4 ms·

>Encouraging the sort of thought police present here sets off all sorts of alarm bells. What is the difference between "thought police" and simple editing? Fo

by slg 4y ago

>Encouraging the sort of thought police present here sets off all sorts of alarm bells. What is the difference between "thought police" and simple editing? For example, if I wrote a book and used a word like "gypped", I would appreciate an editor saying "Change this word to something like 'swindled'. 'Gypped' is derived from 'Gypsy' and is inherently an insult to the Romani people." Is that the editor being the "thought police" or them doing their job well? Is the objection to the Dahl changes simply that this is happening after the books were already published?

horsawlarway 4y ago
The intention is the difference. The value of a book is that you experience the world through a viewpoint that is different than your own. That viewpoint may not be pretty, or fun, or something you agree with. Honestly - most of the books that I value challenge me by exposing me to something raw and unfiltered that I have not experienced myself. --- That editor also doesn't have the experiences of the author, and changing word choice is changing the world that author is speaking about. If the author's goal is to actually tell a genuine story that they connect with - to expose the world to their own thoughts and feelings and history - then changing those things is not trivial. --- I don't want to read a bland mash of "editor approved" stories. I want to read stories that are told by individuals, with all their quirks and intricacies. I want to hear their opinions and words. Not some filtered, white washed, toned down version of them. I want to make up my own mind about whether that story was valuable, or touching, or compelling, or horrible, or repelling. I don't want to never hear it in the first place because an editor decided they didn't like it and struck it out. --- Basically - if the author doesn't give a shit and is just trying to sell the most books... fine. Go with the editor's picks for the words. Let them control the narrative and story. They have the most experience with selling books and their advice is probably decent. If the goal is to write down a story that is meaningful to the author... don't change the author's words.
- slg 4y ago
  How can you know the author's intentions? How is this type of analyzing of their thoughts not "thought policing" them?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. I'm not acting as thought police because I literally didn't police their thoughts - I left them the fuck alone. --- I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way).
    - slg 4y ago
      >Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. But this is fundamentally what editing is which brings me back to the original question of how is "thought policing" different from editing. In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? >I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way). I'm just trying to understand your position by asking questions.
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        > In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? When the author is present and engaged in the process. Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out.
        slg 4y ago
        >When the author is present and engaged in the process. Does this mean you would be fine with this process if it involved the author even if they approved of changes to a book decades after it was originally released? >Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. >Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out. Does this mean that in situations in which the author is dead and the books are still under copyright that you are ok with a publisher that decides to stop publishing the book, basically the Dr. Seuss situation?
SoftTalker 4y ago
I think it greatly depends on whether you choose the word deliberately or accidentally, and what the reaction is if you insist on keeping the word.
hellojesus 4y ago
After having read some of the changes, it seems to me more about language policing than offense reduction. For example,all references to black and white have been removed. The BFG no longer wears a black cape. The color of the cape wasn't removed because how could a black cape possibly offend? It was removed because of the ongoing Mao-styled cultural revolution. And why did the Cloud-men become Cloud-people? Why is it sexist to call a group of men men? Why was the Trunchbul's description changed from horse face to just face? How does that help? Some people are ugly. It's a byproduct of the genetic lottery. Overall I think sensitivity training is nonsense. All it does is force people to censor themselves before speaking at the risk of getting canceled. From your example: I'm not a gypsy, but even if I was don't you think the correct reading of that would be something akin to, "Gypsies in the past used to swindle, but now we can be cognizant of that behavior and not do it, thus being a better version of ourselves." I don't see why offense would necessarily be taken. Getting offended by reminders of the past that we didn't even live seem like nonsense to me.
- slg 4y ago
  >I'm not a gypsy, but even if I was don't you think the correct reading of that would be something akin to, "Gypsies in the past used to swindle, but now we can be cognizant of that behavior and not do it, thus being a better version of ourselves." I'm not going to go through every example you mentioned because this comment shows the exact problem with that. You are putting the origin of the term on some fault with the Romani people. Have you examined why that is? Are you sure that they did actually swindle people more than other groups? If they did, why did they do it? Was that a byproduct of their position in society? I admittedly don't know much Romani history, so I can't speak to it directly. However I know Jewish people were similarly thought of as swindlers because they were often bankers, and they were often bankers because that was one of the few jobs non-Jewish society would allow them to have. The fault doesn't lie with the Jews, it lies with the rest of society. That same concept applies elsewhere. Like white generally being used to represent good and black bad. That is such a fundamental aspect of our culture that it seems silly to try to change it, but the silliness originates in a lack of examination of the origin of those standards.
  - 4y ago

