[Rushy]

i said it's not important to the story.

That's a way of saying it's not a big deal. I don't think that's relevant to the thread topic. People have a problem with the censorship itself, not the importance or lack thereof regarding it.

which new message deviates from the original work? can you be more specific?

You already quoted that.

i think censorship is about suppression/repression of ideas, coercion, force, that sort of thing. let's look at the actual chain of events. so basically no one was saying anything about the roald dahl books or asking them to change anything. then the people who own and publish the books voluntarily chose to work with a non-profit organization to change a small amount of the books' language to "ensure Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today."

Certain words have certain meanings. Other words have other meanings. How is nuking certain words from the story and replacing them not censorship of the idea of the original word? When I say a person is fat, that means something specific (that they have an overabundance of fat). If I say they're enormous, that is much more vague. It could be that Augustus Gloop is a powerlifter. You don't know anymore because the new word is more vague. That's the whole point of changing it.

where exactly is censorship taking place? if that is censorship, then i would submit that the word no longer has any meaning. at least no meaning beyond "anytime anyone does something i personally would not have done."

Please, Gary, you're smarter than this.

also as an aside to the whole thread, this is not a fucking sacred text, written by god, where no word can be changed lest we incur The Wrath of the Dahl. lmao my brothers and sisters in christ, they're children's books. i love them too, but they're children's books. and the idea that making them slightly more inclusive by changing words like "fat" to "enormous" is some egregious violation of our collective childhoods is...i'm sorry, but it's fucking stupid lol. relax.

You making this post is fucking stupid. Mocking people for having a problem with censorship, even if you don't think it is important, is not okay. If you have a problem with the thread then you can proceed to fuck off and leave the rest of the people discussing the topic alone. The world does not revolve around Gary's List Of Important Things Gary Takes Seriously.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Whatever...

The work of artists is always being messed with. This is just one particular type of example.

What about all the works where sex, violence, car crashes and explosions and cursing have been added to the writer's work. It's ridiculous, Zefarelli added a sex scene to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

How about when they have to add content to the story so a movie can get a PG rating instead of a G. Whether content is added or taken away, conservatives are going to complain. It's what they do.

[Rushy]

Whatever...

The work of artists is always being messed with. This is just one particular type of example.

What about all the works where sex, violence, car crashes and explosions and cursing have been added to the writer's work. It's ridiculous, Zefarelli added a sex scene to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

How about when they have to add content to the story so a movie can get a PG rating instead of a G. Whether content is added or taken away, conservatives are going to complain. It's what they do.

This is roaming around the point without actually addressing it. Saying "this happens a lot" or "it's always been this way" is not a discussion point (and is, ironically, very conservative). How about explaining why you do or don't have a problem with changing someone's work instead of pointing out that it's a thing that happens. No one was discussing this as if it's the first time this has ever happened. Why bring it up that way?

[AATW]

Whatever...

The work of artists is always being messed with. This is just one particular type of example.

What about all the works where sex, violence, car crashes and explosions and cursing have been added to the writer's work. It's ridiculous, Zefarelli added a sex scene to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

How about when they have to add content to the story so a movie can get a PG rating instead of a G. Whether content is added or taken away, conservatives are going to complain. It's what they do.

I’d suggest the motive for the change is a factor. Adding things for spurious reasons is silly too.

I don’t have any particular issue with changing words where the meanings have genuinely changed, for the sake of clarity. So queer/strange, gay/happy, fine. Especially in a children’s book when kids are not going to understand the old meaning. But the change here is not for that reason, it’s pandering to the terminally offended. I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments but this could be one. As Ricky Gervais says, just because you’re offended, that doesn’t mean you’re right.

[Tom Bishop]

The arguments in this thread are essentially "so what" and "people do things", a ridiculous form of argument which does not directly argue in favor of these changes.

Why must children be influenced and experimented on, exactly, to deny gender?

BBC.com - The parents raising their children without gender

These parents are experimenting on their children, and the article admits that the impact is unknown.

