REVISING HISTORY

by Steven Steinbock

This past week I had the pleasure of re-reading Jack Finney’s 1955 novel The Body Snatchers (republished as Invasion of the Body Snatchers in 1978).

Back in the 1980s, when Simon & Schuster was reprinting Finney’s Time and Again as a trade paperback (under their Fireside Books imprint), they collected some of his earlier works, including a book of true crime, an anthology of 12 short stories, a collection of three novellas, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

What attracted me at first to Time and Again twenty years ago was that it was a time travel mystery novel. At that time I grabbed up all the Finney I could find, including all the aforementioned, as well as sea adventure Assault on a Queen (1959) and prison escape caper The House of Numbers (1956).

What has always stood out for me about Finney’s writing is the fun, the pure joy with which he writes. Even when writing about murder, prison escapes, or the alien takeover of earth, you can tell as you read that Finney was enjoying himself as he wrote. The Body Snatchers is frightening, to be sure. But in contrast to either of the film adaptations, there’s an odd, very human levity to the writing. In fact, if anything, it was the levity of Finney’s authorial voice – contrasted with the emotional flatness of the pod-people – that made The Body Snatchers work so well.

If you haven’t read Finney, the above may not make sense. Without ever being ha-ha funny, Finney’s style has a lightness in tone. Without ever sacrificing professionalism, Finney knew how to have fun with his words, and to capture a sort of conversational tone that often falls flat when coming from a less skilled writer. Two other authors who accomplish this are Fredric Brown, whom I’ve written about elsewhere, and Lawrence Block, who continues to provide me pleasure with each new book he writes.

(Here and now I want to give my strongest recommendation to Finney’s writing. Since this is a short story forum, please have a look at About Time and 3 By Finney . I also found this interesting website. It appears to be a work in progress that stopped progressing a while back, but it does have dozens of complete short stories that you won’t find anywhere else).

Re-reading The Body Snatchers recalled for me my only complaint about the Simon & Schuster reprints. Before these reissues were published, Finney “revised and updated” much of his work. I think I first noticed this when reading 3 by Finney, which collected three of Finney’s shorter novels. I can’t remember the details – it’s been twenty years – but there were some unsettling anachronisms. Perhaps one of the stories had a distinctly 1960s feel, but had Ronald Reagan or Michael Jackson roughly inserted into the narrative. Again, I don’t remember the exact details. There may not have been any mention of Reagan or Jackson, but there was something that didn’t fit. Something that – even for an author known for clever takes on time travel – came off as anachronistic.

And so, while re-reading The Body Snatchers, some of Finney’s updates kept jarring me. On the very first page the narrator tells us, “it all began around six o’clock, a Thursday evening, October 28, 1976. . .” I pulled out the 1955 Dell First edition and checked the first page. It read: “it all began around six o’clock, a Thursday evening, August 13, 1953. . .” (emphasis added to show changes).

A few chapters in, when several characters are discussing a “contagious neurosis” taking over Mill Valley, the narrator comments, “It’s a new hobby over our way. . .a cinch to replace jogging.” I checked page 23 of the original: “It’s a new hobby over our way. . .a cinch to replace weaving and ceramics.” On page 27 of the revised edition, the narrator tells Becky, “You look great,” while in the 1955 version she looks “swell.” In 1955 the narrator makes a wisecrack about joining “an abortion ring” while after Roe v. Wade, the text was changed to the less powerful “I was switching my practice entirely to abortions.” In one scene, the narrator takes his date to a movie, which (in the revised version) turns out to be an adaptation of Finney’s own Time and Again.

These charges are minor, but unsettling. I recall watching a “cleaned-up” version of Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles on network TV a few years ago. In the scene where the little old lady slugs Cleavon Little, her line was redubbed: “Up yours, Negro” – while the original was uncomfortably hilarious, the revision fell pathetically flat.

When Random House first published Robert Arthur’s “Three Investigators” mysteries, they were marketed as “Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators,” with the famous movie director as the friend and mentor of the three young sleuths. But after Hitchcock’s death, the great director was excised from the American reprint editions of these books. Hitchcock was gone from the titles, and some generic Hollywood mogul was shoved into the text.

For years I wanted to watch the original theatric version of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner.” But for over twenty years, that version of the film was not legally available anywhere – banned like Disney’s “Song of the South” – until just a few months ago when the 5-disc “Ultimate Collector’s Edition” included that theatrical version along with Scott’s “Director’s Cut.”

So I ask: when is it appropriate to revise literature? If Huck Finn’s use of the “N” word makes us uncomfortable, should he refer to Jim as an African American? If Shylock’s and Fagin’s ethnicity offends, is it okay for us to whitewash Shakespeare and Dickens. If Nancy Drew’s friends find say “gosh” in 1928, is it okay to change it to “groovy” in 1968 and “bitchin’” in 2008? What’s next? Will Nancy and her friends begin speaking in emoticons and text-message abbreviations?

I know how I feel about revision. Once a book or story has been printed, the only changes that should be made are typo corrections. Political incorrectness and internal inconsistencies can be addressed in a foreword or in footnotes, but not by changing the original work. And I approve of this message (until such a time that I amend it).