5 ms·

The whole idea of renting books rather then owning them is gross, and I deeply regret purchasing a Kindle. But I don't understand the hand wringing about the p

The whole idea of renting books rather then owning them is gross, and I deeply regret purchasing a Kindle. But I don't understand the hand wringing about the publisher changing newer editions of the book. All media either changes with the times to find a new audience, or faces obsolescence. My generation grew up watching Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You, rather than pouring over the original Shakespearean plays. The changes in Roald Dahl's books are limited to asides about characters or superfluous details that are archaic. We are not loosing a literary gem by dropping the cheap "Wong number" joke from the Great Glass Elevator. It's not like this is some new thing, either. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was edited after publishing by Roald Dahl himself, because having Oompa Loompas be enslaved pygmies from deepest darkest Africa is kinda shitty.

nhchris 4y ago
> My generation grew up watching Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You, rather than pouring over the original Shakespearean plays. But you were not deceived into thinking those were the originals.
bawolff 4y ago
> My generation grew up watching Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You, rather than pouring over the original Shakespearean plays. Umm, im pretty sure im the same generation and we were required to pour over those in school. If you mean the average person isn't reading Shakespeare for fun, i think you would have to go back many many generations. For that matter, he was probably never "read" for fun by the average person (his plays were of course watched by the average person once upon a time)
- fjeifisjf 4y ago
  [dead]
- sclarisse 4y ago
  You can pour over whatever you like on your own time, but if it’s for school, you have to pore over it, or you’ll be dinged for spelling errors.
- TchoBeer 4y ago
  And if Roald Dahl was ever assigned in schools in sure they'd read the original, much as I'm sure they wouldn't assign it unless you're taking like, children's media studies in uni, because it's a fun children's book meant to be read for fun. It's fine that they're changing them slightly to make them less hairy for a new audience idk.
valzam 4y ago
I've owned a kindle for 10 years and have purchased hundreds of books. Can you please inform me when I have to give them back since I've rented them?
- monkeywork 4y ago
  Rent is a poor term, instead you purchased a license to the content. Many ppl assume they purchased the content. If it can be modified without your consent,. If it can be pulled from your devices without your consent,. Etc then you don't own those books. If Amazon nukes your account on you do you still think you own those books?
  - jeremyjh 4y ago
    I’ve bought and read thousands - I don’t often reread them. Maybe a couple dozen I’ve reread in the last 25 years. So the convenience more than makes up for the lack of ownership.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      That's not really relevant to the point being made: you've decided that the trade off is worth it for you, and that's truly fine. But I would wager that most people think that they "own" their Kindle purchases in the same way that they'd own a physical book they'd bought. Some people do read books more than once. There are a few books I enjoy enough that I've read them quite a few times over the past 25 years or so. I've lost, sold, or given away the physical copies of nearly all of them, and have replaced them with ebooks. I would be very upset if those ebooks just disappeared someday. (I don't have to worry, as I've de-DRMed and backed up all the books I've purchased. But I don't expect most Kindle owners to know how to do that, or even know that they need to do that to be safe.)
  - Hizonner 4y ago
    Well, I don't know about "own", but I will definitely still possess the ripped and de-DRMed copy that I always make as a matter of course.
II2II 4y ago
This is better described as a new edition of the book rather than a "reprint" that corrects minor typographical errors. I can understand why someone who purchased the old edition would be upset.
bentley 4y ago
The rewrite of the Oompa Loompas is different for two reasons: it was Dahl’s own rewrite, not performed by a soulless corporation; and it made the text better, not worse. Even an author’s own revisions can be heavily criticized when they diminish the quality of the original work. Witness the Star Wars special editions, which aside from making questionable edits to dialogue and pacing, also jammed in incongruous CGI effects that stick out like a sore thumb, making the films feel inconsistent, and though perhaps the CGI was cutting edge for its time, in retrospect those effects have not aged nearly as well as the original effects, which were cutting edge for their time. The Puffin changes are similar in kind. Roald Dahl as an author is known for his dark humor and misanthropic themes. Throwing in a moralizing sermonette in The Witches (whose eponymous witches are bald) that “there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that” is unnecessary and inconsistent with the tone of the original work. Meanwhile, Dahl’s own moral points are obfuscated or eliminated. Dialing down Augustus Gloop’s obesity interferes with his purpose as a lesson on gluttony; cutting out Mike Teevee’s obsession with guns dampens the consequences of his obsession with television. George Kranky’s grandmother was such an unpleasant person that she was never really missed after he murdered her—well, that point’s not made anymore. Then there are more minor changes, unremarkable physical descriptions that are apparently no longer acceptable coming from a mainstream publisher. Describing Miss Spider’s black head, or Earthworm’s lovely pink skin. Scared people who are white as a sheet. Tall skinny Bean and dwarfish pot‐bellied Bunce. What once were colorful descriptions (often literally) are replaced with bland unremarkable alternatives, not because anyone of consequence took offense, but because whatever company the publishers contracted this “modernization” task to wanted to justify its paycheck. And the worst of it is that the rightsholders are the ones doing it. The Bowlders who first Bowlderized Shakespeare were resoundly made fun of for their delicate sensibilities, but I don’t really take issue with them, because they were just a family sharing with others how Shakespeare could look according to their tastes. No adult was deprived of Shakespeare by the Bowlders. The situation is different here because had it not been for the vociferous outcry you complain about, the originals would no longer be available to anybody. Due to the public response, now they’ve said they’ll continue providing uncensored versions (whether they’ll keep that promise remains to be seen). Had readers shrugged and moved on, the censors would have won, and we would see these changes more and more throughout the publishing industry. But now maybe there’s a chance that this trend will change direction: that the industry will regain its faith in normal people to read books from another era without having to be coddled.
naasking 4y ago
> It's not like this is some new thing, either. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was edited after publishing by Roald Dahl himself Right, and who made these changes and published them under the Dahl's name? Not the dead author, that's for sure.

