|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 27, 2023 2:21:22 GMT
I think the 'book correction' behaviour is more likely born of paranoia...or low elf esteem
I certainly couldn't imagine myself 'correcting' popular literature to try to trick people into reading my output. It reeks of desperation.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 27, 2023 2:47:12 GMT
I think the question is a bit broader than wether the public could / will do something about this particular case Why has the public at large obtained an apparent new responsibility / duty to fend off assaults on established literature by people with severe psychiatric disorders? It seems to be the core coordinator of the phenomena must be some aspect of the public sector. The thing to do is find exactly where this nonsense is originating from, if necessary, close down the entire department and empty the embryo vats Are we still talking about changing a few words in a children's book? Disney 'sanitised' every Brothers Grimm tale the company ever reproduced. It's been happening forever. Calm down! Your example spectacularly fails You and I both know the Disnified version of the story has an artificially happy ending because the original versions of the stories are still out there and yes they were grim reading indeed. But I read them as a child and cannot myself see that i came to any great harm. My children saw the Disneyfied version as young children and got to see the originals when they were older. I don’t have a problem with that. I believe some material is unsuitable for children but i also believe i am a FAR better judge of when my own children are ready for the stuff held back from them earlier than the state ever could be but that is perhaps an argument for another thread as it will divert this one … But you state that because a company sanitises and gives a happy ending to a story they out out as their own it is perfectly acceptable to censor an original work and replace it with one less out of step with wokery, and pretend the woke version is the original. No. That is totally unacceptable Dahl’s publishing company have now backpedalled and admitted they will continue to produce his work in its original form and sell the censored versions alongside those as a separate work, identified as censored from the original. I’m ok with that. But the Lady Chatterley Trial showed the world how not to muck about with literature |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 9:33:52 GMT
Are we still talking about changing a few words in a children's book? Disney 'sanitised' every Brothers Grimm tale the company ever reproduced. It's been happening forever. Calm down! Your example spectacularly fails You and I both know the Disnified version of the story has an artificially happy ending because the original versions of the stories are still out there and yes they were grim reading indeed. But I read them as a child and cannot myself see that i came to any great harm. My children saw the Disneyfied version as young children and got to see the originals when they were older. I don’t have a problem with that. I believe some material is unsuitable for children but i also believe i am a FAR better judge of when my own children are ready for the stuff held back from them earlier than the state ever could be but that is perhaps an argument for another thread as it will divert this one … But you state that because a company sanitises and gives a happy ending to a story they out out as their own it is perfectly acceptable to censor an original work and replace it with one less out of step with wokery, and pretend the woke version is the original. No. That is totally unacceptable Dahl’s publishing company have now backpedalled and admitted they will continue to produce his work in its original form and sell the censored versions alongside those as a separate work, identified as censored from the original. I’m ok with that. But the Lady Chatterley Trial showed the world how not to muck about with literature Bullshit! I very much doubt you were exposed to the original versions. But that's not really the point. When you were a child, adults will have gone out of their way to ensure that you weren't exposed to things that society deemed unacceptable. That's what society does. Nothing has changed. Adults are still very protective of children. We don't all agree on what that requires. It would never have occurred to me that the wording in Dahl's books might need changing. That said, I'm in not the least bit concerned that it did occur to other people. Big deal! It's always been there. Even if you don't agree with the proposed changes, you have no grounds for suggesting something ominous is going on. That's complete nonsense. You're getting older and you don't like the fact that the world is changing from what you have become used to. It happens to every generation. Get over it, and stop ascribing malicious motives to those who simply don't have them. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 27, 2023 10:04:55 GMT
A publisher and writer are different things and basing a film on a written work is a different act to re-writing that work. A publisher deciding to rewrite a property it holds exclusively is downright sinister. The compromise of releasing both is probably a tactic - the next likely step will be a very limited print of the original. The publisher clearly wants to remove the book from circulation but doesn't want to lose the revenues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 10:07:29 GMT
I think the 'book correction' behaviour is more likely born of paranoia...or low elf esteem I certainly couldn't imagine myself 'correcting' popular literature to try to trick people into reading my output. It reeks of desperation. Times change. It's only natural that older people will feel increasingly alienated from society's mores as they age. Try to accept that. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 10:08:22 GMT
A publisher and writer are different things and basing a film on a written work is a different act to re-writing that work. A publisher deciding to rewrite a property it holds exclusively is downright sinister. The compromise of releasing both is probably a tactic - the next likely step will be a very limited print of the original. The publisher clearly wants to remove the book from circulation but doesn't want to lose the revenues. Pearl clutching at its worst. Find something of substance to complain about. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 10:47:43 GMT
Orwell Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 10:57:24 GMT
Orwell Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_goThe Dahl 'threat' has been all over the media. Neither side has been silenced. So, nothing even vaguely Orwellian to report. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 11:03:20 GMT
Orwell Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_goThe Dahl 'threat' has been all over the media. Neither side has been silenced. So, nothing even vaguely Orwellian to report. Except is is Dahl being silenced and his art is being altered . Try to keep up. ”But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.” |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 11:06:56 GMT
