Pterran & Nard,
I believe it is unanimous among us that the Martain Chronicles should not have been altered and we have used the analogy of retouched films. The history in those books, films and albums (the idea of messing with Sgt. Pepper lights a huge fire under me) that we share is important, and if these things are going to continue to happen it is up to us to keep that true history alive. In the audio afterword to "Fahrenheit 451," Mr. Bradbury struggles in an interview with whether or not to add things that he wished he had thought of before to the novel. He says that he doesn't think an artist should go back and interfere with his younger self and it was clearly a moral dilema for him. Even if it is self censorship, as with Star Wars and E.T. special editions, those artists are trying to change and "improve history" which can not be done. I just don't get it, those works are sacred and beautiful. Its a facade, a lie and they are also censoring history. So, Pterran, Nard and anyone else on this same page - Here's to the true "Martian Chronicles," and all of those beautiful and perfect original books, films and albums. Thanks, Guys.

Greentown,

Here, here!

Pete

Getting back to my original question/fear: was this a publisher's decision (to sell more books by not offending some group) or was it Ray Bradbury's decision (which he certainly has the right to do)? Either way, however, the book is marketed as a "second edition" or "revised edition."

I'll be curious to see if future paperback editions have these changes as well. (The dates in this edition are revised with later years. Some text in stories is also changed to reflect "later" dates.)

oops. I should have written that the book "should have been" marketed. This edition has nothing except a sentence on the copyright page that says that it is updated and revised.

Wow, heated...ok, here we go.
I personally only have the old version of martian chronicles. I didn't know about the new one 'till reading this thread. I think it's an insult to readers' intelligence to change the dates. Like we don't know that it's fiction, and we believe it's really going to happen exactly like that. Like we won't enjoy the book because a couple of the dates have already passed. In fact, I think it's a lot more fun reading it with the old dates. Most of us aren't going to be around in a hundred years anyway to see if it happens exactly like the book says. I reread TMC this past spring and I was like, hmm...it's april 2003, some kids are up on Mars having a picnic right now, playing the macabre percussion.

As for Way in the Middle of the Air, it's not a bad story, but a little dated, at least socially, in my opinion. To me it's not so much Ray censoring something he wrote, but trying to keep the themes current. Which, like updating the dates, also insults the readers' intelligence.

ET the special edition also really bothered me; particularly the fact that the guns were digitally replaced with walkie talkies. Spielberg said he didn't like the fact that they were wielding guns at kids. I thought that was rediculous. I don't think ANYBODY ever thought that the guns were going to be used to shoot at the kids. It was just to show the seriousness of the situation. Elliot had this alien and the FBI was there with guns...there was no way out. He was going to be arrested for sure. But not shot at.

Greentown, I agree that it's wrong to censor others. I don't think "censoring yourself" is good, because that would mean trying to cover it up and or change what was said. If one says something and later disagrees with what they said, then one should just say, "okay, I said that. I thought it at the time, but now I've changed my mind, and I'm better for it." That would be totally honorable AND it wouldn't be censorship, that'd be the equivalent of what pterran said about leaving the old book alone and writing a new one based on how you feel now.
I think people are very afraid to say the wrong thing, and even more afraid to admit that they have ever said a wrong thing. That's kind of sad, because we all do it, and yet if someone says something, nobody will ever let them forget it. We want everything to be perfect the first time, but of course it never is, and the audience accepts that, so I think artists shouldn't sweat it over something they made 20, 30, or 50 years ago.
Has anyone seen the Back to the future DVD? No changes, no enhanced special effects, everything is exactly as it was in the theaters. Still a GREAT movie, because the script is so damn good!

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

Okay, now look up at the bottom of my last message it says:
[This message has been edited by groon (edited 10-10-2003).]
Self censorship? We all do it here on this site.

I'm guessing that it was the publisher's decision to remove that story, and not Ray's. It just doesn't sound like something he would do. But perhaps someone such as Dandelion, who has some access to Ray, can find out for us. You've sure got my curiosity up.

