4 ms·

He was also a raging anti-semite. Like, to the levels of proudly proclaiming "I have become anti-Semitic." It shouldn't be terribly surprising that an old Brit

He was also a raging anti-semite. Like, to the levels of proudly proclaiming "I have become anti-Semitic." It shouldn't be terribly surprising that an old British guy was a bigot, nor that some of that bigotry crept into his works. I'm not sure why this instance of censorship feels particularly egregious, though. It's ultimately for children, and we censor content for kids all the time. We do it with movies and TV shows and music, and I don't see much rage directed toward that practice. Is it because it's a book? Is it because it's a medium that hasn't really been censored like this before? Is it because it was done posthumously? Is it the specific content being censored? Something feels different about this one. Maybe it's just the fear that what was once sacred is now fair game for defilement, or the sinking realization that the dam is now broken and this will become the new norm.

realjhol 4y ago
> Is it because it's a book? Is it because it's a medium that hasn't really been censored like this before? Is it because it was done posthumously? Is it the specific content being censored? It's because it is fraud. I want to buy a copy of Roald Dhall's original work - unadulterated by leftist wankers. If censorship is required when reading to my children, I'll be the one to decide how to do it. If they want to tone police literature, let them produce their own dull sanitised works and see if anyone wants to buy them. But they know that noone does want to buy them, hence why they have to mutilate someone else's work instead.
- apmee 4y ago
  On the other hand, other parents may well wish to have access to cherished stories from their childhood to read to their own children _without_ first having to re-read them all in advance and prepare their own annotated versions. I'm not even necessarily agreeing with the publisher's approach here, but I can certainly see there being a market for "modernised" versions of older books that tired parents can relax into reading aloud as a bedtime story, without that constant low-level unease about the possibility of some dodgy dated stuff popping up out of nowhere.
  - realjhol 4y ago
    They weren't asking, were they? They decided they were going to force us to read their bastardised version and what are you going to do about it?

realjhol 4y ago

> Is it because it's a book? Is it because it's a medium that hasn't really been censored like this before? Is it because it was done posthumously? Is it the specific content being censored? It's because it is fraud. I want to buy a copy of Roald Dhall's original work - unadulterated by leftist wankers. If censorship is required when reading to my children, I'll be the one to decide how to do it. If they want to tone police literature, let them produce their own dull sanitised works and see if anyone wants to buy them. But they know that noone does want to buy them, hence why they have to mutilate someone else's work instead.

apmee 4y ago
On the other hand, other parents may well wish to have access to cherished stories from their childhood to read to their own children _without_ first having to re-read them all in advance and prepare their own annotated versions. I'm not even necessarily agreeing with the publisher's approach here, but I can certainly see there being a market for "modernised" versions of older books that tired parents can relax into reading aloud as a bedtime story, without that constant low-level unease about the possibility of some dodgy dated stuff popping up out of nowhere.
- realjhol 4y ago
  They weren't asking, were they? They decided they were going to force us to read their bastardised version and what are you going to do about it?