4 ms·

I really don't know why anyone thought this would be a good idea. Even in very left and "woke" circles I've seen very little support of this.

prepend 4y ago
The company will make more money this way. I’m guess Dahl books were selling less due to some groups not wanting to read about fat characters and whatnot so the estate and publisher wanted to make more money and stay on those reading lists. Dahl has been dead for 30 years, it’s messed up that copyright is so long that his works have decades more until in public domain. I don’t think this is woke, this is monopoly copyright maximizing for profit. I’m sure if Michaelangelo’s David was under copyright, they would add on a fig leaf to maximize sales. I think the quote that the family of Dahl should be ashamed is most apt. The publisher is some lame company, but there’s some nephew or other relative somewhere that wanted 5% more profit and defaced their relative’s art for a bit more money.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  No they wont, but they probably don’t care about making money if they paid for a committee of over-educated elite to suggest these changes in the first place.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Of course they will. They'll sell out the old copies to the people who simply must have the fat Aunt Sponge and can no longer be sure to get it from the library, and then they'll get to sell the revised version to people who do not like the word "fat" but already have the old version. Neither of these groups would have purchased the book otherwise. On top of that, the publisher gets free publicity from living rent free in your head over an insignificant change that harms literally nobody. You're free to boycott the publisher, and everybody else is free to make fun of you for making a big deal out of a nothing burger. Hence, the culture wars continue.
- trieste92 4y ago
  > I don’t think this is woke, this is monopoly copyright maximizing for profit. A corporation redacting a work of art that they have a monopoly over to sell more copies? I mean, it's legal. At least until the government punishes Penguin for monopolistic behavior If Penguin wants to light their own public reputation on fire by sabotaging a work of art then so be it. I can't trust them for historically accurate sources after this, with this book or any other
  - prepend 4y ago
    I agree it’s legal. I don’t think the issue is legality. I’ve not heard anyone say that the publisher is acting illegally with these edits.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

prepend 4y ago

The company will make more money this way. I’m guess Dahl books were selling less due to some groups not wanting to read about fat characters and whatnot so the estate and publisher wanted to make more money and stay on those reading lists. Dahl has been dead for 30 years, it’s messed up that copyright is so long that his works have decades more until in public domain. I don’t think this is woke, this is monopoly copyright maximizing for profit. I’m sure if Michaelangelo’s David was under copyright, they would add on a fig leaf to maximize sales. I think the quote that the family of Dahl should be ashamed is most apt. The publisher is some lame company, but there’s some nephew or other relative somewhere that wanted 5% more profit and defaced their relative’s art for a bit more money.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
No they wont, but they probably don’t care about making money if they paid for a committee of over-educated elite to suggest these changes in the first place.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Of course they will. They'll sell out the old copies to the people who simply must have the fat Aunt Sponge and can no longer be sure to get it from the library, and then they'll get to sell the revised version to people who do not like the word "fat" but already have the old version. Neither of these groups would have purchased the book otherwise. On top of that, the publisher gets free publicity from living rent free in your head over an insignificant change that harms literally nobody. You're free to boycott the publisher, and everybody else is free to make fun of you for making a big deal out of a nothing burger. Hence, the culture wars continue.
trieste92 4y ago
> I don’t think this is woke, this is monopoly copyright maximizing for profit. A corporation redacting a work of art that they have a monopoly over to sell more copies? I mean, it's legal. At least until the government punishes Penguin for monopolistic behavior If Penguin wants to light their own public reputation on fire by sabotaging a work of art then so be it. I can't trust them for historically accurate sources after this, with this book or any other
- prepend 4y ago
  I agree it’s legal. I don’t think the issue is legality. I’ve not heard anyone say that the publisher is acting illegally with these edits.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]