"Unknown impacts

Since gender-neutral parenting remains a relatively recent and limited phenomenon, researchers don't yet know much about its long-term impact, including how it is affecting both children and wider society."

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be.

Are mothers and fathers bad for society?

Is there a compelling argument here, or is the situation simply that a few people don't like the concept of genders so all of society must change to suit their ideology?

[stack]

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be? Is there a coherent argument here other than that some people are gay and trans and think other people's children should be raised in the gay and trans-gender way they see fit?

Is gender neutrality specific to raising kids in the gay and trans-gender way?

Refer to the Mr Rogers example. Back in the 90's was his reshooting of earlier segments by removing the "he" assumption of an unknown person's gender or removing "housewife" in reference to a woman considered raising a kid in the gay and trans-gender way?

[Action80]

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

[Action80]

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

Sure, in the same way that "queer" has been used as a synonym for "strange".
But that's very antiquated now, no-one uses those words that way any more.
TL;TR - the meaning of words changes over time. And I don't think it's unreasonable to change text to reflect that - especially in kids' books where the language should be easy to understand. But changing words whose meanings haven't changed for fear of offending the perpetually offended is ridiculous.
Unusually, Tom is right on this one.

You know what Dahl meant...I know what Dahl meant...All God's children know what Dahl meant...

Next, crackpots will start labeling David and the Mona Lisa as pieces requiring revision.

[garygreen]

That's a way of saying it's not a big deal. I don't think that's relevant to the thread topic. People have a problem with the censorship itself, not the importance or lack thereof regarding it.

no, it's a way of saying that no idea, opinion, or plot device present in the story has been removed. my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship. it could be similarly helpful for one or more of you to define what you think censorship is instead of just asserting that it's obvious.

which new message deviates from the original work? can you be more specific?

You already quoted that.

i quoted changes in adjectives. descriptions. you said that the revisions push a new message that is different from the original. can you elaborate on the old and new messages and how they differ?

Certain words have certain meanings. Other words have other meanings. How is nuking certain words from the story and replacing them not censorship of the idea of the original word?

so again it seems that your definition of censorship is just "change." i think that's too vague to be useful. "nuking certain words and replacing them" happens literally every time any written work is edited by anyone.

what controls for me is the use of coercion and the suppression of ideas and opinions. sure, you can say "every word relates to an idea," but i don't think it's useful to call all forms of editing censorship.

When I say a person is fat, that means something specific (that they have an overabundance of fat). If I say they're enormous, that is much more vague. It could be that Augustus Gloop is a powerlifter. You don't know anymore because the new word is more vague. That's the whole point of changing it.

whether or not an edit causes confusion for the reader really doesn't have anything to do with the question of "is this edit censorship."

where exactly is censorship taking place? if that is censorship, then i would submit that the word no longer has any meaning. at least no meaning beyond "anytime anyone does something i personally would not have done."

Please, Gary, you're smarter than this.

feel free to elaborate. i made it clear what i think censorship entails and why this doesn't fit the criteria. "i am obviously right" doesn't interact with what i said at all.

You making this post is fucking stupid. Mocking people for having a problem with censorship, even if you don't think it is important, is not okay. If you have a problem with the thread then you can proceed to fuck off and leave the rest of the people discussing the topic alone. The world does not revolve around Gary's List Of Important Things Gary Takes Seriously.

i'm not mocking anyone for having a problem with censorship. if the roald dahl books were actually being censored, i'd probably agree with you all.

i'm mocking you lot for sounding like a bunch of 14-year-olds who say bedtime is fascist.

[Action80]

That's a way of saying it's not a big deal. I don't think that's relevant to the thread topic. People have a problem with the censorship itself, not the importance or lack thereof regarding it.

no, it's a way of saying that no idea, opinion, or plot device present in the story has been removed. my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship. it could be similarly helpful for one or more of you to define what you think censorship is instead of just asserting that it's obvious.

which new message deviates from the original work? can you be more specific?

You already quoted that.

i quoted changes in adjectives. descriptions. you said that the revisions push a new message that is different from the original. can you elaborate on the old and new messages and how they differ?

