3 ms·

> Older editions are still available in libraries and secondhand bookstores, in ten years there'll be different editions again. Oh yes, they are still availabl

> Older editions are still available in libraries and secondhand bookstores, in ten years there'll be different editions again. Oh yes, they are still available... until the next wave of "sensitivity borrowers" crops up demanding libraries remove those editions. That will happen and has happened already. > If you're at all familiar with books and publishing .. well, you wouldn't be failing over this story in the manner that you are. If you are at all familiar with censorship you would not treat this subject so lightly. Whether it is Soviet "socialist realism" [1] or Nazi "entartete kunst" (degenerate art) [2], these movements never fail to turn into some form of witch hunt. Do you really want to support censorship? [1] https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/socialist-realism/socialist-realism-texts/the-last-published-statute-on-censorship/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/socialist-realism/socia... Notice also that the censorship laws explicitly do not apply to the Party and its affiliates: 5. Publications of the Communist International, the Central Committee of the VKP(B), krai, oblast and raion committees of the VKP (B), together with the Izvestiia of the Central Executive Committee and the All-Union Executive Committee, the works of the Communist Academy, and those of the Academy of Sciences, are freed from the political and ideological control of Glavlit. [2] https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inventory-of-degenerate-art https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inv...

foldr 4y ago
There's nothing new about publishers revising books to suit current sensibilities. This has been happening throughout the Western world (and no doubt elsewhere) since the invention of the printing press. Any given changes have to be evaluated on their own merits; no doubt some of them may be silly. But a brief look at history shows that there's very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship that you're Godwinning this thread with.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  The comparison is more to "socialist realism" so the term "Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi equivalent of the Soviet censorship campaign. As to there being "very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship" I mention I can only shake my head in disbelief. The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive, it is not an organic change where publishers simply follow the demands of the market. It is not the market - i.e. potential readers - which demands these changes but bureaucrats or - more applicable - apparatchiks.
  - foldr 4y ago
    >The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive Then this “inclusion directive” must have been adopted a very long time ago. Someone else has mentioned that this very book was retitled in 1940 due to its original title including the ’n’ word. One wonders why the apparatchiks aren’t censoring the Daily Telegraph too. The answer, of course, is that their powers of censorship (and indeed their very existence) are largely imaginary. >"Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi ... Err, ok. You mentioned the Nazis and also made another outrageous historical comparison that's hardly any better considered.
defrost 4y ago
You're shoe horning a great deal of breathless pearl clutching into something remarkably dull - standard capitalism fettling old lamps into shiny new lamps with a dash of guerilla marketing. In the last two months there's been stories about Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, a couple of others and now Agatha Christie. Each time there's been outrage teased in the right wing press obsessed with culture wars, a flurry of free press via over hyped social media discussion, and then yet another edition release by publishers of "original" Ye Olde UnWoke OG editions . . . Are you seeing a marketing pattern here? Two markets for the price of very little shit stirring via lazy click bait "journalists". Perhaps you're a little too obsessed with death of the world via imagined censorship to notice the strings upon which you're seemingly blindly being tugged about.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  Enid Blyton was a bit fucking near the knuckle though, and I mean I remember reading her books in the mid-to-late 1970s as a very young child in her target demographic and thinking "woah come on, that's a bit much". If you allow your child to grow up reading this sort of material, they'll grow up to be like Suella Braverman.
