The beauty of censorship.

[John Wall]

Mar 3, 2023 22:13:40 GMT Stephen Byers said:

And I still think that the Swallows and Amazon film from 1974 beats hands down any later woke version that refuses to call one of the girls by her given name of Titty.

😂😂😂😂

[John Green]

Another take on the Ronald Dodd question www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/06/yes-roald-dahl-was-a-bigot-but-thats-no-excuse-to-re-write-his-books

(Richard Dodd sounds less odd/challenging than 'Roald Dahl'. Richmal Crompton, author of the Just William books, should be re-branded as a man called Richard, to save a child getting the name wrong before classmates)

[John Green]

"Publishers are cynically using ‘sensitivity readers’ to protect their b****m lines":

www.theguardian.com/books/commentisfree/2023/mar/09/roald-dahl-censorship-sensitivity-readers-books

[darrenlee]

Most of these people focusing on the financial reasoning for editing Roald Dahl's books look like they are trying to avoid expressing an opinion on whether it's intrinsically a good thing or not.

Toning Dahl's books down may just make them more realistic and therefore potentially more upsetting or frightening. For example, I could believe that someone might be more upset by simply 'enormous' or 'fat' than by 'enormously fat', which conjures up a cartoonish level of obesity not relatable to real life for many.

The books are quite simply 'inappropriate' and cannot be made 'appropriate' with a bit of tinkering. They need to be rewritten completely, e.g.



A person called Charlie lived in a place with some more people. It was not draughty because they had either invested in good insulation themselves or been helped to do so by government schemes, and there is nothing wrong with that.

One day one of the people who lived with Charlie announced that the diverse board of 'Extremely Delicious Stuff Solutions' was going to open their workplace for a visit from five lucky finders of colour-diverse tickets hidden in their products, including a fair share in 'free-from' items.

"That just sounds like a ruse to shift more product", said Charlie, "whilst dividing people into winners and losers, which is not good. There's very little chance of winning, anyway."

"But", came the reply, "you're bound to win because you want it more than anyone else."

"That's the sort of fallacy that causes hard-working families to spiral into debt through gambling addiction, though help is available if you or someone you know has been affected by this issue", explained Charlie. "Anyway, their confections are mainly high-sugar and high-enormity and should not form too large a part of anyone's daily intake. I would much rather eat a piece of fruit, even a beastli fruit, which at least counts as one of my five-a-day, so long as I remember to clean my teeth afterwards in a manner approved by dental experts."

"Then it's a shame you'll not get to meet the colleagues at Extremely Delicious Stuff Solutions, who are happy to work hard and not go on strike because they are paid a living wage with share options, receive a generous holiday package, benefit from a well-written company policy opposing discrimination and have access to on-going training to keep key skills up to date. And you won't hear them sing their song:

'We know that poetry ends in a rhyme,

But we've never heard of rhythm or scansion because we are instead committed to putting our efforts towards improving the world for the many not just the few at least most of the time.'

Are you sure you don't want to buy a chocolate bar? No pressure, as that would not be best practice."

"Yes."



THE END



With thanks to Roald Dahl, especially for providing such a splendidly non-gender, non-ethnicity specific name in 'Charlie'. Also, an equal amount of thanks to everyone else in the world so no-one feels left out.


The name's Bond, Jamie Bond, licensed to listen and maybe offer a little counselling where appropriate.

[John Green]

A rewriting of Strewwelpeter would leave very little of the original: www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/struwwelpeter

(Ironically, the spelcheck-thingy suggested 'Streetwalker' as an alternative. No wonder cheeks blush! ).

[Stephen Byers]

There’re re-woking Enid Blyton too. Bring back the gol. And Dickens, Bond, and Shakespeare, et al … But major book stores are getting back by replacing such as Blyton’s books in more central eye catching positions.

[sonnybh]

Mar 27, 2023 0:24:34 GMT Stephen Byers said:

There’re re-woking Enid Blyton too. Bring back the gol. And Dickens, Bond, and Shakespeare, et al … But major book stores are getting back by replacing such as Blyton’s books in more central eye catching positions.

I had though the Noddy books had been redone years ago, along with some updates to Mallory Towers & St Clare's books.

[anthonybartley]

Now it's Agatha's turn

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/26/agatha-christie-novels-reworked-to-remove-potentially-offensive-language

As I said earlier in this discussion - there are no victories here, just a temporary reprieve before everything gets thoroughly sanitised so that 0.00001% of society can sleep better at night.

Never before has censoring the masses to please the (very) few been so evident.

There is, perhaps, a more interesting point to be made here: 

By re-writing these works - and creating 'new' works in the process - does copyright then get extended another 75+ years for these new editions? This may well explain why publishing houses are so keen to throw everything into a grinder and re-write history in the process.

Just a thought.

Anyway, I guess it's now just a matter of time before Shakespeare is thrown onto the chopping block. 


www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/25/shakespeare-antisemitic-lines-mark-rylance

That was just one person's attempt to re-write a play - but I suspect the books will get their 'sensitivity' moment in the very near future.

"One can see any number of places in the text where there could be judicious cutting, or alteration. The frequent use, for example, of “the Jew”. When Portia, in the guise of a lawyer, comes into court she inquires: “Who is the merchant and who is the Jew?” One party is identified by profession, the other by race. It could be tactfully altered to “Who is the merchant and who is the moneylender?” And who would notice?"


I can just imagine 100 years from now, readers studying old (no doubt banned and illegal) uncensored versions, scratching their heads and asking themselves "Why were Jews money lenders? Why can't we know that now?"

But if all texts pass (one would logically assume) through some sort of AI generated 'antisemitic' filter many years from now - that key aspect of Jewish history wouldn't exist anymore. Whoever these people were, they'd just be known as 'the money lenders' for future generations studying the past. People wouldn't even know they were Jewish.

"And who would notice?" (says the clearly very dumb Guardian writer)

Um... erm.... historians? You know, those curious people who try to study our past - often to work out where we're heading.

But I guess we won't need historians anymore - what with everything being rewritten more times than the Bible, what would be the point in studying a history that doesn't exist or has been covered up? I could think of better things to do with my time, like being a 'sensitivity reader' for example

My one overriding thought here is that we won't be a species that learns from its mistakes - No, we will be a species that (conveniently) deletes its mistakes so we don't need to bother learning anything in the first place. Somehow our past will be perfect and squeaky clean - and we'll all have a clear conscience.

Now wouldn't that be nice?

Tea time in the not-too-distant future:

"Another crumpet, dear?"

George suddenly leaps up out of his armchair and violently spits out his tea all over the new coffee table.

"Darling, say that word again and you'll get us both arrested!"