3 ms·

Ah yes - ownership of ideas and thoughts and stories. Fun aspects of capitalism. This book should be public domain. The author has been dead for 33 years. I

Ah yes - ownership of ideas and thoughts and stories. Fun aspects of capitalism. This book should be public domain. The author has been dead for 33 years. I honestly don't give a flying fuck about who "owns the rights" to this story at this point. But my broader point is salient outside of this - I think you're removing value from stories by trying to remove ugly parts. The world is ugly, hiding that and papering over it doesn't do anyone any favors. It's also beautiful and wondrous. How can we experience the highs without the lows? The good without the bad? How can we know what the past was like when we change it to suit our mood? When we wash it away and drown it out. When we cannot to learn from it, because we have no idea what it even was? When we have nothing but a caricature of it hanging out to dry, with the complexity and nuance tossed aside, wrung out from it like it was a rag to be cleaned.

Zetice 4y ago
I don't think there's a ton of value in calling a little girl "ugly and beastly" instead of just "beastly", but if you do think that, it sounds like you can still show your children how to call people names, and that's my point. Nothing is being taken away here, only new things are being added. That's what I don't understand; why would you be upset about that?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  I guess my thoughts are this - If you want to write a book that doesn't call folks ugly, go knock yourself out. I'm all here for that and I support you. You may or may not find success, and that's life. If you want to edit the words of a story because you find them unpleasant... if you want to censor an author after his death because you might sell more books... Then I find you ugly. You are willing to throw away content you disagree with, instead of tackling it head on, so both ugly and cowardly. Where does it stop? What content is "you approved" in a way that we can all live with? If we happen to live in a spot where those words are also owned, and we've decided that I don't have the rights to copy and distribute the original words because of the greed of Disney... then I find you both ugly and authoritarian in ways that are uncomfortable. I strongly dislike you.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    You're allowed to think of me as ugly, not like me, call me names, all of that's totally fine! What I'm confused about is, when the original work remains completely available such as what the article we're talking about says, why you would care about me also wanting to have access to a less offensive version of the work? You retain access to the original work, and I get a watered down version that's easier for me to read to my kids at bedtime. Feels like a win/win? Why don't I have the same freedom of expression in your mind that you seem so intent on protecting on behalf of a dead guy?
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      > You retain access to the original work But I don't, and that's the point.
      - Zetice 4y ago
        ...yes you do? The title of the article literally includes, "Original books to be kept in print". Also, you can currently purchase every single Roald Dahl book on Amazon for at most ~$10, so in so many ways it's incorrect to say you lose access to Roald Dahl's original works.
        horsawlarway 4y ago
        You sure do like editing other folks... "Original books to be kept in print following criticism".
        Zetice 4y ago
        So… you do retain access to the original works, then? Seems like that solves all of your issues…
    - ars 4y ago
      > when the original work remains completely available Does it? If a library has a copy of the offensive censored one, they might not buy the original. There's only a limited amount of money available, every censored copy purchased means one less good copy.
- cld8483 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Can you please quote the full sentence I wrote? Because if you do, you'll see exactly why I expressed my preference.

Zetice 4y ago

I don't think there's a ton of value in calling a little girl "ugly and beastly" instead of just "beastly", but if you do think that, it sounds like you can still show your children how to call people names, and that's my point. Nothing is being taken away here, only new things are being added. That's what I don't understand; why would you be upset about that?

horsawlarway 4y ago
I guess my thoughts are this - If you want to write a book that doesn't call folks ugly, go knock yourself out. I'm all here for that and I support you. You may or may not find success, and that's life. If you want to edit the words of a story because you find them unpleasant... if you want to censor an author after his death because you might sell more books... Then I find you ugly. You are willing to throw away content you disagree with, instead of tackling it head on, so both ugly and cowardly. Where does it stop? What content is "you approved" in a way that we can all live with? If we happen to live in a spot where those words are also owned, and we've decided that I don't have the rights to copy and distribute the original words because of the greed of Disney... then I find you both ugly and authoritarian in ways that are uncomfortable. I strongly dislike you.
- Zetice 4y ago
  You're allowed to think of me as ugly, not like me, call me names, all of that's totally fine! What I'm confused about is, when the original work remains completely available such as what the article we're talking about says, why you would care about me also wanting to have access to a less offensive version of the work? You retain access to the original work, and I get a watered down version that's easier for me to read to my kids at bedtime. Feels like a win/win? Why don't I have the same freedom of expression in your mind that you seem so intent on protecting on behalf of a dead guy?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    > You retain access to the original work But I don't, and that's the point.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      ...yes you do? The title of the article literally includes, "Original books to be kept in print". Also, you can currently purchase every single Roald Dahl book on Amazon for at most ~$10, so in so many ways it's incorrect to say you lose access to Roald Dahl's original works.
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        You sure do like editing other folks... "Original books to be kept in print following criticism".
        Zetice 4y ago
        So… you do retain access to the original works, then? Seems like that solves all of your issues…
  - ars 4y ago
    > when the original work remains completely available Does it? If a library has a copy of the offensive censored one, they might not buy the original. There's only a limited amount of money available, every censored copy purchased means one less good copy.
cld8483 4y ago
[flagged]
- Zetice 4y ago
  Can you please quote the full sentence I wrote? Because if you do, you'll see exactly why I expressed my preference.