share an entirely different cultural history from one another. He said, for example, someone might download a somewhat different version of The Beatles' great Sgt. Pepper's. You and I share a history of the original but someone else might only know what they think are the "best" parts. Whereas, I'm all for the unfettered freedom of consumers to consume as they please, without hurting themselves, their loved ones, or society, I'm not sure I'm their ability to create their own works of art by "cherry picking" from the artist's creation.

There can be such a thing as too much democracy, can't it?

The original work of art should stand or fall on its own merits.

Pete

[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 10-09-2003).]

pterran:

Ray, at the '"Something Wicked..." play in Los Angeles last week, seemed comfortable with the people there. But then, it was a 99 seat playhouse, and the theater goers were sensible and orderly. Afterwards, with hors d'oeuvres served, one could meet all the actors and Ray himself.

There is NO question that he must be careful. Those important to him ARE surely wise enough to know that. I've seen him stop in autographing, pause for 5 minutes and more as he rubbed his hand which became cramped. That was a year ago. Now his signature is frequently a struggle....


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 10-10-2003).]

Nard, although naturally right-handed, I've noticed Ray reserves his right hand ONLY for autographs, doing as much else as possible with his left. It was his right, of course, that he had to work to regain use of after the stroke.