
The Complicated Backstory to a New Children’s Book by Mark Twain - eugene2012
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-complicated-backstory-to-a-new-childrens-book-by-mark-twain
======
sevensor
This is magnificent! I mean, not the botched adaptation itself, but the story
about the botched adaptation. Twain would have loved it! A pair of venal,
mercenary hacks are contracted by an equally venal and mercenary publisher to
squeeze an extra dime from some fragmentary notes left behind by a genius
author who died a century before. It's the perfect setup for a Mark Twain
story. Hardly a more cynical author ever put pen to paper.

Which is why I laugh when the article quotes Twain writing "tend to them
constantly, and keep a pure heart," as if that's Twain moralizing, when it's
much more likely he would have delivered that line with delightful irony.

------
MrZongle2
FTA: _" “Right away we had to figure out how willing we were to collaborate
with Twain, and tell him, potentially, when he was wrong,” Philip said. “...
He [Twain] can, on one page, seem progressive well beyond his years—he can
seem like he’s talking right out of 2017, or 2050, even—and then the very next
page he’ll say something that makes you smack yourself on the forehead and
say, ‘I can’t work with this guy.’ ”"_

Ugh. Is anyone else put off by the modern-day collaborator, based upon this
article?

~~~
rdiddly
Yes. First of all, if you "can't work with" the guy, maybe start by writing
your own story instead of stealing his.

If you're getting involved with a Mark Twain project, you have to know ahead
of time that you're going back 150 years to a time when slavery was still a
thing, racism against the natives was still prevalent, etc., and on top of it,
Twain was at times trying to be intentionally provocative even in that
environment. You either take that body of work and look at it in its
historical context, or you stay the heck away from it. Sounds like they
couldn't resist the urge to sanitize the unsavory parts of history.

~~~
mikeash
What's the opposite of plagiarism? If there's isn't a term for it, maybe we
should coin one just for this.

~~~
grzm
> _What 's the opposite of plagiarism?_

Original authorship? Or am I misunderstanding what you're getting at? (It
wouldn't be the first time :)

~~~
diggernet
I'm guessing they are asking about "attributing your words to others" rather
than "claiming another's words as your own".

~~~
grzm
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Edit to add: _Forgery_ seems in the ballpark, but doesn't feel quite right.

~~~
mikeash
The clarification is correct, just for the record.

I agree that "forgery" doesn't quite seem right for this, although it's close.
If they had claimed to have an original Twain work that was being published
unedited, but was in fact a new creation, then it would fit, but they're not
really _hiding_ the fact that it's been altered.... "Appropriation" and
"misrepresentation" both fit, but are overly general.

------
josephpmay
They could have so easily prevented the controversy by labeling it "based on a
story by Mark Twain" instead of "By Mark Twain"

------
Herodotus38
I feel much less upset about this than what happened with Harper Lee.

Apologies for the soft paywall:
[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/opinion/joe-nocera-
the...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/opinion/joe-nocera-the-watchman-
fraud.html)

