Normally I would say "never" but I take your point about "10 little indians" (or what ever they're calling it now). Had the original title remained in place it would have prevented this work, and potentially others of hers, to have not been sold to future generations. Is this a good or a bad thing? Therein lies the deeper question I think.
Meanwhile I have read read other writers who have a different layer of racism/sexism etc - Ngaio Marsh tended to have a dubious effet person in almost every story, whilst throwing in the occasional "Noble Savage"....; and branching out of crime - the Tarzan books are rather racist (the Africans are good at what they do, but they're nothing against the English....); Robinson Crusoe is the same (though some people are telling me to re read it and consider post colonial irony) and didnt Enid Blyton have a "thing" for foreigners?
"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."
We shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Normally I would say "never" but I take your point about "10 little indians" (or what ever they're calling it now). Had the original title remained in place it would have prevented this work, and potentially others of hers, to have not been sold to future generations. Is this a good or a bad thing? Therein lies the deeper question I think.
Meanwhile I have read read other writers who have a different layer of racism/sexism etc - Ngaio Marsh tended to have a dubious effet person in almost every story, whilst throwing in the occasional "Noble Savage"....; and branching out of crime - the Tarzan books are rather racist (the Africans are good at what they do, but they're nothing against the English....); Robinson Crusoe is the same (though some people are telling me to re read it and consider post colonial irony) and didnt Enid Blyton have a "thing" for foreigners?