8 ms·

So this was a publicity stunt by the publisher? As far as anyone can tell, no one ever asked for these changes to be made in the first place

Mattasher 4y ago
Seems more like an attempt at woke-washing that backfired because of the negative public response.
- BryantD 4y ago
  That negative public response came from all sides of the political spectrum, of course. If this hypothesis is accurate, it seems as if the problem might have been that the publisher uncritically accepted the hostile framing of "woke." Turns out it's not actually about censorship.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    That’s an interesting point. Of course, corporations are willing to accept socially progressive language as a business matter, but they aren’t really “of the progress movement” so to speak.
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    All sides? Including left? Examples?
    - yowzadave 4y ago
      It seems like virtually everyone is against it--it would be harder to find a leftist in favor of the bowdlerization than one against it: https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/roald-dahl-censorship/ https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/roald-dahl-censorship/
      - MikePlacid 4y ago
        “ It feels like a bait and switch, ignoring the very real issues with the writer while labeling as bad, wrong or offensive words that have no such inherent value.” I read this as: editors are changing just some words in order to save Dahl, who should be banned completely. And Salon author calls their own stance “against censorship”. Hm.
- timeon 4y ago
  > more like Based on what?
- tehbeard 4y ago
  Honestly, more like a malicious compliance way of doing it; designed to generate that backfire and aim atleast part of the blast at the "wokies" or whatever bullshit term you want to label non-conservatives. As I said on reddit about this: Warner Bros. have done fine with the pre-amble to their older cartoons that says something to the effect of "yo, this was written back when attitudes were different, they were shitty attitudes, but to erase them is to pretend it never happened." A similar preface in the books would have worked much better, but wouldn't give you any amount of PR like this.
yamtaddle 4y ago
> So this was a publicity stunt by the publisher? It was done so poorly that this thought had already crossed my mind. A bunch of the changes were obviously unnecessary by any standard, and they didn't even pay attention to things like meter when editing poems. I'm not even necessarily against this (we do this to kids' literature all the time and basically always have—as longs as the originals can still be had, not a big deal) but this was so lazy and awful that it's hard to believe they were serious—this was straight-up an illiterate editing effort.
- esja 4y ago
  It was a real initiative using a real company which specialises in this. They just aren't very good at preserving the intent of the author and the nuance of the text. Which is exactly what we should expect of any censor. https://www.inclusiveminds.com/ https://www.inclusiveminds.com/
  - cld8483 4y ago
    > Which is exactly what we should expect of any censor. Exactly. If they weren't artless hacks they'd write their own books instead of butchering others.
dagmx 4y ago
Yeah. Prior to their statement, there was basically no public discourse about the books being offensive. Then the PR statement came out, and anti-woke people are up in arms about it, and everyone else is going “huh that’s just weird to do”. I feel like it surely has to be just a push to get the books back in the public mindshare if sales were slipping.
- wara23arish 4y ago
  Kind of a tangent, but is it fair to define ppl up in arms about this as “anti-woke”? Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc Whereas nobody I talked to who opposed these changes would consider themselves “anti-woke”. Im not trying to pick a bone with you, but I’ve been lately thinking about a common trope where if someone opposes a change/policy , they get labeled “anti-this” or the worst is they get hit with a question of “why do you care” Where the goal isn’t to debate the merits of the change but simply shun the other person. (also it definitely happens from both sides)
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    The changes were meaningless. Things like "fat" to "enormous." If you called a obese person "enormous," they would find it more offensive, not less. The only people who would care are culture warriors, and they predictably made enough of a stink to make this marketing campaign work out just fine.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    > Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc Maybe in your mind but not mine. Good liberals are anti-woke because woke is anti-liberal. It's a coercive force that any decent person should be against. At least anyone who critically examines it and the methods it uses to manipulate and gain unjust and unearned power over others.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Conflating liberalism with moral decency is why we oppose y'all to begin with, btw.
Foobar8568 4y ago
In France, nobody asked for dumbed down versions of books, yet the publishers rewrote many of them removing subjunctive mood and past simple over the last 15years. Worse, most kid, young teenager books are using a "simplified" grammar and vocabulary. Unless exception, one needs to reach translated books to get a normal grammar and vocabulary. All that to say I am actually surprised they went back on their announce.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  The US version of this is the shift of juvenile and young-adult literature to the first-person POV, which has been so complete that kids coming up now find the third-person off-putting and difficult to read.
  - endtime 4y ago
    Do you have a link where I can read more about this? I'm surprised kids find third-person difficult. My eight-year-olds and their friends are all starting the Harry Potter books, and I haven't heard this complaint.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      I've got some young advanced-reader kids (I think my eldest had read all but the last couple Harry Potter books before turning 7? And they did understand them, we quizzed 'em quite a bit to make sure) like that and the difference is we're handing them older books we're familiar with before they'd ordinarily get to them. Most kids track closer to normal graded reading level and will learn largely on newer, first-person books provided by teachers and librarians who are desperate to get kids to read anything.
  - endominus 4y ago
    Do you have sources for this or do you have personal experience with people affected? I haven't heard this before and I'd like to know more. Sounds strange to me that considering that most of the popular books I know of targeting that age group are 3rd-person perspective.
Slippery_John 4y ago
Netflix is doing a bunch of adaptations, which will naturally draw a bunch of renewed interest to the books. They probably wanted to avoid discourse criticizing the books when the new shows came out.
jlawson 4y ago
Not a publicity stunt, and not something anyone asked for. The publisher does not have a rational unified will. It is made of up people and its actions are a product of internal politics. In this case, as is usual, a tiny group of hyper-motivated woke ideologues would have banded together to push for these changes, and deployed the usual array of ideological superweapons that the woke have access to in our culture-space (there are no antibodies to their power plays unlike traditional religions, and pushback against woke ideas in institutional contexts is often legally punishable by various mechanisms related to civil rights law). This tiny group swung the publisher to its will, because they care with the self-destructive fervor of religious zealots, and everyone else is just trying to get along, so they win despite being a microminority. It's another step in the long march through the institutions; basically all our academic, corporate, cultural, military, and scientific establishments have fallen under woke control by the same mechanisms. Ref: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
gnicholas 4y ago
I wouldn't characterize it as a stunt. I believe this review was initiated around 2020, back when "woke" was still a compliment. They brought in a firm that specializes in sensitivity readings, and they've now announced the results of the process that began several years ago. I'm sure they planned for the possibility that there would be a loud backlash, and they are now walking back their initial announcement. This may result in some additional sales, as people scramble to get the old versions. But it also puts egg on Puffin's face, and may hurt their reputation among buyers and authors. Overall, it seems more like inertia and incompetence rather than a finely-tuned publicity stunt.