Certain words have certain meanings. Other words have other meanings. How is nuking certain words from the story and replacing them not censorship of the idea of the original word?

so again it seems that your definition of censorship is just "change." i think that's too vague to be useful. "nuking certain words and replacing them" happens literally every time any written work is edited by anyone.

what controls for me is the use of coercion and the suppression of ideas and opinions. sure, you can say "every word relates to an idea," but i don't think it's useful to call all forms of editing censorship.

When I say a person is fat, that means something specific (that they have an overabundance of fat). If I say they're enormous, that is much more vague. It could be that Augustus Gloop is a powerlifter. You don't know anymore because the new word is more vague. That's the whole point of changing it.

whether or not an edit causes confusion for the reader really doesn't have anything to do with the question of "is this edit censorship."

where exactly is censorship taking place? if that is censorship, then i would submit that the word no longer has any meaning. at least no meaning beyond "anytime anyone does something i personally would not have done."

Please, Gary, you're smarter than this.

feel free to elaborate. i made it clear what i think censorship entails and why this doesn't fit the criteria. "i am obviously right" doesn't interact with what i said at all.

You making this post is fucking stupid. Mocking people for having a problem with censorship, even if you don't think it is important, is not okay. If you have a problem with the thread then you can proceed to fuck off and leave the rest of the people discussing the topic alone. The world does not revolve around Gary's List Of Important Things Gary Takes Seriously.

i'm not mocking anyone for having a problem with censorship. if the roald dahl books were actually being censored, i'd probably agree with you all.

i'm mocking you lot for sounding like a bunch of 14-year-olds who say bedtime is fascist.

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[Action80]

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be? Is there a coherent argument here other than that some people are gay and trans and think other people's children should be raised in the gay and trans-gender way they see fit?

Is gender neutrality specific to raising kids in the gay and trans-gender way?

Refer to the Mr Rogers example. Back in the 90's was his reshooting of earlier segments by removing the "he" assumption of an unknown person's gender or removing "housewife" in reference to a woman considered raising a kid in the gay and trans-gender way?

Evidently you are not too familiar with Mr. Rogers.

[stack]

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

"He was a delightful and gay young fellow..."

I'm pretty sure todays youth would default to, "He was a delightful and homosexual young fellow..."

"He ventured off to grab a faggot and then was headed back to the cabin to start a fire and cook some stew..."

I'm guessing here too the youth of today would not default to a bundle of sticks.

[stack]

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be? Is there a coherent argument here other than that some people are gay and trans and think other people's children should be raised in the gay and trans-gender way they see fit?

Is gender neutrality specific to raising kids in the gay and trans-gender way?

Refer to the Mr Rogers example. Back in the 90's was his reshooting of earlier segments by removing the "he" assumption of an unknown person's gender or removing "housewife" in reference to a woman considered raising a kid in the gay and trans-gender way?

Evidently you are not too familiar with Mr. Rogers.

I don't know what that means.

[Action80]

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be? Is there a coherent argument here other than that some people are gay and trans and think other people's children should be raised in the gay and trans-gender way they see fit?

Is gender neutrality specific to raising kids in the gay and trans-gender way?

Refer to the Mr Rogers example. Back in the 90's was his reshooting of earlier segments by removing the "he" assumption of an unknown person's gender or removing "housewife" in reference to a woman considered raising a kid in the gay and trans-gender way?

Evidently you are not too familiar with Mr. Rogers.

I don't know what that means.

It means your take on Mr. Rogers is not accurate.

[stack]

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be? Is there a coherent argument here other than that some people are gay and trans and think other people's children should be raised in the gay and trans-gender way they see fit?

Is gender neutrality specific to raising kids in the gay and trans-gender way?

Refer to the Mr Rogers example. Back in the 90's was his reshooting of earlier segments by removing the "he" assumption of an unknown person's gender or removing "housewife" in reference to a woman considered raising a kid in the gay and trans-gender way?

Evidently you are not too familiar with Mr. Rogers.

