5 ms·

Children don't need "historical honesty". They need simple tales that help them understand the world around them and spark their imagination. No one is saying t

Children don't need "historical honesty". They need simple tales that help them understand the world around them and spark their imagination. No one is saying to burn all 20th century prints of Dahl books, but I don't really understand why the stories can't be tweaked a little to more aligned with the world we live in now. I can't find much reason to alter Agatha Christie or Ian Fleming though, since those books are intended for adults.

nradov 3y ago
You're projecting, and presenting a false choice. As a child I never needed or wanted such simple tales. Nor did they help me understand the world: rather the opposite. But perhaps your childhood was different.
- googlryas 3y ago
  Boy, speak about projection. Believe it or not, but there was a time when you didn't know everything about the world, and even simple concepts needed to be explicitly taught to you.
Flatcircle 3y ago
It's a line that shouldn't be crossed imho. Even if a work of art features offensive language or ideas, the art should still exist in its original form like the creators intended. To change art based on modern standards has been done before, when the clergy covered up nude paintings by "fig leafing" them, it was later seen for what it was. subsequent conservative social norms interfering with the purpose of the original art. It's absurd, it's tacky, and it won't age well.
- slg 3y ago
  >Even if a work of art features offensive language or ideas, the art should still exist in its original form like the creators intended. Often these edits are about preserving the creator's intent. If an author used a word that was inoffensive a hundred years ago and is now offensive, it is more in line with the author's intent to change the word to the modern inoffensive equivalent than to preserve the offensive one that now conveys something different from what it meant to the author.
  - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
    This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. I would not want my work rewritten in any manner after my death, if still associated with my name. Folks are free to write their own materials that properly reflect their vocabulary values. And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work.
    - slg 3y ago
      >This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. Sure, and maybe the author had deeply held beliefs about typefaces and would be appalled that a user can now choose their own typeface on a Kindle. At a certain point, it is a little silly to try to fully understand and preserve every intent of the author. But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. >And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work. Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it.
      - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
        > But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. The character is not going from a good person to a racist a due to their language. The character (in my scenario) remains entirely unchanged. What has changed is your (and most modern reader’s) perception of the character. Which is part of the point. Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. > Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it. Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Today in America we find it very difficult to view someone who uses the N word as an unequivocally “good” person. Was that the case in 1830? Re: publishers releasing revised copies — they’re a business, and business often undercuts artistic intention for a profit. So it goes. If you want to say “I have no problem with rights holders revising (someone else’s) work to which they hold a copyright, to remove challenging remnants of the past and better reflect the vocabulary of today, so they sell better” — I agree 100% that’s well within their rights (however much I dislike that state of affairs). But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead.
damnesian 3y ago
>Children don't need "historical honesty" I'm inclined to think they do, actually. Often the revisions soften the weirdness or offensiveness of outdated mores, beliefs and customs, but by blurring them out, you miss a teaching opportunity: explaining how things were, how things are now, and why they changed. It's astonishing to read uncensored fairy tales from a few hundred years ago and realize how sanitized modern children's literature is. Kids need to deal with bullying, pain, prejudice, fear, failure and death, too, just like adults do. Dealing with them helps them be better equipped to understand the world. And I think that's doing them a solid.
- googlryas 3y ago
  Kids eventually need to understand those things, and maybe once they're old enough it could make sense to buy a 20th century edition and try to spot the differences and figure out why they were changed. But before that can happen, kids need to understand the basics first. If I'm teaching someone how to play chess, I'm not going to introduce an en passant until they've established they understand the more common ways in which a pawn moves. Is there any indication that children who were read those stories from hundreds of years ago ended up kind, caring, mentally resilient, etc...with whatever traits parents want to instill in their children today?
  - niccl 3y ago
    > and maybe once they're old enough it could make sense to buy a 20th century edition ... Always supposing you _can_ still buy a 20th century version. Maybe I wouldn't feel so ambivalent about this editorialising if the editors committed to keeping both versions current
    - googlryas 3y ago
      Roald Dahl books have sold over 300 million copies worldwide. The stories have been digitized, archived, transcribed, and photocopied an uncountable number of times. I think we will have no problem finding the 20th century versions.
Aloha 3y ago
A good editor can make a okay book, great - a bad editor can make a great book bad. These edits (as shown in the article) seem to do more to make good books bad - if the edits enhance sensitivity or not, is an aside.
slothtrop 3y ago
Write a different book. There's no reason to believe the stories as they already existed aren't "aligned" with our world, just your own sensibilities. This is trivially reflected by the changes suggested.

nradov 3y ago

You're projecting, and presenting a false choice. As a child I never needed or wanted such simple tales. Nor did they help me understand the world: rather the opposite. But perhaps your childhood was different.

googlryas 3y ago
Boy, speak about projection. Believe it or not, but there was a time when you didn't know everything about the world, and even simple concepts needed to be explicitly taught to you.

