Things that are making you crabbit! [5]

{{ Then I wholeheartedly applaud you Figg. I am a Sadowitz fan and have already written a page or so long piece on him I was planning on putting in the BBST when done. }}

Cheers Petty, I have never heard any of his stuff, but its the principle at stake. Its the same as cancelling Graham Linehan, who I greatly admire, he wrote Father Ted, the IT Crowd and my favourite Black Books. he is a comic genius but was silenced and had his career ruined because he believed in free speech. Its a bad sign and it seems like its creeping in to the arts and comedy. Plus its not a British trait to ban comedy and satire, the long tradition of unfettered free speech is precious. It could be a generational thing. I grew up with Bernard Manning, he was a really funny guy, made me laugh, but now the Guardian talk about him like he is evil or something and heaven help anyone making jokes about race or gender.

So I was down in Texas visiting my old folks, and was supposed to fly out on Saturday.  But a hurricane came driving up the east coast and delayed my flight until Monday.  When I got to the airport, the flight was delayed another hour because they had to wait for overflow from the weekend to clear out in NYC; and once we got there had to wait ANOTHER hour on the tarmac because the regularly scheduled flights were using all the gates.

On top of all of that, I had left the windows to my apartment open (7th floor, not a security risk) because when I checked the weather the day before I left there was no prediction of rain at all.  I should know enough that hurricane tracks can't be predicted nearly a week in advance....so once I woke up to the fact that a hurricane was spending the entire weekend stomping through the city I was afraid I'd be coming back to buckets of water sloshing the floors.

Miraculously it was dry as a bone.  The winds should have been in a direction to drive the water right through the screens.  Can't figure that one out, but it almost made up for the constant delays to get that feeling of relief.

{{ Forumshire! Disappointed more than crabbit. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Forumshire!  Disappointed more than crabbit. }}

why so?

{{ Because we dont quite have the same community spirit we once had, maybe inevitable with dwindling active members. But for the first time, in what over 10 years now, not one Happy Birthday wish, which I can take Im old enough, but then same again on Blues birthday few days later, which I was going to post on but decided not to just to see if anyone else did- no one did. Like I say, not crabbit just kind of a bit sad and somewhat disappointed, we used to care more for each other than this. }}

I don't even pay attention to my own birthday, so that's nothing new.

{{ Just seems indicitive of things which makes me bit sad, we never used to miss folks birthdays, even folk that werent regular posters. }}

Sorry Petty.

I think engagement on these forums in general is far less with only a handful of people regularly posting, and even then not as regularly as they used to.

I dont really get too much time to do so and especially as I have decided not to bother with RoP I don't really feel like I have too much to contribute these days so only pop on every now and again.

Happy belated birthdays to any that i have missed!!

I am sorry too.

Me too

The bastards have censored Roald Dahl books. where will it end.

Which bastards exactly? We've got several crews working feverishly over here.

{{The publisher. Its fairly standard actually, whenever a book goes back into a print run or new edition it gets a review. It's the exact same reason we no longer pick up Agatha Christies 'Ten Little N.....s'.
In this case theyve removed fat for example and replaced it with enormous as a persons description. They took the word 'weird' out of the sentence a 'weird African language'

Those sort I'd put in the fair enough category, the changes don't alter anything in meaning (I personally think enormous is a funnier word in the context its used than fat was anyway) and the African one is just unnecessary, so no loss.

There are some other changes though which fall into more of the pandering to a small cliché if you ask me, stuff like the BFG now going 'stiff as a statue' rather than 'white as a sheet'. Apart from I think its a hell of stretch to see an offence here, and certainly not to a kid reading, they dont even mean the same thing. So thats a step too far for me.
Equally puzzling to me is the need to change the BFG's cloak from black.

I generally dont like an authors work being changed, especially once they are no longer about to approve or disapprove of it. But I think its at least essential that original copies are kept untampered for history and future reference. People of the future have a right when they look back on the written works of the 19th and 20th centuries to get the genuine article, not our or the futures rewriting of them.

But assuming the unsullied originals remain available in some form then for the most part minor changes according to each generations mood will continue, like I say if it didnt happen we'd still have some very unfortunate titles on shop shelves, like Agatha's. }}

that white as a sheet change is a head scratcher.

