TED Conversations

Xie Shuhua

Student , Volunteer


This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Which is more important when we collate folk literature, returning it to the original appearance or rewriting it to make it understandable?

It is a fact that some people do make changes while collating folk literature works. But we can't say it is a bad thing if those changes can help us understand those folk literature works better.

progress indicator
  • thumb
    Dec 27 2012: Keep the original ... let Cliff's Notes and Literature for Dummies take care of the rest.
  • thumb
    Dec 26 2012: Folk stories naturally evolve over time, which makes the versions that appear at different times valuable and interesting in their own right. If later versions are not considered legitimate, "folk" suddenly carries a connotation only of a distant past. Do we want to embrace only that meaning? Or, are cultures are richer for maintaining as well as creating in each generation folk traditions, some surely adaptations of the ancient and some responses to contemporary times?
  • Dec 26 2012: It is important for the story to maintain its concept, content and meaning; but equally important is communication. It should be written in a language that is accessible to the target audience.
  • thumb
    Dec 25 2012: I think rewriting folk literature to make it understandable is most important. The legacy exist thanks to a community, but the community must to know and to understand it. If they don't understand it, they will not want remember. The folk literature will be forgotten.
  • thumb
    Dec 25 2012: Why not do both, have the original available, and a more understandable version?