3 ms·

I don't understand the existence of two markets here. I may be simple-minded but I would have thought that people either want to read a book or they don't. But

I don't understand the existence of two markets here. I may be simple-minded but I would have thought that people either want to read a book or they don't. But now is there really a market for people who want to read a book but only if that book's content is made different from what it actually is? (I'm worried if that's the case).

vidarh 4y ago
This isn't a new thing. Abridged versions and children's editions and versions with updated language go back a long time. There is far more than two distinct markets here.
- leephillips 4y ago
  When I read the unexpurgated Gulliver’s Travels as an adult I was shocked. I knew I had read them in school, but certainly did not remember all those naughty bits. The children’s versions are heavily censored.
mc32 4y ago
So long as the original remains available, I'm okay. Yes, I think there have always been people who'd prefer a 'sanitized' version of things --though maybe that wish wasn't always available or fulfilled. And I certainly think that the original ought to remain. I'd hate for people to come down and revise Plato or Sun Tzu, etc., because some aspect or passages hurt their sensibilities. I feel the same about modern works as well. The Original must remain but it's okay to have a 'sanitized' or bowdlerized version as well.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Actually, I think it's not OK to have 'sanitised' versions. No-one is forced to read a book but if you do you 'confront' the content. Sanitising everything, as seems to be the trend, is cowardly and weakening minds. On the other hand, I fully understand that the aim of a publisher is to sell more.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Maybe, but another alternative is that (mass-market) authors feel compelled to only write bowdlerized versions of what they had in mind to write and then you're left with fewer options.
  - cld8483 4y ago
    The most common form of "sanitation" is probably abridgement, and I think there is a strong argument that abridgement is a net positive because it allows people who would never be able/willing to read the full book to get the gist of the story and still participate in / understand at least some of the cultural significance of that story. Not terribly unlike reasonably faithful film adaptations. But what the publisher did in this case was not like that; these modifications weren't designed to make the books more accessible to people with low reading skill ('fat' is not a hard word.)
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      Abridgement is not 'sanitising'.
      - cld8483 4y ago
        It can be. Is there an abridgement of The Count of Monte Cristo that has the hashish chapter? The abridgement I read as a kid didn't have it.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  One thing that seems dangerous is the practice where sanitized/bowlderized versions don't note that they are sanitized or abridged (sometimes significantly) so the readers think that they have read the classic book but have not really, as critical passages (especially those which are heavy enough to warrant discussion with others) were missing from what they read. Readers have to right to know if they are getting the original or not, so that the choice is informed and not accidental.
peder 4y ago
This is like the 90s Christian companies that would strip out violence/language/sexual themes from movies and repackage them for families. I'm sure there's a market for woke-washed books, but I can't help but sense the same puritanical forces at play here.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  It seems ironic that the christian bible has plenty of violence and sexual themes.
bentcorner 4y ago
Abridged and various adaptations of books exist, as do things like Kidz Bop and CleanFlicks (or at least its derivatives). Not to say that this is or isn't good but I don't think it's weird that various forms of the same "work" exist and that some people prefer a modified one over the original. People have been willing to pay for this kind of thing for a long time. It's a little different now in that it's the original rights-holder doing it but money talks and why argue over fair use when you can do it yourself?

vidarh 4y ago

This isn't a new thing. Abridged versions and children's editions and versions with updated language go back a long time. There is far more than two distinct markets here.

leephillips 4y ago
When I read the unexpurgated Gulliver’s Travels as an adult I was shocked. I knew I had read them in school, but certainly did not remember all those naughty bits. The children’s versions are heavily censored.

mc32 4y ago

So long as the original remains available, I'm okay. Yes, I think there have always been people who'd prefer a 'sanitized' version of things --though maybe that wish wasn't always available or fulfilled. And I certainly think that the original ought to remain. I'd hate for people to come down and revise Plato or Sun Tzu, etc., because some aspect or passages hurt their sensibilities. I feel the same about modern works as well. The Original must remain but it's okay to have a 'sanitized' or bowdlerized version as well.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
Actually, I think it's not OK to have 'sanitised' versions. No-one is forced to read a book but if you do you 'confront' the content. Sanitising everything, as seems to be the trend, is cowardly and weakening minds. On the other hand, I fully understand that the aim of a publisher is to sell more.
- mc32 4y ago
  Maybe, but another alternative is that (mass-market) authors feel compelled to only write bowdlerized versions of what they had in mind to write and then you're left with fewer options.
- cld8483 4y ago
  The most common form of "sanitation" is probably abridgement, and I think there is a strong argument that abridgement is a net positive because it allows people who would never be able/willing to read the full book to get the gist of the story and still participate in / understand at least some of the cultural significance of that story. Not terribly unlike reasonably faithful film adaptations. But what the publisher did in this case was not like that; these modifications weren't designed to make the books more accessible to people with low reading skill ('fat' is not a hard word.)
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Abridgement is not 'sanitising'.
    - cld8483 4y ago
      It can be. Is there an abridgement of The Count of Monte Cristo that has the hashish chapter? The abridgement I read as a kid didn't have it.
PeterisP 4y ago
One thing that seems dangerous is the practice where sanitized/bowlderized versions don't note that they are sanitized or abridged (sometimes significantly) so the readers think that they have read the classic book but have not really, as critical passages (especially those which are heavy enough to warrant discussion with others) were missing from what they read. Readers have to right to know if they are getting the original or not, so that the choice is informed and not accidental.

peder 4y ago

This is like the 90s Christian companies that would strip out violence/language/sexual themes from movies and repackage them for families. I'm sure there's a market for woke-washed books, but I can't help but sense the same puritanical forces at play here.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
It seems ironic that the christian bible has plenty of violence and sexual themes.

bentcorner 4y ago

Abridged and various adaptations of books exist, as do things like Kidz Bop and CleanFlicks (or at least its derivatives). Not to say that this is or isn't good but I don't think it's weird that various forms of the same "work" exist and that some people prefer a modified one over the original. People have been willing to pay for this kind of thing for a long time. It's a little different now in that it's the original rights-holder doing it but money talks and why argue over fair use when you can do it yourself?