nhchris 4y ago

> My generation grew up watching Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You, rather than pouring over the original Shakespearean plays. But you were not deceived into thinking those were the originals.

bawolff 4y ago

> My generation grew up watching Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You, rather than pouring over the original Shakespearean plays. Umm, im pretty sure im the same generation and we were required to pour over those in school. If you mean the average person isn't reading Shakespeare for fun, i think you would have to go back many many generations. For that matter, he was probably never "read" for fun by the average person (his plays were of course watched by the average person once upon a time)

fjeifisjf 4y ago
[dead]
sclarisse 4y ago
You can pour over whatever you like on your own time, but if it’s for school, you have to pore over it, or you’ll be dinged for spelling errors.
TchoBeer 4y ago
And if Roald Dahl was ever assigned in schools in sure they'd read the original, much as I'm sure they wouldn't assign it unless you're taking like, children's media studies in uni, because it's a fun children's book meant to be read for fun. It's fine that they're changing them slightly to make them less hairy for a new audience idk.

valzam 4y ago

I've owned a kindle for 10 years and have purchased hundreds of books. Can you please inform me when I have to give them back since I've rented them?

monkeywork 4y ago
Rent is a poor term, instead you purchased a license to the content. Many ppl assume they purchased the content. If it can be modified without your consent,. If it can be pulled from your devices without your consent,. Etc then you don't own those books. If Amazon nukes your account on you do you still think you own those books?
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  I’ve bought and read thousands - I don’t often reread them. Maybe a couple dozen I’ve reread in the last 25 years. So the convenience more than makes up for the lack of ownership.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    That's not really relevant to the point being made: you've decided that the trade off is worth it for you, and that's truly fine. But I would wager that most people think that they "own" their Kindle purchases in the same way that they'd own a physical book they'd bought. Some people do read books more than once. There are a few books I enjoy enough that I've read them quite a few times over the past 25 years or so. I've lost, sold, or given away the physical copies of nearly all of them, and have replaced them with ebooks. I would be very upset if those ebooks just disappeared someday. (I don't have to worry, as I've de-DRMed and backed up all the books I've purchased. But I don't expect most Kindle owners to know how to do that, or even know that they need to do that to be safe.)
- Hizonner 4y ago
  Well, I don't know about "own", but I will definitely still possess the ripped and de-DRMed copy that I always make as a matter of course.

II2II 4y ago

This is better described as a new edition of the book rather than a "reprint" that corrects minor typographical errors. I can understand why someone who purchased the old edition would be upset.

bentley 4y ago

The rewrite of the Oompa Loompas is different for two reasons: it was Dahl’s own rewrite, not performed by a soulless corporation; and it made the text better, not worse. Even an author’s own revisions can be heavily criticized when they diminish the quality of the original work. Witness the Star Wars special editions, which aside from making questionable edits to dialogue and pacing, also jammed in incongruous CGI effects that stick out like a sore thumb, making the films feel inconsistent, and though perhaps the CGI was cutting edge for its time, in retrospect those effects have not aged nearly as well as the original effects, which were cutting edge for their time. The Puffin changes are similar in kind. Roald Dahl as an author is known for his dark humor and misanthropic themes. Throwing in a moralizing sermonette in The Witches (whose eponymous witches are bald) that “there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that” is unnecessary and inconsistent with the tone of the original work. Meanwhile, Dahl’s own moral points are obfuscated or eliminated. Dialing down Augustus Gloop’s obesity interferes with his purpose as a lesson on gluttony; cutting out Mike Teevee’s obsession with guns dampens the consequences of his obsession with television. George Kranky’s grandmother was such an unpleasant person that she was never really missed after he murdered her—well, that point’s not made anymore. Then there are more minor changes, unremarkable physical descriptions that are apparently no longer acceptable coming from a mainstream publisher. Describing Miss Spider’s black head, or Earthworm’s lovely pink skin. Scared people who are white as a sheet. Tall skinny Bean and dwarfish pot‐bellied Bunce. What once were colorful descriptions (often literally) are replaced with bland unremarkable alternatives, not because anyone of consequence took offense, but because whatever company the publishers contracted this “modernization” task to wanted to justify its paycheck. And the worst of it is that the rightsholders are the ones doing it. The Bowlders who first Bowlderized Shakespeare were resoundly made fun of for their delicate sensibilities, but I don’t really take issue with them, because they were just a family sharing with others how Shakespeare could look according to their tastes. No adult was deprived of Shakespeare by the Bowlders. The situation is different here because had it not been for the vociferous outcry you complain about, the originals would no longer be available to anybody. Due to the public response, now they’ve said they’ll continue providing uncensored versions (whether they’ll keep that promise remains to be seen). Had readers shrugged and moved on, the censors would have won, and we would see these changes more and more throughout the publishing industry. But now maybe there’s a chance that this trend will change direction: that the industry will regain its faith in normal people to read books from another era without having to be coddled.

naasking 4y ago

> It's not like this is some new thing, either. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was edited after publishing by Roald Dahl himself Right, and who made these changes and published them under the Dahl's name? Not the dead author, that's for sure.