4 ms·

21st-century publishers should stop trying to endlessly flog 20th-century books that have severe dissonance with current values, then. There is a point where yo

21st-century publishers should stop trying to endlessly flog 20th-century books that have severe dissonance with current values, then. There is a point where you just can't serve the old stuff up without a huge "hey it was sixty years ago and this author was a horrible product of Britain's racist, colonialist upper class" disclaimer in the front, or a major re-working. I find it kind of fascinating that this article is fine with the changes made to Ursula K. LeGuin's work, but is up in arms over Dahl and Fleming and Christie getting a de-upper-class-twitification. Why is this particular shit so sacred to the Post's "editorial board"?

quacked 3y ago
I don't share your values, and I don't want you or people like you to have any control over what I read it or how I read it. There are many people who agree with me. It's "sacred" to the Post because the people writing for the Post believe these works have a place in the literary canon. People in society possess systems of morals that directly contradict each other.
causi 3y ago
I find it kind of fascinating that this article is fine with the changes made to Ursula K. LeGuin's work, but is up in arms over Dahl and Fleming and Christie It's a case of changing the meaning of the statement vs translating the vocabulary to more accurately reflect the original meaning. Editing Lord of the Rings so Frodo tosses another bundle of sticks onto the fire doesn't alter the meaning. His example from Death on the Nile is straight-up altering the personality of a character to make her a better person.
- slily 3y ago
  I'd argue that any alteration to the prose is counter to authorial intent. Some people might be fine with that, but I don't want to read a book not knowing whether words were substituted for others because some editor thought that they were too antiquated or difficult for lowly readers. Footnotes exist for a reason (and dictionaries for that matter). Lately I often feel that publishers don't respect consumers' intelligence.
  - causi 3y ago
    I'd argue that any alteration to the prose is counter to authorial intent. I agree fully, but for me the difference is between something being groan-worthy and something being sacrilege. I don't object when someone translates a work into another language.
pessimizer 3y ago
There's a point in which you stop reading books as if they were about you, or models that you are expected to imitate, and you think of them as statements by the people that wrote them, at the time that they wrote them, and interesting if you want to understand the times they were written in. Spoiled children of privilege work at publishers because no one else can afford degrees from the right colleges, then move on to working for free in New York, or being handed the job by a friend of a friend. They have no concept of art that doesn't involve seeing themselves "reflected" in it, and they think "inclusion" is them allowing other types of people to see themselves in art (and they think that they should be praised for this "tolerance" and "celebration" of "identities.") Real inclusion is having a system that includes people working in it that aren't all from the same flaky class, and with the new addition of queer identities, all of your diversity can consist of wealthy straight white people (there's barely any reason to pretend to be Native American, Hispanic, or black anymore.) Their awful scribbles on the works of their superiors (the significantly less narcissistic privileged white people of the past) age like fish, and their work will be seen by relatively normal people from the future as bowdlerized works are seen now: as birdcage liner.

quacked 3y ago

I don't share your values, and I don't want you or people like you to have any control over what I read it or how I read it. There are many people who agree with me. It's "sacred" to the Post because the people writing for the Post believe these works have a place in the literary canon. People in society possess systems of morals that directly contradict each other.

causi 3y ago

I find it kind of fascinating that this article is fine with the changes made to Ursula K. LeGuin's work, but is up in arms over Dahl and Fleming and Christie It's a case of changing the meaning of the statement vs translating the vocabulary to more accurately reflect the original meaning. Editing Lord of the Rings so Frodo tosses another bundle of sticks onto the fire doesn't alter the meaning. His example from Death on the Nile is straight-up altering the personality of a character to make her a better person.

slily 3y ago
I'd argue that any alteration to the prose is counter to authorial intent. Some people might be fine with that, but I don't want to read a book not knowing whether words were substituted for others because some editor thought that they were too antiquated or difficult for lowly readers. Footnotes exist for a reason (and dictionaries for that matter). Lately I often feel that publishers don't respect consumers' intelligence.
- causi 3y ago
  I'd argue that any alteration to the prose is counter to authorial intent. I agree fully, but for me the difference is between something being groan-worthy and something being sacrilege. I don't object when someone translates a work into another language.

pessimizer 3y ago

There's a point in which you stop reading books as if they were about you, or models that you are expected to imitate, and you think of them as statements by the people that wrote them, at the time that they wrote them, and interesting if you want to understand the times they were written in. Spoiled children of privilege work at publishers because no one else can afford degrees from the right colleges, then move on to working for free in New York, or being handed the job by a friend of a friend. They have no concept of art that doesn't involve seeing themselves "reflected" in it, and they think "inclusion" is them allowing other types of people to see themselves in art (and they think that they should be praised for this "tolerance" and "celebration" of "identities.") Real inclusion is having a system that includes people working in it that aren't all from the same flaky class, and with the new addition of queer identities, all of your diversity can consist of wealthy straight white people (there's barely any reason to pretend to be Native American, Hispanic, or black anymore.) Their awful scribbles on the works of their superiors (the significantly less narcissistic privileged white people of the past) age like fish, and their work will be seen by relatively normal people from the future as bowdlerized works are seen now: as birdcage liner.