When remaking a classic story, is realism or faithfulness more important?

[TheDeepThinker]

I'm working on a remake of a classic series that was unfinished more than twenty years ago. It makes several changes (changing from first to third-person is the least of them), but one thing I am torn between is being accurate vs being faithful to the original.

The original violates several rules about accuracy and truthfulness, but (IMO) it is hotter with it. It's certainly tied to the original spirit of the story.

Which do you think is more important: accuracy, or being faithful to the original?

 

[KeithD]

I wouldn't even begin worrying about this. Write it as it appeals to you now. Perhaps a bit too deep in the thinking here.

 

[AlinaX]

I've done it with a couple of Jane Austen stories. Chastened echoes Persuasion but in a distance sci-fi future, and Fam and Futanari echoes Pride and Prejudice but in a contemporary setting. Neither could be said to be accurate, but I think something of the spirit is kept.

 

[Athalia]

I think it's the writer's call, not the editor's. But the writer should be aware that the more knowledgable the reader is about genital anatomy, the more that reader is going to be knocked out of the story when that sort of thing is encountered. So a word of caution is advised.

I remember a thread I started many, many years ago about the inaccuracy of a woman feeling the "hot splash" of semen in her vagina after a man's ejaculation. She may feel heat, but it's not from the splash, which is basically bod- temperature stuff going into a body-temperature receptacle. "But it's hotter the other way!" many cried. I suppose that's true, and I suppose that a certain category of readership doesn't care about technical accuracy. But it still seemed wrong to me.