  - defrost 4y ago
    Meh, it's survivable and serves as grist for The Comic Strip Presents mill to turn out gems such as Five Go Mad on Mescalin .. mind you I'm Australian and we don't take the old school stiff upper lip Brit stuff all that seriously for the most part. I've no objection to leaving the warts in older books - they're slices of life past sliced and preserved in amber, and later editions form a flickering slideshow of changing values and views.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  I'll admit I popped off and bought a copy of Ulysses just to be sure... You put your finger on the reason there are stories about it. There are stories because there's money to be had from the outrage the stories bring.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
> If you are at all familiar with censorship you would not treat this subject so lightly. Quick question for you - I just need a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Would you be happy to display a book on your shelf with the title containing the word "N\x49\x47\x47\x45R" in two-inch letters on your library shelves?
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  Yes. I'm not from the US so I do not have the inhibition against the 'N-word'. Such a book would be on a shelf with other books of similar vintage, one which represents a certain time in history when that word was in common use. I do not have to agree with the contents of such books or with the titles chosen by their authors just like I do not have to a agree with many books written now and books yet to be written. I also have no problems with having 'Mein Kampf' or Mao's 'Little Red Book' (红宝书) on a shelf even though I do not agree with their contents and do not hold the authors in high regard. In short, I know the difference between what was and what is. I do not know what will be but I try to do my best to keep it from going in the wrong direction, i.e. I try to keep from making the same mistakes as have been made in the past. One of those mistakes is censorship. I will not tire you with the well-known quotation from Orwell's 1984 about every book having been rewritten since I assume you have read the book.
- ClapperHeid 4y ago
  [dead]
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  By the way, now that I answered your yes/no question I'd like to ask one in return. As far as I can see the "far-left" ideologies of socialism/communism [1] have been proven to be incompatible with human nature as shown by the multitude of communist and socialist revolutions which ended up as autocratic dictatorial regimes with a clear distinction between the haves and have-nots. From the Soviet Union to Mao's China, from North Korea to Cambodia, from Cuba to Venezuela the story looks the same. Quick question for you - I just need a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Have communism and socialism been tried in real life at a large enough scale to show whether these ideologies can be made to work? A "yes" would need some examples of where this has been made to work at a large (i.e. nation state) scale. A "no" needs an explanation what all communist and socialist revolutions were if not examples of such. I'm asking this because to me it is incomprehensible that these ideologies somehow have remained acceptable in the public discourse where e.g. national socialism and fascism have been relegated to the dustbin of history while the death toll of communism and socialism outstrips that of national socialism and fascism combined. You do not hear anyone claiming that 'true fascism has never been tried' or 'the 3d Reich did not practice true national socialism', why then is it perfectly acceptable for supposedly intellectual people to claim that 'true communism' or 'real socialism' have never been tried? [1] do mind that "social democracy" is not the same as "socialism" and is not what I'm referring to here, I mean "socialism" as being the ideology which strives after communal ownership of the means of production and the abolishment of private property and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is supposed to lead to a classless society where government structures are no longer needed and will dissolve by themselves, i.e. a communist society