The Dahl 'threat' has been all over the media. Neither side has been silenced. So, nothing even vaguely Orwellian to report. Except is is Dahl being silenced and his art is being altered . Try to keep up. ”But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.” Dahl is being silenced. LOL! Get a grip! |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 11:13:29 GMT
Except is is Dahl being silenced and his art is being altered . Try to keep up. ”But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.” Dahl is being silenced. LOL! Get a grip! The spirit of the books is being watered down . It alters the tone and doesn’t reflect the author’s personality. If you take out a word or phrase , that word or phrase is being silenced. I notice that you can’t refute Orwell’s point . It applies to you and other lefties today just as much as it applied to other forms of censorship years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 11:18:13 GMT
Dahl is being silenced. LOL! Get a grip! The spirit of the books is being watered down . It alters the tone and doesn’t reflect the author’s personality. If you take out a word or phrase , that word or phrase is being silenced. I notice that you can’t refute Orwell’s point . It applies to you and other lefties today just as much as it applied to other forms of censorship years ago. I haven't refuted Orwell's point, because Orwell, a lefty himself, is irrelevant. Orwell will only become relevant the day history is denied, the day it becomes a crime not to perpetuate a lie about history. As for watering down the tone of Dahl's book, that's complete bullshit. It's already been pointed out that stories have been changed to reflect current mores since before any of us was born. There's nothing new here. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 11:23:49 GMT
The spirit of the books is being watered down . It alters the tone and doesn’t reflect the author’s personality. If you take out a word or phrase , that word or phrase is being silenced. I notice that you can’t refute Orwell’s point . It applies to you and other lefties today just as much as it applied to other forms of censorship years ago. I haven't refuted Orwell's point, because Orwell, a lefty himself, is irrelevant. Orwell will only become relevant the day history is denied, the day it becomes a crime not to perpetuate a lie about history. As for watering down the tone of Dahl's book, that's complete bullshit. It's already been pointed out that stories have been changed to reflect current mores since before any of us was born. There's nothing new here. Orwell had no parallels with the virtue signalling , woke lefties today. Don’t insult the man . The stories have been changed because of cultural vandalism by woke lefties on the pretence that it’s for the public good. The old lefties wanted to curb censorship, the new lefties can’t get enough of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 11:41:12 GMT
I haven't refuted Orwell's point, because Orwell, a lefty himself, is irrelevant. Orwell will only become relevant the day history is denied, the day it becomes a crime not to perpetuate a lie about history. As for watering down the tone of Dahl's book, that's complete bullshit. It's already been pointed out that stories have been changed to reflect current mores since before any of us was born. There's nothing new here. Orwell had no parallels with the virtue signalling , woke lefties today. Don’t insult the man . The stories have been changed because of cultural vandalism by woke lefties on the pretence that it’s for the public good. The old lefties wanted to curb censorship, the new lefties can’t get enough of it. What did Orwell have to say about Duchamp's painting a moustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Very little, I should think. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 27, 2023 11:57:48 GMT
Your example spectacularly fails You and I both know the Disnified version of the story has an artificially happy ending because the original versions of the stories are still out there and yes they were grim reading indeed. But I read them as a child and cannot myself see that i came to any great harm. My children saw the Disneyfied version as young children and got to see the originals when they were older. I don’t have a problem with that. I believe some material is unsuitable for children but i also believe i am a FAR better judge of when my own children are ready for the stuff held back from them earlier than the state ever could be but that is perhaps an argument for another thread as it will divert this one … But you state that because a company sanitises and gives a happy ending to a story they out out as their own it is perfectly acceptable to censor an original work and replace it with one less out of step with wokery, and pretend the woke version is the original. No. That is totally unacceptable Dahl’s publishing company have now backpedalled and admitted they will continue to produce his work in its original form and sell the censored versions alongside those as a separate work, identified as censored from the original. I’m ok with that. But the Lady Chatterley Trial showed the world how not to muck about with literature Bullshit! I very much doubt you were exposed to the original versions. But that's not really the point. When you were a child, adults will have gone out of their way to ensure that you weren't exposed to things that society deemed unacceptable. That's what society does. Nothing has changed. Adults are still very protective of children. We don't all agree on what that requires. It would never have occurred to me that the wording in Dahl's books might need changing. That said, I'm in not the least bit concerned that it did occur to other people. Big deal! It's always been there. Even if you don't agree with the proposed changes, you have no grounds for suggesting something ominous is going on. That's complete nonsense. You're getting older and you don't like the fact that the world is changing from what you have become used to. It happens to every generation. Get over it, and stop ascribing malicious motives to those who simply don't have them. Bullshit My Noddy and big ears battled golliwogs The Little Match girl died The Little Mermaid didn’t have a happy ending My mid sixties copies of bond novels which i read in my very early teens referred to black men in ways Channel Four refuse to allow a war hero’s dog to be referred to YOU may have been brought up in a safe space. My parents alliwed me to see reality And i repeat what i said earlier. Disney happily disneyfied various stories to get a U rating for their films. I dont mind that because there is a bloody great disclaimer ‘BASED ON’ in tbe small print. Walt never intended his versions of the story to have the original ending and we all know that YOU said because he did that, it is ok to censor the original and present it AS the original, erasing the original from history. No it is not And as the publishers have found out, i am far from alone in wanting literature available as the author intended it to be not as some woke shithead thinks they should be allowed to pretend it was. |
|