Mattasher 4y ago

Seems more like an attempt at woke-washing that backfired because of the negative public response.

BryantD 4y ago
That negative public response came from all sides of the political spectrum, of course. If this hypothesis is accurate, it seems as if the problem might have been that the publisher uncritically accepted the hostile framing of "woke." Turns out it's not actually about censorship.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  That’s an interesting point. Of course, corporations are willing to accept socially progressive language as a business matter, but they aren’t really “of the progress movement” so to speak.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  All sides? Including left? Examples?
  - yowzadave 4y ago
    It seems like virtually everyone is against it--it would be harder to find a leftist in favor of the bowdlerization than one against it: https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/roald-dahl-censorship/ https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/roald-dahl-censorship/
    - MikePlacid 4y ago
      “ It feels like a bait and switch, ignoring the very real issues with the writer while labeling as bad, wrong or offensive words that have no such inherent value.” I read this as: editors are changing just some words in order to save Dahl, who should be banned completely. And Salon author calls their own stance “against censorship”. Hm.
timeon 4y ago
> more like Based on what?
tehbeard 4y ago
Honestly, more like a malicious compliance way of doing it; designed to generate that backfire and aim atleast part of the blast at the "wokies" or whatever bullshit term you want to label non-conservatives. As I said on reddit about this: Warner Bros. have done fine with the pre-amble to their older cartoons that says something to the effect of "yo, this was written back when attitudes were different, they were shitty attitudes, but to erase them is to pretend it never happened." A similar preface in the books would have worked much better, but wouldn't give you any amount of PR like this.

yamtaddle 4y ago

> So this was a publicity stunt by the publisher? It was done so poorly that this thought had already crossed my mind. A bunch of the changes were obviously unnecessary by any standard, and they didn't even pay attention to things like meter when editing poems. I'm not even necessarily against this (we do this to kids' literature all the time and basically always have—as longs as the originals can still be had, not a big deal) but this was so lazy and awful that it's hard to believe they were serious—this was straight-up an illiterate editing effort.