by slg 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago

The intention is the difference. The value of a book is that you experience the world through a viewpoint that is different than your own. That viewpoint may not be pretty, or fun, or something you agree with. Honestly - most of the books that I value challenge me by exposing me to something raw and unfiltered that I have not experienced myself. --- That editor also doesn't have the experiences of the author, and changing word choice is changing the world that author is speaking about. If the author's goal is to actually tell a genuine story that they connect with - to expose the world to their own thoughts and feelings and history - then changing those things is not trivial. --- I don't want to read a bland mash of "editor approved" stories. I want to read stories that are told by individuals, with all their quirks and intricacies. I want to hear their opinions and words. Not some filtered, white washed, toned down version of them. I want to make up my own mind about whether that story was valuable, or touching, or compelling, or horrible, or repelling. I don't want to never hear it in the first place because an editor decided they didn't like it and struck it out. --- Basically - if the author doesn't give a shit and is just trying to sell the most books... fine. Go with the editor's picks for the words. Let them control the narrative and story. They have the most experience with selling books and their advice is probably decent. If the goal is to write down a story that is meaningful to the author... don't change the author's words.

slg 4y ago
How can you know the author's intentions? How is this type of analyzing of their thoughts not "thought policing" them?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. I'm not acting as thought police because I literally didn't police their thoughts - I left them the fuck alone. --- I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way).
  - slg 4y ago
    >Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. But this is fundamentally what editing is which brings me back to the original question of how is "thought policing" different from editing. In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? >I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way). I'm just trying to understand your position by asking questions.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      > In what situations is it acceptable to edit words that someone wrote? When the author is present and engaged in the process. Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out.
      - slg 4y ago
        >When the author is present and engaged in the process. Does this mean you would be fine with this process if it involved the author even if they approved of changes to a book decades after it was originally released? >Would Dahl care about these changes? We don't know. And that's the problem. It's no longer his book - it's the diluted version. >Alternatively - if the author is gone... when the story is no longer bound by copyright seems a sane approach. If you want to edit his words, make them compete with the original versions (or other folks edits). If the edits are genuinely better - they will win out. Does this mean that in situations in which the author is dead and the books are still under copyright that you are ok with a publisher that decides to stop publishing the book, basically the Dr. Seuss situation?

SoftTalker 4y ago

I think it greatly depends on whether you choose the word deliberately or accidentally, and what the reaction is if you insist on keeping the word.

hellojesus 4y ago

After having read some of the changes, it seems to me more about language policing than offense reduction. For example,all references to black and white have been removed. The BFG no longer wears a black cape. The color of the cape wasn't removed because how could a black cape possibly offend? It was removed because of the ongoing Mao-styled cultural revolution. And why did the Cloud-men become Cloud-people? Why is it sexist to call a group of men men? Why was the Trunchbul's description changed from horse face to just face? How does that help? Some people are ugly. It's a byproduct of the genetic lottery. Overall I think sensitivity training is nonsense. All it does is force people to censor themselves before speaking at the risk of getting canceled. From your example: I'm not a gypsy, but even if I was don't you think the correct reading of that would be something akin to, "Gypsies in the past used to swindle, but now we can be cognizant of that behavior and not do it, thus being a better version of ourselves." I don't see why offense would necessarily be taken. Getting offended by reminders of the past that we didn't even live seem like nonsense to me.

slg 4y ago
>I'm not a gypsy, but even if I was don't you think the correct reading of that would be something akin to, "Gypsies in the past used to swindle, but now we can be cognizant of that behavior and not do it, thus being a better version of ourselves." I'm not going to go through every example you mentioned because this comment shows the exact problem with that. You are putting the origin of the term on some fault with the Romani people. Have you examined why that is? Are you sure that they did actually swindle people more than other groups? If they did, why did they do it? Was that a byproduct of their position in society? I admittedly don't know much Romani history, so I can't speak to it directly. However I know Jewish people were similarly thought of as swindlers because they were often bankers, and they were often bankers because that was one of the few jobs non-Jewish society would allow them to have. The fault doesn't lie with the Jews, it lies with the rest of society. That same concept applies elsewhere. Like white generally being used to represent good and black bad. That is such a fundamental aspect of our culture that it seems silly to try to change it, but the silliness originates in a lack of examination of the origin of those standards.
- 4y ago