Should I read the old version or the new revised version of this SciFi book?

[Immortality]

Hey everyone, how is everyone doing? Good, I hope.

1) So, I have the original copy of the book The Space Merchants , but now the exact same authors of that book put out a new “revised 21st century edition” . I assume revised means the same as updated? I wouldn’t know, I have yet to buy I book that was revised or updated. But since I’m asking this question about this book, I might as well ask it about my other books. I have a few other books that now have available updated and/or revised versions now for the 21st century, and I’m thinking about buying those too. My question is should I start reading the old book of The Space Merchants or buy the revised edition on amazon? This goes for those other books I have that are old too...as a rule of thumb should one always buy the revised and/or updated version of a book? Especially if the person in question already read the book, but it’s now outdated and he or she wants to read it again, should he or she buy the updated or revised edition? But what if it’s by a different author? Should one only buy a new revised and/or updated version copy of an old book if it’s written by the same author or authors in some case, as with collaborations?

2) If a new author decides to update and/or revise an old science fiction book, or any genre of book really, that he did not originally write, someone else did, and he or she just wants to update the same story, would you buy that book? If there were books that are written by different authors of the original book that has been updated and revised would you buy them? If it depends, explain to me please.

Thanks so much everyone,
Immortality

Edit: I know I repeated myself , and wrote a lot, I just want to be as clear as possible. If something doesn’t make sense to you just ask me to explain myself better. Thank you.

 

[johnnyjet]

Apparently Frederik Pohl made only minor revisions in 2011 to the original novel he co-authored with C.M.Kornbluth, adding some more contemporary references. In that case, I'm not sure it's worth getting the revised version if you already have the original.

Some authors update or revise their own original novels because of editorial changes to the original version. Michael Bishop is one author who has made revisions to his works for that reason and other reasons. Also some authors make corrections to subsequent releases, for technical accuracy for example.

In general, I tend to avoid revised versions of novels by other authors, unless the new author is a known author I admire AND there's a good reason for the revisions. For the most part, I'm not a fan of revising original versions.

 

[Harpo]

these aren’t the revised versions you’re looking for

 

[hitmouse]

There are a number of reasons why revised editions may be worth getting.
Older editions may be made up of stories published in magazines, episodically, or as fix-ups from related but separate short stories. These are susceptible to the depradations of magazine and book editors, and can be quite variant from the author’s favoured text: bits get missed out or abridged, fix-ups can be clumsy. A decent revised edition may fix problems seen in the original, sometimes decades before.

 

[Dave]

It's been a while since I read it, but it is a classic and a parody of sales, marketing, advertising, conspicuous consumption, and the consumer society. Since not much has changed, I don't think the ideas needed updating, but some of the language may have been old fashioned. My copy was published as part of the SF Masterworks series.

 

[Parson]

I think the previous question should be "Why was this book revised?" I know that in some cases for self-published books the reason is to clean up errors and the like. If I haven't read the book. I always pick up the "revised version." I've yet to read both where I feel that the revised wasn't essentially the same book. ---- (Hm, which I suppose would make perfect sense. Yes?)

 

[Dave]

"Why was this book revised?"

Please no! We won't get into book censorship, or the rights and wrongs of the removal of more "colourful language" in this thread, mainly because it isn't relevant. From what I remember, I'd be very doubtful that could be the reason here, and I'd also seriously doubt that after 50 years on sale it was for spelling or grammatical mistakes either. I think the question of "Why" was already adequately answered:

Frederik Pohl made only minor revisions in 2011 to the original novel he co-authored with C.M.Kornbluth, adding some more contemporary references.

So, "adding some contemporary references". The OP question was, it worthwhile buying an additional copy of the book?

 

[Harpo]

It’s worthwhile buying multiple copies of books if you’re collecting (for example, I used to collect the Fontana paperbacks of Agatha Christie’s books, and I’ve had “Gargantua & Pantagruel” by Rabelais in three or four different translations)

Otherwise no, just get it from the library if you want to read a newer version just the once.

 

[johnnyjet]

So, "adding some contemporary references". The OP question was, it worthwhile buying an additional copy of the book?

For me personally, no, it wouldn't be worthwhile to buy an additional copy of the book. If it would be a first time purchase, I would be okay with buying the updated version since it was revised by an original author.

Again, just my personal opinion.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Similar considerations come into play with films. 'Director's cut' or producer's original release? I recently watched parts of Disney's Fantasia as originally released with pompous, show-stopping introductions to each of the pieces. The later, cut down (revised) version was much better.

Then there's the whole argument we had in the UK recently about whether 'revising' Roald Dahl's books so as not to offend.... BTW am I the only person who thinks 'Roald Dahl' sounds like a kind of curry?

"Would you like Pilau rice with your Lamb Roald Dahl or plain boiled?"

 

[Parson]

Please no! We won't get into book censorship, or the rights and wrongs of the removal of more "colourful language" in this thread, mainly because it isn't relevant.

I had nothing like this in mind! Until you mentioned it, I hadn't even given this kind of thing a thought.

 

[Immortality]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.