foldr 4y ago

There's nothing new about publishers revising books to suit current sensibilities. This has been happening throughout the Western world (and no doubt elsewhere) since the invention of the printing press. Any given changes have to be evaluated on their own merits; no doubt some of them may be silly. But a brief look at history shows that there's very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship that you're Godwinning this thread with.

the_third_wave 4y ago
The comparison is more to "socialist realism" so the term "Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi equivalent of the Soviet censorship campaign. As to there being "very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship" I mention I can only shake my head in disbelief. The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive, it is not an organic change where publishers simply follow the demands of the market. It is not the market - i.e. potential readers - which demands these changes but bureaucrats or - more applicable - apparatchiks.
- foldr 4y ago
  >The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive Then this “inclusion directive” must have been adopted a very long time ago. Someone else has mentioned that this very book was retitled in 1940 due to its original title including the ’n’ word. One wonders why the apparatchiks aren’t censoring the Daily Telegraph too. The answer, of course, is that their powers of censorship (and indeed their very existence) are largely imaginary. >"Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi ... Err, ok. You mentioned the Nazis and also made another outrageous historical comparison that's hardly any better considered.

defrost 4y ago

You're shoe horning a great deal of breathless pearl clutching into something remarkably dull - standard capitalism fettling old lamps into shiny new lamps with a dash of guerilla marketing. In the last two months there's been stories about Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, a couple of others and now Agatha Christie. Each time there's been outrage teased in the right wing press obsessed with culture wars, a flurry of free press via over hyped social media discussion, and then yet another edition release by publishers of "original" Ye Olde UnWoke OG editions . . . Are you seeing a marketing pattern here? Two markets for the price of very little shit stirring via lazy click bait "journalists". Perhaps you're a little too obsessed with death of the world via imagined censorship to notice the strings upon which you're seemingly blindly being tugged about.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
Enid Blyton was a bit fucking near the knuckle though, and I mean I remember reading her books in the mid-to-late 1970s as a very young child in her target demographic and thinking "woah come on, that's a bit much". If you allow your child to grow up reading this sort of material, they'll grow up to be like Suella Braverman.
- defrost 4y ago
  Meh, it's survivable and serves as grist for The Comic Strip Presents mill to turn out gems such as Five Go Mad on Mescalin .. mind you I'm Australian and we don't take the old school stiff upper lip Brit stuff all that seriously for the most part. I've no objection to leaving the warts in older books - they're slices of life past sliced and preserved in amber, and later editions form a flickering slideshow of changing values and views.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
I'll admit I popped off and bought a copy of Ulysses just to be sure... You put your finger on the reason there are stories about it. There are stories because there's money to be had from the outrage the stories bring.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

> If you are at all familiar with censorship you would not treat this subject so lightly. Quick question for you - I just need a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Would you be happy to display a book on your shelf with the title containing the word "N\x49\x47\x47\x45R" in two-inch letters on your library shelves?

the_third_wave 4y ago
Yes. I'm not from the US so I do not have the inhibition against the 'N-word'. Such a book would be on a shelf with other books of similar vintage, one which represents a certain time in history when that word was in common use. I do not have to agree with the contents of such books or with the titles chosen by their authors just like I do not have to a agree with many books written now and books yet to be written. I also have no problems with having 'Mein Kampf' or Mao's 'Little Red Book' (红宝书) on a shelf even though I do not agree with their contents and do not hold the authors in high regard. In short, I know the difference between what was and what is. I do not know what will be but I try to do my best to keep it from going in the wrong direction, i.e. I try to keep from making the same mistakes as have been made in the past. One of those mistakes is censorship. I will not tire you with the well-known quotation from Orwell's 1984 about every book having been rewritten since I assume you have read the book.
ClapperHeid 4y ago
[dead]
the_third_wave 4y ago
By the way, now that I answered your yes/no question I'd like to ask one in return. As far as I can see the "far-left" ideologies of socialism/communism [1] have been proven to be incompatible with human nature as shown by the multitude of communist and socialist revolutions which ended up as autocratic dictatorial regimes with a clear distinction between the haves and have-nots. From the Soviet Union to Mao's China, from North Korea to Cambodia, from Cuba to Venezuela the story looks the same. Quick question for you - I just need a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Have communism and socialism been tried in real life at a large enough scale to show whether these ideologies can be made to work? A "yes" would need some examples of where this has been made to work at a large (i.e. nation state) scale. A "no" needs an explanation what all communist and socialist revolutions were if not examples of such. I'm asking this because to me it is incomprehensible that these ideologies somehow have remained acceptable in the public discourse where e.g. national socialism and fascism have been relegated to the dustbin of history while the death toll of communism and socialism outstrips that of national socialism and fascism combined. You do not hear anyone claiming that 'true fascism has never been tried' or 'the 3d Reich did not practice true national socialism', why then is it perfectly acceptable for supposedly intellectual people to claim that 'true communism' or 'real socialism' have never been tried? [1] do mind that "social democracy" is not the same as "socialism" and is not what I'm referring to here, I mean "socialism" as being the ideology which strives after communal ownership of the means of production and the abolishment of private property and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is supposed to lead to a classless society where government structures are no longer needed and will dissolve by themselves, i.e. a communist society