Should some classics be re-written?

[VAwkOb12]

I know that books are written according to the time periods that the authors lived in and the unfamiliar words that they use sometimes help you in learning new words.

But the same books are also read by people of the future who use the same language but speak it differently.

Therefore it may be hard to get the message written in books because the readers find the language used hard.

Do you think that some classics need to be re-written by using a much simpler language so that everyone can understand with ease?

If so name the classic that you wish would have been written in an easier language?

[BrandyD1+]

In some ways I don't want to see classics rewritten because they are a piece of history and how the language of the time truly was and would be an addition to the learning experience of the book. But I can understand with the changes over the decades and centuries it seems like youth has been steered away from the classic such as Hamlet by William Shakesphere because of the language that was used in the century he wrote all of his great works. Maybe a revised version might help to get youth to become interested in the older versions. If I see a movie remake, I often start seeking the original version for example.

[clizturite007]

Considering the fact that social language developmental growth in individual atmosphere or environment varies in terms of swiftness of time and culture of unseen future;It's likely the next generation or the future readers of books may have to be compelled to convey and assimilate the words used or pattern of languages applied,by doing personal research on a conclusive mission to reach peak of understanding such in every sense applicable to the unborn future time.

[brown09]

I know what you mean, but in some ways, classics are classics because they encapsulate the era in one story/book/movie/etc. I don't think that they should be re-written, unless it's for a parody of some sort. Those are usually funny or deeply disturbing, depending on the author, so they make for good entertainment.

[Jlbaird85]

I am not a fan of rewriting classics. They can be difficult to read, but that is part of learning and expanding our horizons. I know that when I was studying Shakespeare, I hated the language and everything that went along with it, but now my favorite quote comes from As You Like It. It was difficult to read and understand, but I am so glad I did!

[Eclecticmama]

What if they did what they did with the Bible, and release different translations of the same book? Could they even do that?

[eagermagic]

What a great question! The answer is: whether we like it or nor, they get rewritten all the time. Also: re-edited, recycled, repackaged. The most obvious example is the reworking of classics for younger audiences; you might also included comic book versions of classics, stage and film adaptations and so on. My first encounter with The Scarlet Letter was a 5th grade comic book -- because adultery and sin are so important to fifth graders, it goes without saying. This practice is so common that we can barely recognize it without expert help. Take good old Billy Shakespeare himself, nary an original plot in the whole collection and we can usually identify where this most artistic of thieves stole his ideas. It gets deeper; experts can identify various language based threads in the Bible and can thus determine (this is a scholarly idea, not a faith based one) exactly how this central book, Western Civilization's founding document, was a massive rewrite job. It makes one rethink just what exactly artists do, how they shape old material, to make original art.

[maggi3]

When we read Hamlet in high school, I used a website that had the original text on one side and the modern day language on the other. I think that’s a pretty good compromise so that people are exposed to the original text but can still understand the story.

[rebborgman]

I do agree that it would be easier for people of this day and age to read old classics if the books were re-written but I love when I can pick up a book and it has old style writing in it. It makes me feel like I am back in that age. Sometimes I do wish books had the original and re-written side by side so you could see the old vs new.

[iced_sunshine]

I don't think classics should be rewritten. If they are then they lose what makes them special, kind of like taking something out of its wrapping, it loses its value by nearly fifty percent. Classics should remain as they are and people should challenge their minds by reading them.

[Tomah]

As people have said, plenty of books are rewritten, reimagined, and adapted into different mediums. I don't think this detracts from the original at all; it will always be there for anyone who wants to read it. I read a "kid-friendly" version of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels and enjoyed it as a light adventure novel. Later on I rediscovered Swift through the acidic wit of his essays, which resonated much more with me as an adult and made me want to read more.

[morgan4hoof]

What a great question! The answer is: whether we like it or nor, they get rewritten all the time. Also: re-edited, recycled, repackaged. The most obvious example is the reworking of classics for younger audiences; you might also included comic book versions of classics, stage and film adaptations and so on. My first encounter with The Scarlet Letter was a 5th grade comic book -- because adultery and sin are so important to fifth graders, it goes without saying. This practice is so common that we can barely recognize it without expert help. Take good old Billy Shakespeare himself, nary an original plot in the whole collection and we can usually identify where this most artistic of thieves stole his ideas. It gets deeper; experts can identify various language based threads in the Bible and can thus determine (this is a scholarly idea, not a faith based one) exactly how this central book, Western Civilization's founding document, was a massive rewrite job. It makes one rethink just what exactly artists do, how they shape old material, to make original art.

This is a great point and it morphs into another argument, is there ever really an "original" classic work? I don't believe that any idea is ever truly original because who knows what people have come up in the past with and simply never documented it (Tom Stoppard's play, Arcadia, is the perfect example of this). Instead, I believe that what makes something a classic is that the text has been considered irreplicable because it represents a version of events or a story in a way that resonates with readers. Therefore, it's not the classic story itself that can't be rewritten. It's the author's style and spin on the story that makes it truly unique. So I say if you've got the guts to create your own version of a classic story then go for it.

[WardahEbrahim]

I don't think they need to be re-written, but I do think the referencing could be updated.

[Annony11]

Personally, I like rewrites/retakes of classics BUT only with the understanding that they add to the work not replace it. I’ve read a variety of spins of Pride and Prejudice, for example. Most recently was the fabulous “Ayesha at Last” by Uzma Jalaluddin. I enjoy reading these books wondering how the author will change the story while still remaining true to the original work.

[rumik]

I think it's equally important to get young people interested in classics but also to preserve the original as much as possible. A good balance would be those books that have both the original along with a modern "translation" side by side, so readers can enjoy the best of both worlds.