Buggers or Formics?

[Coconut Ent]

I bought and read the Ender's Game series back in the 1990's.

Recently I was in a bookstore, looking for Peter F Hamilton's "Judas Unchained" when I saw "Ender's Game" and "Xenocide". Feeling a slight nostalgia, I browsed through them. And I was perturbed.

Back in the 1990s the aliens were called Buggers. But the current edition calls them Formics, apparently. What's more, I was in the UK in the 1990s when I read it, where "Bugger" does have sexual meaning, but UK SF readers apparently took it in their stride and understood it to mean bug-like (though possibly the characters in the book might have used it expletively).

"Formic" just sounds too official especially when used by the grunts. Weren't the Germans called "Krauts" in WW1 and WW2?

[Erebus]

I believe that the term was changed originally for the early movie script drafts, given that the buggers are an ant-like species, and because of the term's sexual connotations in some countries. Apparenty, later reprints of the novels also include the changes, as you have discovered, although I seem to remember that formics was their official name anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong...

[phil_geo]

I find this very interesting. A lot of classics that you read may be described as "dated", but still ground-breaking or gripping. A lot of Heinlein falls into this category, with his risque ideas for the 1960s that seem pretty tame and amusing nowadays.

If Heinlein were still alive, should he 'improve' his books? Should authors rewrite them for reprintings, changing terms to be more up-to-date, or even rewriting concepts to be more relevant? Should they even be allowed to?

[Yobmod]

I believe that the term was changed originally for the early movie script drafts, given that the buggers are an ant-like species, and because of the term's sexual connotations in some countries. Apparenty, later reprints of the novels also include the changes, as you have discovered, although I seem to remember that formics was their official name anyway.

I have the old versions, and i too vaguely remember 'formics' being the official name, and 'buggers' the slang one.

I far prefer the Buggers name as the slang term - its insulting to the aliens, which is surely what people would do. It points out their similarity to mere bugs, obviously, but also sounds like Boogers, and has the explicit sexual meaning (Nb to bugger = to sodomise; i didn't know this was a UK only meaning)

[Erebus]

Well I think the term is universal in its meaning, at least it is here in Australia, but perhaps some countries are more offended by it than others.

[Coconut Ent]

I don't recall the word "Formic" being mentioned at all in the old edition novels... I could have sworn to that.

I suppose Graff might have said it just once or twice, on one page of "Ender's Game"...

Even the Colonists on Milagre called them Buggers as I recall.

[cmose]

I'm fairly certain that formic appeared in the original ender's game as the "official" name - I believe bugger was just a slang term.

[phil_geo]

Amazon.com allows you to search the entire text of a book. If you search the 1994 version of Ender's Game (Author's Definitive Edition, reprint of the 1994 printing), you find zero references to 'formics' and over 9 pages of references to 'buggers'.

[Drakonslair]

weird the copy of this I got last year was still Buggers I think.

I didnt really pay much attention to the wording though I knew it had a sexual meaning. I remember thinking that its was a bit of a childish name for an enemy but put it down to the main protagonists generally being children.

[Measure]

Originally Posted by phil_geo

I find this very interesting. A lot of classics that you read may be described as "dated", but still ground-breaking or gripping. A lot of Heinlein falls into this category, with his risque ideas for the 1960s that seem pretty tame and amusing nowadays.

If Heinlein were still alive, should he 'improve' his books? Should authors rewrite them for reprintings, changing terms to be more up-to-date, or even rewriting concepts to be more relevant? Should they even be allowed to?

I don't think that authors should rewrite their books to improve them A particularly bad example of this kind of thing is Star Wars Episode 4, with Lucas pratically castrating Han Solo in the super-special-editions of the movie.

However, I think that changing certain wording is necessary when translating a book into a new language, and even spelling and slang changes are helpful when bringing a book out to two different English-speaking areas.

I don't think it's a huge leap to then say a 20-year old novel needs slight wording changes to be more accessible to a modern audience, whos cutlure has changed significantly.

It does strike me as odd that "Buggers" would be taken out of Ender's Game. Was this in a UK bookstore, or a US one? Perhaps it is a regional change?

[B5B7]

In most countries bugger would have a primarily sexual meaning, and possibly the secondary meaning of 'not working' as in "this machine is buggered".
In Australia the word has several meanings and has everyday use - it is so commonly accepted that it is even in ads such as the Toyota car ads that were on a year or so ago on TV (incidentally, these were very humorous ads).

[Ouroboros]

I don't think that authors should rewrite their books to improve them A particularly bad example of this kind of thing is Star Wars Episode 4, with Lucas pratically castrating Han Solo in the super-special-editions of the movie.

The Lucas analogy also sprung to mind. He hasn't just tinkered with the Star Wars movies, but even E.T. In a recent cut of the movie he spent about ten thousand dollars digitally replacing the guns carried by the FBI agents with walkie-talkies. Some have it that this is in deference to Drew Barrymore's anti-gun stance, but I put it more down to Lucas himself. The word 'terrorist' has also been overdubbed with the word 'hippie', which is arguably more worrying. Its a bizarre form of self-censorship, bending over backwards to try to rework his own material to make it suitably bland so as to not offend the myriad of special interest groups who seem to proliferate every second.

One commentator adroitly pointed out that these scenes originally served the purpose of further highlighting the gap between the innocent, gentle world of E.T and the children versus the harsh, combative world of adulthood.

This time around, as with his Han Solo alterations, Lucas has succeeded in further sabotaging his own work.


Orson Scott Card, I'm a little more surprised at. He's the last person I would have thought would jump on the political correctness bandwagon.

---

With that said, this is just the downside to director's cuts. They're normally wonderful things, but this goes to show that it works both ways.

[Boll Weevil]

Thought Spielberg did ET. Though the song remains the same.

[Measure]

ET was Spielberg, but I believe the gun removal a lesser offense than what Lucas has done for a couple of reasons.

1-Removing the guns from the FBI agents in ET didn't alter any plot or theme of the movie, after all, the guns were never used.

2-If you buy ET, you get the special edition and the original version. You can still see the FBI-with-guns if you want to. You can't get the original Star Wars movie, unaltered, on DVD.

[Ouroboros]

Oops- sorry, that was Spielberg.

Nevertheless, it's the same type of self-moderation, which is why I brought it up.