esja 4y ago
It was a real initiative using a real company which specialises in this. They just aren't very good at preserving the intent of the author and the nuance of the text. Which is exactly what we should expect of any censor. https://www.inclusiveminds.com/ https://www.inclusiveminds.com/
- cld8483 4y ago
  > Which is exactly what we should expect of any censor. Exactly. If they weren't artless hacks they'd write their own books instead of butchering others.

dagmx 4y ago

Yeah. Prior to their statement, there was basically no public discourse about the books being offensive. Then the PR statement came out, and anti-woke people are up in arms about it, and everyone else is going “huh that’s just weird to do”. I feel like it surely has to be just a push to get the books back in the public mindshare if sales were slipping.

wara23arish 4y ago
Kind of a tangent, but is it fair to define ppl up in arms about this as “anti-woke”? Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc Whereas nobody I talked to who opposed these changes would consider themselves “anti-woke”. Im not trying to pick a bone with you, but I’ve been lately thinking about a common trope where if someone opposes a change/policy , they get labeled “anti-this” or the worst is they get hit with a question of “why do you care” Where the goal isn’t to debate the merits of the change but simply shun the other person. (also it definitely happens from both sides)
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  The changes were meaningless. Things like "fat" to "enormous." If you called a obese person "enormous," they would find it more offensive, not less. The only people who would care are culture warriors, and they predictably made enough of a stink to make this marketing campaign work out just fine.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  > Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc Maybe in your mind but not mine. Good liberals are anti-woke because woke is anti-liberal. It's a coercive force that any decent person should be against. At least anyone who critically examines it and the methods it uses to manipulate and gain unjust and unearned power over others.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Conflating liberalism with moral decency is why we oppose y'all to begin with, btw.

Foobar8568 4y ago

In France, nobody asked for dumbed down versions of books, yet the publishers rewrote many of them removing subjunctive mood and past simple over the last 15years. Worse, most kid, young teenager books are using a "simplified" grammar and vocabulary. Unless exception, one needs to reach translated books to get a normal grammar and vocabulary. All that to say I am actually surprised they went back on their announce.

yamtaddle 4y ago
The US version of this is the shift of juvenile and young-adult literature to the first-person POV, which has been so complete that kids coming up now find the third-person off-putting and difficult to read.
- endtime 4y ago
  Do you have a link where I can read more about this? I'm surprised kids find third-person difficult. My eight-year-olds and their friends are all starting the Harry Potter books, and I haven't heard this complaint.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    I've got some young advanced-reader kids (I think my eldest had read all but the last couple Harry Potter books before turning 7? And they did understand them, we quizzed 'em quite a bit to make sure) like that and the difference is we're handing them older books we're familiar with before they'd ordinarily get to them. Most kids track closer to normal graded reading level and will learn largely on newer, first-person books provided by teachers and librarians who are desperate to get kids to read anything.
- endominus 4y ago
  Do you have sources for this or do you have personal experience with people affected? I haven't heard this before and I'd like to know more. Sounds strange to me that considering that most of the popular books I know of targeting that age group are 3rd-person perspective.

Slippery_John 4y ago

Netflix is doing a bunch of adaptations, which will naturally draw a bunch of renewed interest to the books. They probably wanted to avoid discourse criticizing the books when the new shows came out.

jlawson 4y ago

Not a publicity stunt, and not something anyone asked for. The publisher does not have a rational unified will. It is made of up people and its actions are a product of internal politics. In this case, as is usual, a tiny group of hyper-motivated woke ideologues would have banded together to push for these changes, and deployed the usual array of ideological superweapons that the woke have access to in our culture-space (there are no antibodies to their power plays unlike traditional religions, and pushback against woke ideas in institutional contexts is often legally punishable by various mechanisms related to civil rights law). This tiny group swung the publisher to its will, because they care with the self-destructive fervor of religious zealots, and everyone else is just trying to get along, so they win despite being a microminority. It's another step in the long march through the institutions; basically all our academic, corporate, cultural, military, and scientific establishments have fallen under woke control by the same mechanisms. Ref: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

gnicholas 4y ago

I wouldn't characterize it as a stunt. I believe this review was initiated around 2020, back when "woke" was still a compliment. They brought in a firm that specializes in sensitivity readings, and they've now announced the results of the process that began several years ago. I'm sure they planned for the possibility that there would be a loud backlash, and they are now walking back their initial announcement. This may result in some additional sales, as people scramble to get the old versions. But it also puts egg on Puffin's face, and may hurt their reputation among buyers and authors. Overall, it seems more like inertia and incompetence rather than a finely-tuned publicity stunt.