3 ms·
You are really intent on stretching any kind of multiple versions released by the same author, into a license for full-blown falsification of books. Unless I ca
by nhchris 4y ago
You are really intent on stretching any kind of multiple versions released by the same author, into a license for full-blown falsification of books. Unless I can provide a legalistic formula for exactly how much notice must be given for exactly what kind of changes and by whom, apparently anything goes.
- eesmith 4y agoI'm not asking for a legalistic formula. I'm asking for some idea of what would suffice to change it from "falsify" to at worst "somewhat deceptive." Clearly if nothing at all works then your standards may be unreasonable. A detailed diff at the end of the book would probably also be unreasonable. On the topic of falsification of books, the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory_characters#The_Oompa-Loompas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocol... took me to https://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/UCB_McNair_Journal_2012_wc.pdf https://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/... titled "Deconstructing Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory: Race, Labor, and the Changing Depictions of the Oompa-Loompas" That paper argues the 1970s edits were "textual whitewashing" which deliberately obscures the "racial nuances and power dynamics within the original un-sanitized text", it "has allowed for this master-slave narrative to continue" and "has allowed for white privileges to go unchecked and unnoticed. Wonka is not understood for the master figure that he is but a patriarchal figure likened to a paternal one." To use your expressions, it argues the 1970s edits are not somewhat deceptive but falsify the original literature. Which you've said you don't like. Except, for some unexplained reason, if the author does it.