![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakI was having lunch the other day with an editor who works for Droemer & Knaur, a German publisher that now publishes, among other things, the German translations of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels. Who told me a bizarre and somewhat depressing tale, gossip with larger ramifications. In his words: "There is a feud going on between her last lover, the one who is writting more stuff under her name, and the last but one lover. Unfortunately, the last but one lover managed to get some sort of signature on the deathbed regarding the Darkover novels. And now she's found Christ and wants ALL of them rewritten, with same-sex relationships edited into heterosexual relationships, if necessary by switching the gender of characters. That's how they are already published in the US. We got the templates for the new editions, but pretended to have confused them with the old versions we received from Moewig. (The publisher that used to publish the Darkover novels.)"
Okay. No matter whether one likes MZBs novels or not - and I loved several of the classic Darkover ones, notably Heritage of Hastur and Sharra's Exile - isn't this one of the worst things that can happen to a deceased author? I mean, it's bad enough that more and more dead authors got turned into brand names with ghost written novels appearing for years afterwards under their name (see: V.C. Andrews, see: Isaac Asimov, and yes, see also: MZB). But posthumous censorship and rewriting?
One can try and be philosophical (it happened to Nietzsche, courtesy of his sister), but it really ticks me off.
***
On a different note, I watched the recent tv version of Spartacus for research purposes. Bad mistake. Like Kubrick's film, it's based on Howard Fast's novel, which already takes several liberties with history, but manages to be captivating. This tv thing doesn't just offend my inner historian (who danced around the room screaming "Romans didn't wear clothes when taking a BATH, you repressed overseas puritans! There were always two consuls, even Sulla took care to observe protocol that much, heck, even the Empire kept the two consul system, but in the Republic they were elected, not appointed! That hair is all wrong! What are you thinking, having Pompey younger than Caesar and Crassus! No troops in the freakin' city, unless it's Sulla or much, much later Caesar, you idiots, that was the law! Arghhhhhh!"), but the entertainment-expecting viewer in me. Spartacus was nobler than noble, and you really need to be Russel Crowe or Kirk Douglas to pull that one off without being boring. Crassus getting obsessed with Spartacus and fearing him and making a play at Varinia came totally out of the blue. (It's also ahistorical, but never mind - that was Fast's thing which already made it in the Kubrick film, only the later had Olivier to make it credible.)
I mean, I get the basic problem. The tale of Spartacus might be captivating and heroic, but it's also tragic. He dies and fails to change the slightest thing (and it' s open to debate whether he wanted to beyond wanting feedom for himself and his followers, but then the problem with have with Spartacus is that there are only Roman historians telling his story). The Romans win. Rome continues to grow and expand for several centuries afterwards. And your modern tv audience, or so apparently the producers think, can't stomach true tragedy and seeing their heroes fail. So he has to get at least some victory. That's why Fast invented Varinia and the kid, and both films came up with a morally defeated Crassus. (In reality, the only thing that spoiled things for Crassus was that Pompey managed to steal the credit for the defeat of the slaves, but otherwise, things went splendily for him, and continued to until he managed to get himself killed when warring against the Parthians. There is no indication from any historian he ever gave Spartacus another thought.) But the tv version went and overdid but not only sparing Spartacus the cruxifixion (instead giving him death in battle) but by having the invented fellow named Agrippa, who takes the place of the equally invented fellow named Gracchus from the Kubrick movie, free Varinia, declare Rome to be a bad, bad place and the slaves the cause of the just, and sent her to an idyllic village. (Where that one should be isn't said.) Kubrick let Varinia and the kid survive as well, but they do so in the dubious company of the wily slave owner Batatius, which gave it some semblance of realism.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget that it was somewhat mysterious why the Romans won, because with we only ever saw their soldiers getting beaten by our heroes. William Shakespeare tried that one in the Henry VI. part that deals with Joan of Arc, and it didn't work there, either. By Jove, I want I, Claudius back. Can't think of another tv show or film dealing with ancient Rome or Greece that didn't leave me exasparated.
Okay. No matter whether one likes MZBs novels or not - and I loved several of the classic Darkover ones, notably Heritage of Hastur and Sharra's Exile - isn't this one of the worst things that can happen to a deceased author? I mean, it's bad enough that more and more dead authors got turned into brand names with ghost written novels appearing for years afterwards under their name (see: V.C. Andrews, see: Isaac Asimov, and yes, see also: MZB). But posthumous censorship and rewriting?
One can try and be philosophical (it happened to Nietzsche, courtesy of his sister), but it really ticks me off.
