4 ms·
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
by 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 agoMaybe, 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 agoThe 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 agoAbridgement is not 'sanitising'.
- cld8483 4y agoIt 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.