5 ms·

To me, it's not about ruining or enhancing books. It's about falsifying them. They should remain artifacts of their time, so we may have perspective on changing

To me, it's not about ruining or enhancing books. It's about falsifying them. They should remain artifacts of their time, so we may have perspective on changing attitudes, and not be gaslit that the sensitivity readers' sensibilities were shared by every author, from every time and place. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

loktarogar 4y ago
Genuine question - haven't books been changing forever though? I thought that was why books had 2nd (etc) editions and not just reprintings. Is this debate over that they're "tamer" rather than that books change?
- nhchris 4y ago
  > haven't books been changing forever though? Let's not use the wiggle room for correcting typos or translating from middle to modern English as an excuse to change the meaning of the written words while passing it off as the same book by the same author (and hiding behind "Nth edition" to deceive readers that the changes are insignificant). And in as much as that falsification has been happening forever, it was just as wrong then as what is happening now.
  - bwi4 4y ago
    Translation requires editorial discretion and necessarily changes the meaning from the original language. Variation occurs between different translators of the same source material. Editions frequently include new or updated information on the topic, not just corrections. This is a disingenuous argument and I suspect you know it.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      > Translation requires editorial discretion and necessarily changes the meaning from the original language. This is exactly the kind of excuse I was talking about. An honest translator tries to preserve meaning as much as possible. A dishonest one uses translation as an excuse to tweak meaning to their liking, and accuses objectors that it's either that, or a "nonsensical, word-for-word literal translation".
bwi4 4y ago
Is that really the case here, or hyperbole? Is someone taking all the old copies from the used book store and destroying them? Is the library of Congress tossing out their first editions? What about non-sensitivity revisions, wouldn’t those also be Orwellian erasures of history? The originals weren’t meant to be offensive, now they are to some. Publishers don’t want that. We’re talking childrens books here… people just won’t buy them if they think it will negatively impact a child. Its culture war propaganda plain and simple. Nobody is dying on a hill over a character’s description in an old Goosebumps rag. I doubt anyone even remembers the character if the character was plump or cheerful, they remember the part about the ghost and the werewolf. When you notice people making an such efforts to divide and distract, best check your wallet is secure.
- nhchris 4y ago
  > What about non-sensitivity revisions, wouldn’t those also be Orwellian erasures of history? In as much as they change more than minor spelling or punctuation mistakes, absolutely yes. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_censorship_of_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union... > Is someone taking all the old copies from the used book store and destroying them? "We haven't yet falsified everything, and there are still non-falsified copies remaining, so why worry?" - original versions in some dusty corner of an old book store are no good if the great majority of people is only exposed to fakes, and one in ten people who read those fakes eventually, possibly years later, learns their version was altered in unspecified ways.
  - bwi4 4y ago
    This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. In this case, the outcome is being wildly exaggerated for the purpose of inducing fear. The citation is a work of fiction. I’m simply not convinced that a few edits to pop culture novels will lead to the downfall of free human society.
    - nhchris 4y ago

loktarogar 4y ago

Genuine question - haven't books been changing forever though? I thought that was why books had 2nd (etc) editions and not just reprintings. Is this debate over that they're "tamer" rather than that books change?

nhchris 4y ago
> haven't books been changing forever though? Let's not use the wiggle room for correcting typos or translating from middle to modern English as an excuse to change the meaning of the written words while passing it off as the same book by the same author (and hiding behind "Nth edition" to deceive readers that the changes are insignificant). And in as much as that falsification has been happening forever, it was just as wrong then as what is happening now.
- bwi4 4y ago
  Translation requires editorial discretion and necessarily changes the meaning from the original language. Variation occurs between different translators of the same source material. Editions frequently include new or updated information on the topic, not just corrections. This is a disingenuous argument and I suspect you know it.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    > Translation requires editorial discretion and necessarily changes the meaning from the original language. This is exactly the kind of excuse I was talking about. An honest translator tries to preserve meaning as much as possible. A dishonest one uses translation as an excuse to tweak meaning to their liking, and accuses objectors that it's either that, or a "nonsensical, word-for-word literal translation".

bwi4 4y ago

Is that really the case here, or hyperbole? Is someone taking all the old copies from the used book store and destroying them? Is the library of Congress tossing out their first editions? What about non-sensitivity revisions, wouldn’t those also be Orwellian erasures of history? The originals weren’t meant to be offensive, now they are to some. Publishers don’t want that. We’re talking childrens books here… people just won’t buy them if they think it will negatively impact a child. Its culture war propaganda plain and simple. Nobody is dying on a hill over a character’s description in an old Goosebumps rag. I doubt anyone even remembers the character if the character was plump or cheerful, they remember the part about the ghost and the werewolf. When you notice people making an such efforts to divide and distract, best check your wallet is secure.

nhchris 4y ago
> What about non-sensitivity revisions, wouldn’t those also be Orwellian erasures of history? In as much as they change more than minor spelling or punctuation mistakes, absolutely yes. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_censorship_of_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union... > Is someone taking all the old copies from the used book store and destroying them? "We haven't yet falsified everything, and there are still non-falsified copies remaining, so why worry?" - original versions in some dusty corner of an old book store are no good if the great majority of people is only exposed to fakes, and one in ten people who read those fakes eventually, possibly years later, learns their version was altered in unspecified ways.
- bwi4 4y ago
  This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. In this case, the outcome is being wildly exaggerated for the purpose of inducing fear. The citation is a work of fiction. I’m simply not convinced that a few edits to pop culture novels will lead to the downfall of free human society.
  - nhchris 4y ago