***
On a different note, I watched the recent tv version of Spartacus for research purposes. Bad mistake. Like Kubrick's film, it's based on Howard Fast's novel, which already takes several liberties with history, but manages to be captivating. This tv thing doesn't just offend my inner historian (who danced around the room screaming "Romans didn't wear clothes when taking a BATH, you repressed overseas puritans! There were always two consuls, even Sulla took care to observe protocol that much, heck, even the Empire kept the two consul system, but in the Republic they were elected, not appointed! That hair is all wrong! What are you thinking, having Pompey younger than Caesar and Crassus! No troops in the freakin' city, unless it's Sulla or much, much later Caesar, you idiots, that was the law! Arghhhhhh!"), but the entertainment-expecting viewer in me. Spartacus was nobler than noble, and you really need to be Russel Crowe or Kirk Douglas to pull that one off without being boring. Crassus getting obsessed with Spartacus and fearing him and making a play at Varinia came totally out of the blue. (It's also ahistorical, but never mind - that was Fast's thing which already made it in the Kubrick film, only the later had Olivier to make it credible.)
I mean, I get the basic problem. The tale of Spartacus might be captivating and heroic, but it's also tragic. He dies and fails to change the slightest thing (and it' s open to debate whether he wanted to beyond wanting feedom for himself and his followers, but then the problem with have with Spartacus is that there are only Roman historians telling his story). The Romans win. Rome continues to grow and expand for several centuries afterwards. And your modern tv audience, or so apparently the producers think, can't stomach true tragedy and seeing their heroes fail. So he has to get at least some victory. That's why Fast invented Varinia and the kid, and both films came up with a morally defeated Crassus. (In reality, the only thing that spoiled things for Crassus was that Pompey managed to steal the credit for the defeat of the slaves, but otherwise, things went splendily for him, and continued to until he managed to get himself killed when warring against the Parthians. There is no indication from any historian he ever gave Spartacus another thought.) But the tv version went and overdid but not only sparing Spartacus the cruxifixion (instead giving him death in battle) but by having the invented fellow named Agrippa, who takes the place of the equally invented fellow named Gracchus from the Kubrick movie, free Varinia, declare Rome to be a bad, bad place and the slaves the cause of the just, and sent her to an idyllic village. (Where that one should be isn't said.) Kubrick let Varinia and the kid survive as well, but they do so in the dubious company of the wily slave owner Batatius, which gave it some semblance of realism.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget that it was somewhat mysterious why the Romans won, because with we only ever saw their soldiers getting beaten by our heroes. William Shakespeare tried that one in the Henry VI. part that deals with Joan of Arc, and it didn't work there, either. By Jove, I want I, Claudius back. Can't think of another tv show or film dealing with ancient Rome or Greece that didn't leave me exasparated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:02 pm (UTC)I will double-check the next time I'm in a bookstore, but I do not think this is true.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 01:00 am (UTC)if it matters...
Date: 2005-01-08 06:24 pm (UTC)maybe it's edited so it's less explicit? i remember thinking, huh, these chicks must be REALLY GOOD friends, but it didn't seem any worse than the girl/girl friendship in anne of green gables, which i also read at the same time.
Re: if it matters...
Date: 2005-01-08 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:19 pm (UTC)It's clear her "literary trustees" are continuing her works as there are several new books to be published this year -- and yes, this is one of the worst things that could happen to an author.
Ah, Spartacus. I adore the Kubrick version, but as a movie, knowing it has damn little to do with history. I've avoided the recent TV version, though a friend just gifted us with the Press Kit which has a DVD, so we'll probably end up watching it at some point. Given what you've said, though, we'll probably end up shouting at the television at some point.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:22 pm (UTC)Kubrick Spartacus: ditto. Not history, but a good film. Unfortunately, the tv version is neither.
*wanders off muttering again about fully dressed Romans sitting in hot water AND in steam baths*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 09:58 pm (UTC)That's so stupid, it's downright funny.
I'm reading one of Lindsey Davis's Marcus Didius Falco novels at the moment. They're light and amusing and excellent holiday reading, but she does her research very well; the background of the books is impeccable. Her Course of Honour is a serious novel about Vespasian which I'd recommend to anyone who enjoyed I, Claudius, though that's in a league of its own.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 08:02 am (UTC)(Marcus Didius Falco is fun, but a deliberate spoof of a noir Chandleresque detective.)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 09:37 am (UTC)Update on Darkover...
Date: 2005-01-11 07:56 pm (UTC)I, Claudius
Date: 2005-01-07 08:22 pm (UTC)Re: I, Claudius
Date: 2005-01-07 08:26 pm (UTC)Trivia for you which
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:45 pm (UTC)So yes, it's possible. It depends on whether or not you have the copyright. Klara May and then the Karl May Verlag had it. Crossing my fingers here that my pal at Droemer's was exaggarating or spoke of something planned to happen, so there is still time to stop it. But if the holder of the copyright wants to - it can be done.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:44 pm (UTC)I will certainly not watch it with
Clothed Roman bathing. *holds head*
Where oh where are the 60s, when implying that Cleopatra is nude in the bath is a sexy scene, even though we don't see an inch of flesh?
