5 ms·

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

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.
      - slg 3y ago
        >Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. Is this always the intent of the author? Sometimes authors want their characters to live in a world that is identical to ours. >A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Is this always the intent of the author? Reinterpreting work based on things that occurred since its creation seems to produce and inherent disconnect with what the author intended in the moment. >Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every story needs to be about every complex topic. We don't need to deal with slavery and child abuse for example in a story about a chocolate factory. The book already has its own complex topics that it directly intended to address. >Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every author wants their work to be reflective of a specific moment in time. Some stories are meant to be timeless. >But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead. You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy.
- xg15 3y ago
  We don't use that kind of reasoning in other fields though. I.e. preserving historical architecture is not about restoring the building to how we believe it was supposed to be shown - otherwise, the Egyptian pyramids would have gotten back their white finish and gold tip long ago. Instead, we recognise that those buildings are from a different time and try to highlight the feats of that time that make them remarkable still today.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > the Egyptian pyramids would have gotten back their white finish and gold tip long ago. GP isn't even advocating that. They're advocating redoing the finish with marble, or with frameless glass windows, because that would be the modern equivalent to what those buildings were to people in ancient Egypt.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  IMO, we should trust that audiences are capable of understanding the context of the time. If anything must be done, it is teaching the concept of the euphemism treadmill, and that events, conflicts, or works of literature can change the connotation of words. It's also important to understand that innocent words today could become taboo tomorrow, and not through any insensitivity or unawareness on the author's part.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  What about 20 years from now, when the current offensive word becomes just tacky, and then 20 years later, an euphemism? Many words end up stuck on such multi-generational loop.

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.
    - slg 3y ago
      >Characters exist in the world they inhabit, not yours or mine or anyone else’s. Is this always the intent of the author? Sometimes authors want their characters to live in a world that is identical to ours. >A huge part of the artistic experience is reinterpreting and reframing the meaning of a work as society develops. Is this always the intent of the author? Reinterpreting work based on things that occurred since its creation seems to produce and inherent disconnect with what the author intended in the moment. >Emotional and moral complexity is a goal in literature, not a bug. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every story needs to be about every complex topic. We don't need to deal with slavery and child abuse for example in a story about a chocolate factory. The book already has its own complex topics that it directly intended to address. >Again I must gently disagree. First off, it’s not “accidental bigotry”. It’s bigotry reflective of the time in which it was written. Is this always the intent of the author? Not every author wants their work to be reflective of a specific moment in time. Some stories are meant to be timeless. >But please don’t attribute their edits to “preserving authorial intent”. That’s putting (even more) words in the mouths of the dead. You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy.
xg15 3y ago
We don't use that kind of reasoning in other fields though. I.e. preserving historical architecture is not about restoring the building to how we believe it was supposed to be shown - otherwise, the Egyptian pyramids would have gotten back their white finish and gold tip long ago. Instead, we recognise that those buildings are from a different time and try to highlight the feats of that time that make them remarkable still today.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > the Egyptian pyramids would have gotten back their white finish and gold tip long ago. GP isn't even advocating that. They're advocating redoing the finish with marble, or with frameless glass windows, because that would be the modern equivalent to what those buildings were to people in ancient Egypt.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
IMO, we should trust that audiences are capable of understanding the context of the time. If anything must be done, it is teaching the concept of the euphemism treadmill, and that events, conflicts, or works of literature can change the connotation of words. It's also important to understand that innocent words today could become taboo tomorrow, and not through any insensitivity or unawareness on the author's part.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
What about 20 years from now, when the current offensive word becomes just tacky, and then 20 years later, an euphemism? Many words end up stuck on such multi-generational loop.