Flatcircle 3y ago

It's a line that shouldn't be crossed imho. Even if a work of art features offensive language or ideas, the art should still exist in its original form like the creators intended. To change art based on modern standards has been done before, when the clergy covered up nude paintings by "fig leafing" them, it was later seen for what it was. subsequent conservative social norms interfering with the purpose of the original art. It's absurd, it's tacky, and it won't age well.

slg 3y ago
>Even if a work of art features offensive language or ideas, the art should still exist in its original form like the creators intended. Often these edits are about preserving the creator's intent. If an author used a word that was inoffensive a hundred years ago and is now offensive, it is more in line with the author's intent to change the word to the modern inoffensive equivalent than to preserve the offensive one that now conveys something different from what it meant to the author.
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago
  This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. I would not want my work rewritten in any manner after my death, if still associated with my name. Folks are free to write their own materials that properly reflect their vocabulary values. And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work.
  - slg 3y ago
    >This assumes it’s possible to fully understand an author’s intent. Story and plot is part of it, sure, perhaps the most easily interpretable part. But there are myriad other concerns, the rhythm and musicality of the language, alliteration, presenting something as known or unknown to the POV characters, and cultural specificity. Sure, and maybe the author had deeply held beliefs about typefaces and would be appalled that a user can now choose their own typeface on a Kindle. At a certain point, it is a little silly to try to fully understand and preserve every intent of the author. But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. >And if they’re any good, the free market will surely do its work. Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it.
    - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
      > But a character going from good person to a racist due to nothing but the aging of their language is a pretty dramatic alteration of an author's intent that is easy to identify and rectify. The character is not going from a good person to a racist a due to their language. The character (in my scenario) remains entirely unchanged. What has changed is your (and most modern reader’s) perception of the character. Which is part of the point. Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. > Do realize this is exactly what's happening here? These new versions are happening because of capitalistic reasons in that it is harder to sell a book that has a bunch of accidental bigotry in it. Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Today in America we find it very difficult to view someone who uses the N word as an unequivocally “good” person. Was that the case in 1830? Re: publishers releasing revised copies — they’re a business, and business often undercuts artistic intention for a profit. So it goes. If you want to say “I have no problem with rights holders revising (someone else’s) work to which they hold a copyright, to remove challenging remnants of the past and better reflect the vocabulary of today, so they sell better” — I agree 100% that’s well within their rights (however much I dislike that state of affairs). But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead.

damnesian 3y ago

>Children don't need "historical honesty" I'm inclined to think they do, actually. Often the revisions soften the weirdness or offensiveness of outdated mores, beliefs and customs, but by blurring them out, you miss a teaching opportunity: explaining how things were, how things are now, and why they changed. It's astonishing to read uncensored fairy tales from a few hundred years ago and realize how sanitized modern children's literature is. Kids need to deal with bullying, pain, prejudice, fear, failure and death, too, just like adults do. Dealing with them helps them be better equipped to understand the world. And I think that's doing them a solid.

googlryas 3y ago
Kids eventually need to understand those things, and maybe once they're old enough it could make sense to buy a 20th century edition and try to spot the differences and figure out why they were changed. But before that can happen, kids need to understand the basics first. If I'm teaching someone how to play chess, I'm not going to introduce an en passant until they've established they understand the more common ways in which a pawn moves. Is there any indication that children who were read those stories from hundreds of years ago ended up kind, caring, mentally resilient, etc...with whatever traits parents want to instill in their children today?
- niccl 3y ago
  > and maybe once they're old enough it could make sense to buy a 20th century edition ... Always supposing you _can_ still buy a 20th century version. Maybe I wouldn't feel so ambivalent about this editorialising if the editors committed to keeping both versions current
  - googlryas 3y ago
    Roald Dahl books have sold over 300 million copies worldwide. The stories have been digitized, archived, transcribed, and photocopied an uncountable number of times. I think we will have no problem finding the 20th century versions.

Aloha 3y ago

A good editor can make a okay book, great - a bad editor can make a great book bad. These edits (as shown in the article) seem to do more to make good books bad - if the edits enhance sensitivity or not, is an aside.

slothtrop 3y ago

Write a different book. There's no reason to believe the stories as they already existed aren't "aligned" with our world, just your own sensibilities. This is trivially reflected by the changes suggested.