I don't know what that means.

It means your take on Mr. Rogers is not accurate.

How so?

[stack]

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I wonder how bible revisions were approved by the author.

How dead authors are ''writing'' new books
Publishing houses are using famous names from Robert Ludlum to V.C. Andrews to sell product

”It’s a sad time in the life of any publishing house when one of their franchise authors bites the dust, and I mean sad in the fiscal sense,” says another editor. So publishers have a tradition of keeping their bestselling authors alive long after their deaths.

Rae Lawrence was hired to rework a ”Valley of the Dolls” sequel from a first draft Jacqueline Susann had handwritten in 1968. This June, Crown will include Lawrence’s name on the cover, but will title the book Jacqueline Susann’s ”Shadow of the Dolls.” ”When people come into bookstores, they’re not going to ask for a book by Rae Lawrence,” says Lawrence. ”They’re going to say, ‘Give me the Jackie Susann book.”’

Seems like this is sort of a thing.

[Lord Dave]

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

Because language changes.
The proper use of language also changes with the time.  And its always great to teach kids about older usages of a word or phrase, but unless they ask (and why would they if they know the word) they'll just make assumptions.  Which isn't what you want when they read.

[garygreen]

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem..

lol dig my corpse up and carve swastikas in it for all i'll give a shit. i'll be dead. lmao i love that apparently i shouldn't be concerned with offending living humans, but i should be deeply concerned about offending the sensibilities of dead people. pick a lane fam.

but to your point, if i die and my estate voluntarily decides to change some words in some shit i wrote because they feel like it, i don't think that's censorship. honestly even if my estate were like "we hate gary, fuck him, we're not publishing his idiot writings anymore and we're burning every copy we own," i still don't get how that's censorship. the fact that i personally wouldn't want that to happen changes nothing.

[Roundy]

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I wonder how bible revisions were approved by the author.

They don't need to be. They are always translations. Sometimes translations are updated to reflect changes in language.

If someone were to update the original ancient Hebrew or Greek to make it more politically correct and say this is what the Bible says from now on you can be sure as shit people would have a problem with it.

The arguments you people are coming up with to try to justify the censorship are at least as absurd as the censorship itself, I literally can't even.

[stack]

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I wonder how bible revisions were approved by the author.

They don't need to be. They are always translations. Sometimes translations are updated to reflect changes in language.

If someone were to update the original ancient Hebrew or Greek to make it more politically correct and say this is what the Bible says from now on you can be sure as shit people would have a problem with it.

The arguments you people are coming up with to try to justify the censorship are at least as absurd as the censorship itself, I literally can't even.

"Political correctness" is not the only driver of 'censorship'. I'm pretty sure the original ancient Hebrew or Greek language has been updated a gazillion times, not just 1-for-1 translated, considering the gazillion versions of the bible. Language altered, softened, whole chapters/gospels removed over the ages. One only has to look as far as the Jefferson Bible.

Bible aside, kind of my extreme example anyway, it's not really a "justification" for censorship so much as does it really matter? Authors self-censoring due to publisher pressures, estates/owners of material with every right to do whatever they want, and the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to even buy or read any of this stuff. If someone finds an original text offensive, don't read it. If someone finds an alternate version of a text offensive due to revisions made to remove what an owner deemed was offensive, don't read it.
I agree that it's a slippery slope at best with razor thin lines of interpretations. Real troublesome "censorship", for me, is when people who don't have have the legal/ownership authority to revise something demand that something be revised.

All that said, what's more problematic here is that I'm guessing the motivation for this case is that Netflix spent half a billion dollars on the Dahl catalogue and for the 'Mathilda' musical they are working on they want to make sure the supporting book versions match up with their desired sanitized/modernized visual version.

If the Dahl estate was simply doing this out of the goodness of their hearts then whatevs, do what you want. However, this whole thing is about $ at the end of the day and moving more product. It's a win-win: People pissed at the revisions will buy the old books and people embracing the revisions will buy the new books. It's kinda devilishly genius in a way.