3 ms·

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

by 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.

by mc32 4y ago

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.