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:52 pm (UTC)Don't even mention the armour. Crassus first wore something that vaguely resembled Augustus' armour from his standard statue, and then something that looked like a leftover from Commodus' stuff in Gladiator. And as I said, armies blithely marching in and out of Rome itself, hanging out in the Forum Romanum...
*goes off ranting again*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:49 pm (UTC)love, lore
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 08:58 pm (UTC)Hardly my period, but I'm sure I read somewhere that Spartacus did actually die in battle. One of the first to be hacked down, in fact. Don't know if that's true or not, though.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 09:08 pm (UTC)I should have been more precise: My objection is the the way his death was staged, i.e. with Spartacus making his way to a terrified Crassus and being brought down by at least twenty Roman soldiers before he can reach Crassus. It's the Heroic Battlefield Death par excellence, complete with cowardly villains using unfair means, and in the film, there is no question regarding identification, since Crassus & Co. know who he is.
WTF?
Date: 2005-01-07 11:34 pm (UTC)And it's not as if screenwriters absolutely had to read all four volumes of Mommsen, unabridged. Colleen McCullough makes all your points in the Masters of Rome series.
I've never read MZB, but the rewriting of the books smacks of Minitruth. Eeeeeek.
Am desolated! Have finished the Alexander Trilogy! I miss them! I miss them all!
I was incredibly moved by Bagoas's apparition at Ptolemy's palace in Funeral Games: It's the extraordinary dignity that completely reduces me to a little puddle of goo. I now have bunnies for Alexandria!Bagoas, a little inspired by the (excellent)
Re: WTF?
Date: 2005-01-08 07:37 am (UTC)(Mind you, Schiller wrote his drama about Jeanne d'Arc deliberately ignoring history as well and gave her an end in the battlefield instead of being burned, which ruins the point and pathos as well, but at least we got some glorious poetry and speeches out of said drama. Schiller the screenwriters ain't.)
I like the Bagaos as amateur sleuth idea. Alexandria with its many cultures, with the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Jews there, is a wonderful background, and the city has a reputation for violence thoughout ancient times.*g*
Have you read Renault's two novels about Theseus, The King Must Die and The Bull from the Sea?
What, no barbecue in Rouen?
Date: 2005-01-08 03:58 pm (UTC)I like the Bagaos as amateur sleuth idea. Alexandria with its many cultures, with the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Jews there, is a wonderful background, and the city has a reputation for violence thoughout ancient times.*g*
Yes, the multicultural thing is of course very attractive. I have a fair notion of what the Jews could be like (and how different Egyptian and Palestinian Jews would be from the ones Bagoas is bound to have encoutered in Babylon); Phoenicians would be fun too; and varieties of Greeks. My (one of my many) problem/s is that the Alexandria we know quite a bit about is the city Julius Caesar lands at in 50 BC. The city Bagoas would live in is brand-new, probably not violent yet (for one thing, the ruler is an experienced general, so you can assume policing will be effective for a while) and a novelty in Egypt. I wonder if Ptolemy was immediately perceived as Greek there, or if the difference between Macedonian and Grek was perceptible. I am sure Bagoas would understand it, but he might be the only one (with Ptolemy's generals and soldiers, naturally.) So this means a bit of research. I'd also love to have an early Roman dredge up there; same thing, I need a better notion of why a traveller would leave the small, provincial Roman kingdom in the Fourth century; I wonder what the Greeks would make of his claim that Rome was founded by the descendents of the Trojans. Probably laugh it off nastily.
My first bunny in years! Amusing that this never happened to me with Harry Potter, even though I have been reading entirely too much HP fanfic in the past year. I am very taken by the competent, reticent Bagoas of Funeral Games; even later, he would be someone with precision, worldliness, and the dual attitudes of the Persian and Alexander's boy in him - both ruthlessness, even cruelty if necessary; and generosity - and of course a kind of melancholy that would disappear only when he's truly absorbed by a problem. Hmmm, in a way I have described a Sherlock Holmes personality!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 09:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-11 07:55 pm (UTC)Now I'm really glad I recently (well, okay, two years ago)
Date: 2005-01-08 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-08 06:37 pm (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/community/whileaway/
i bet a lot of people there would be interested.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-11 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-11 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-09 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-09 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 12:57 pm (UTC)And had more possibilities for gay sex and threesomes.) :DI need an "Ancient Rome Geek" icon.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 03:46 pm (UTC)Mind you, I can quiet my inner historian. (About every time I see one of Shakespeare's or Schiller's history plays, for example.) But the unhistorical result has to be really well-told to make up for the inaccuracies...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-11 10:42 am (UTC)