That was a very good post, groon. I have not seen the special edition E.T. but I do remember going to the movies when I was very young and being awed by the original. Changing the guns to walkie talkies? Good god! I don't know what happened to Spielburg other than the fact he is getting too serious and the stories are suffering. And on the subject of censorship which isn't really censorship but over-sensitivity how about after Spielburg directed the movie Amistad and black "leaders" scorned him that their history need not be tampered with by a man of another race. Or recently, on the same note, a man is under fire for teaching black history while also having the impediment of being white. How ridiculous. But, groon, the most important thing in your writing is the absolute fact people are afraid to speak genuinely anymore. To be a great writer, I believe you should not worry that some things you write may be considered racist, sexist, absurd, having a preference for dogs over cats, firewood over hickory trees, what have you. Its all for the betterment of the story.

Groon,
Thank you and let me clarify what I mean by self censoring. You are right. I definitely believe that we should all speak our minds and never be silent with our opinions. I was just saying that, for instance, you get cut off at the gas station and are inclined to flip the man or woman off and yell horrible obscenities at them, some self restraint (better word I guess)would probably be wise.
And, yeah. What's up with insulting us with those dates. I stated elsewhere that Orwell wouldn't have changed "1984" to "2015." Which brings up "Back To The Future." Thank God there were no changes and hopefully in 2015 they won't screw around with the dates. We all get it.

Greentown, I didn't mean to put down what you had said, so I hope it wasn't taken that way.
Ought Not, it's true what you said about people worrying that what they say might be taken as racism, etc. I read in the paper about this woman who was forced to make a public apology after stating that Britney Spears was such a bad role model that she would shoot her if she had the chance. I thought it was so dumb that she had to apologize. Obviously it was a figure of speech. It's gotten so that we can say all the cuss words we want, but we can no longer try to come up with a more creative way to express the severity of our feelings. Instead of saying, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," (because that would offend some horse lovers) it is more acceptible to say, "I'm so f-ing hungry." Well, I guess that's a little exaggerated, since the "f" word is just about the only one you can't say on TV.
Speaking of TV, why is it that you can say damn on TV, but not God damn? Is God a bad word now?

P.S. I did a search on the horse meat thing. I actually found quite a bit of stuff on the topic. It seems to be rather common. Here are a couple of the more interesting ones. I once read in a book about the plague that it was banned during the great pestilence (plague) of the early 14th century. I wouldn't doubt it's been banned several times throughout history.
http://www.massequality.org/ap4_24.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse

[This message has been edited by groon (edited 10-13-2003).]

"Speaking of TV, why is it that you can say damn on TV, but not God damn? Is God a bad word now?"

While this is a little off topic, the word "God" (as an expletive) has been a "bad" word since about 3,000 BC. It is in that little-known legal code called The Ten Commandments. It's accepted use in common language, as an expletive, has been fairly recent. Previously it's use was seen as sacriligious, irreverent, and indicative of a lower class social status.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

Exodus 20:7



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 10-13-2003).]

Mr.Dark:
I'll give you another...

Whenever the name of God was used in transcribing scripture, the scribe had to not only change all his clothes, but had to wash himself, sometimes his hands, sometimes his entire body. That was every time he came to transcribe a word that was God's name....
The Awe and Shock of God's name has turned to Aw ! and Shucks!

(Originally God's name was unpronounceable, because of the majesty given it. But later ...it was ultimately settled on 'Jehovah'. )

Groon,
No worries and no offense taken at all - ever. I understood what you were saying. Thanks again.

I'm so hungry I could eat a f#@%ing tofu horse, gosh darn it, gee willikers!

In the very old days, say the '50's, we used to actually buy horse meat at the grocery store. Used to feed the cats horse meat. I have tasted it after frying, stronger than hamburger. They must have had too many horses back then. I'll bet that some of the meat in those expensive pet food cans is still horse meat? I guess the "I could eat a horse .." has more to due with quantity, and hunger, rather than quality of taste. Horses are beautiful to see and now not thought of as food. Ever look into the eyes of a cow? Could make one become a vegitarian.