The publishers have absolutely no right to rewrite the authors words, he cant defend himself, and it is cultural vandalism. When I buy a book I want the authors words not some over-sensitive woke muppet who is arrogant enough to think that they can improve on a genius.

this is not a tweak, they have made 'hundreds' of changes, in some cases whole sentences.


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/20/roald-dahl-books-rewrites-criticism-language-altered


"Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of PEN America – a community of more than 7,000 writers advocating for freedom of expression – said: “Those who might cheer specific edits to Dahl’s work should consider how the power to rewrite books might be used in the hands of those who do not share their values and sensibilities.” Guardian

exactly, this smacks of 1984.

It is beyond absurd. I don't even know where to begin.

{ Its certainly not a new thing. I remember as a teen picking up a copy of Enid Blytons Island of Adventure I'd liked as kid, only to find the rather nasty adjectives used to describe the bad black guy gone, and the fella was now white. And that must have been late '80's. }}

I can understand it if its a word like n*****, but apart from that no authors words should be touched.

That's about right. Unless you are doing a heavily edited abridged version anyway, but in that case your readers have already chucked out their souls.

I can understand it if its a word like n***** - Figg

{{ Even then if its justified in the context it shouldnt be changed- thinking say Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, you'd completely lose the genuine sense of the times those stories contain, as well it being an honest reflection of those times in use of language.

Ideally works stand as they are, but then of course certain authors and stories would simply disappear, go out of fashion. That Enid Blyton I mentioned, her racism was not very concealed either in life or on the page (though her classism was far worse) and I dont imagine too many parents of today being comfortable reading some of her lines to their young child at bedtime. So they'd just go out of print. Is that better or worse than removal of the offending line or its alteration in order to keep the other good stuff thats the majority?

If by preserving we actually just consign the whole to history, is it just throwing the baby out with the bath water?}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I can understand it if its a word like n***** - Figg

{{ Even then if its justified in the context it shouldnt be changed- thinking say Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, you'd completely lose the genuine sense of the times those stories contain, as well it being an honest reflection of those times in use of language.

Ideally works stand as they are, but then of course certain authors and stories would simply disappear, go out of fashion. That Enid Blyton I mentioned, her racism was not very concealed either in life or on the page (though her classism was far worse) and I dont imagine too many parents of today being comfortable reading some of her lines to their young child at bedtime. So they'd just go out of print. Is that better or worse than removal of the offending line or its alteration in order to keep the other good stuff thats the majority?

If by preserving we actually just consign the whole to history, is it just throwing the baby out with the bath water?}}

I was talking about the title of Christie's book, not the content of her books. There are many books I have read recently from the 1920s and 30s with the N word still intact. I must admit it is a shock to read the word but then adults surely have the mental dexterity to understand the context of when it was written. We are allowed to be offended. There is an assault on children's books in order to protect them, but from what, being offended? in that case humanity is going to produce some mentally stunted people. People's brains have to be challenged not placed in cotton wool. Its like parents who refuse to allow their kids to climb trees and play out in case they get hurt, its damaging and controlling.

but then adults surely have the mental dexterity to understand the context of when it was written. We are allowed to be offended. There is an assault on children's books- Figg

{{ But the problem comes when the offending language is in a children's book, something meant to be read aloud by a parent or by the child themselves as part of their education. Most children lack that mental dexterity, context and experience to understand. So what do you do then? Leave the offending material in, in which case parents will simply not buy that book for their children. schools wont want it in their libraries and it will go out of print forever and be lost to time, or you change a word, a line here or there where it offends but keep the book in print and the stories alive?

Its not an easy thing, and deciding what is offensive enough to justify a change is even trickier. I get taking overtly racist language out of a children's book, I don't get changing 'white as a sheet'. }}

I think the point is this censorship has changed more than one or two problematic words, it has made hundreds of changes, and removing words like 'white', 'black', 'fat', 'ugly' is absurd.

{{ But not new, they consigned Thomas the Tank Engines Fat Controller to history years ago, even longer ago Noddy's golliwogs became goblins.

The main reason it happens though is money. Most of these things, like the Dahl stuff is run by an estate these days, a for profit organisation. And the only way they stay in profit is for the works to stay in print and stay popular. Going out of print is the end of the gravy train for an authors estate. So if they think making changes to parts that might, if left in, put some folk off buying, will keep it in print they will change or remove it without too much hesitation. But publishers have been doing that for decades, if not forever.}}