3 ms·

This wasn’t exactly my reading of the article, in this case, sanitization seems more about capitalism and appealing to the lowest common denominator (I.e. a hap

This wasn’t exactly my reading of the article, in this case, sanitization seems more about capitalism and appealing to the lowest common denominator (I.e. a happy version of the Little Mermaid) than censorship. I’m conflicted because do we live in a free society where people are free to choose the type of material they popularize or should we force legacy versions of fairy tales on them in a paternalistic sense it’s good for them.

peoplefromibiza 2y ago
we should absolutely make the originals available, next to the "sanitized" versions that are clearly labeled as "not original" or "loosely based on the original story" Even "The Shining" is labeled as "based on the original novel from Stephen King" and not as a "faithful adaption of ..." Any other way of presenting the redacted material it's bad, as in "universally bad".
- techostritch 2y ago
  “we should absolutely make the originals available, next to the "sanitized" versions that are clearly labeled as "not original" or "loosely based on the original story"” My point was definitely not to imply otherwise and I’m sorry if I did. I don’t think it’s wrong to create a new work that happens to eclipse the old work in popularity, I do think it’s wrong to eliminate or censor the old work entirely.
- roywiggins 2y ago
  The thing with traditional fairy tales in particular is that they don't have original versions.
  - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
    The thing is that the original fairy tales are surely not "sanitized" versions of the ones we know. So if the idea is that we should clean-up the original stories so that they can replace the ones we know now in the future, we're doing a disservice to future people, because we have the oldest ones that have been printed at disposal and should not deprive them of the possibility of reading them, if they want to. The fact that before the press there was no book of fairy tales is irrelevant. The Grimm's are the Grimm's and we should keep printing and reading them as they were intended by the authors.
    - roywiggins 2y ago
      Which edition? The first edition wasn't even available in English until relatively recently, and they went through continuous change. The first editions weren't even meant to be suitable for children at the time, so it's kind of weird to insist that that's the version that kids need today. This recent translation means English readers probably have better access to the original Grimm tales than they ever had before! Which is of course a good thing. Obviously the originals are in the public domain and aren't going anywhere, and so are lots of older 19th century English translations, presumably with varying degrees of fidelity. Nothing's being hidden from anyone; "actually the original Grimms' stories were pretty dark" is a factoid that is pretty widely known these days, I think? But anyway, the article supposes that specifically kids should be exposed to the earliest, least expurgated versions of the story possible, which is very odd. Even in the 19th century people thought these stories were too dark for kids, which is why there was commercial success in selling shorter, lighter, more family-friendly versions, which the Grimms did. I don't think these stories would be awful for a bright 12 year old to read or anything, but the implication throughout is that these were considered kid-friendly in the past, which they weren't, at least in their original versions. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/12/grimm-brothers-fairytales-horror-new-translation https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/12/grimm-brothers...
      - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
        > The first edition wasn't even available in English Does it even matter? The Grimm brothers were German, the books in German do exist. Pinocchio is an Italian work, in Italy it's always been available and a huge success, does it matter if the english version came out much later? To me the fact that they have become available, shows that the interest among the English readers has grown. > "actually the original Grimms' stories were pretty dark" > kids should be exposed to the earliest, least expurgated versions of the story possible, which is very odd. I read "The Hobbit" as a kid, it's pretty dark too, but I loved it. Read it again as an adult, didn't like it that much. People are different, kids are not a monolith, they come from different backgrounds, especially different parents' backgrounds and opinions and values. People I know don't let their kids watch Peppa Pig or the Winx, others don't want them to be schooled about religious stuff, they should be exposed doesn't mean they should be forced to read them, but that we should not pretend that we know better than them what it's good for them It's not pornography or nonsense gore violence.
segasaturn 2y ago
Indeed, today's issues of censorship and "sanitization" isn't caused by the government, or bands of overzealous activists, but the Free Market and capitalism working as intended - appeal to the greatest possible audience by removing anything that could be seen as questionable/objectionable to capture the largest possible market share & thus derive the most profit. The free market has created a kind of crisis of creativity where all the movies, TV shows and books kind of look and feel the same, where nobody's feelings get hurt and nobody's ideas are challenged, because that kind of media is objectively the most profitable.
- techostritch 2y ago
  I’d like to be more charitable to your response so please correct me here: Wouldn’t it be more censorship to say that people are not to create such media where “nobody’s feelings get hurt and nobody’s ideas are challenged.” Like who would decide what media is sufficiently challenging? I feel like this is always the problem with the complaint about popular culture is it seems like the only solution is something that doesn’t look like freedom.
- philwelch 2y ago
  That's not entirely true. Media corporations (or, to be more precise, the managers running them) often impose their own preferences and agendas even when doing so is contrary to audience preferences. This is a classic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

peoplefromibiza 2y ago

we should absolutely make the originals available, next to the "sanitized" versions that are clearly labeled as "not original" or "loosely based on the original story" Even "The Shining" is labeled as "based on the original novel from Stephen King" and not as a "faithful adaption of ..." Any other way of presenting the redacted material it's bad, as in "universally bad".

techostritch 2y ago
“we should absolutely make the originals available, next to the "sanitized" versions that are clearly labeled as "not original" or "loosely based on the original story"” My point was definitely not to imply otherwise and I’m sorry if I did. I don’t think it’s wrong to create a new work that happens to eclipse the old work in popularity, I do think it’s wrong to eliminate or censor the old work entirely.
roywiggins 2y ago
The thing with traditional fairy tales in particular is that they don't have original versions.
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago
  The thing is that the original fairy tales are surely not "sanitized" versions of the ones we know. So if the idea is that we should clean-up the original stories so that they can replace the ones we know now in the future, we're doing a disservice to future people, because we have the oldest ones that have been printed at disposal and should not deprive them of the possibility of reading them, if they want to. The fact that before the press there was no book of fairy tales is irrelevant. The Grimm's are the Grimm's and we should keep printing and reading them as they were intended by the authors.
  - roywiggins 2y ago
    Which edition? The first edition wasn't even available in English until relatively recently, and they went through continuous change. The first editions weren't even meant to be suitable for children at the time, so it's kind of weird to insist that that's the version that kids need today. This recent translation means English readers probably have better access to the original Grimm tales than they ever had before! Which is of course a good thing. Obviously the originals are in the public domain and aren't going anywhere, and so are lots of older 19th century English translations, presumably with varying degrees of fidelity. Nothing's being hidden from anyone; "actually the original Grimms' stories were pretty dark" is a factoid that is pretty widely known these days, I think? But anyway, the article supposes that specifically kids should be exposed to the earliest, least expurgated versions of the story possible, which is very odd. Even in the 19th century people thought these stories were too dark for kids, which is why there was commercial success in selling shorter, lighter, more family-friendly versions, which the Grimms did. I don't think these stories would be awful for a bright 12 year old to read or anything, but the implication throughout is that these were considered kid-friendly in the past, which they weren't, at least in their original versions. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/12/grimm-brothers-fairytales-horror-new-translation https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/12/grimm-brothers...
    - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
      > The first edition wasn't even available in English Does it even matter? The Grimm brothers were German, the books in German do exist. Pinocchio is an Italian work, in Italy it's always been available and a huge success, does it matter if the english version came out much later? To me the fact that they have become available, shows that the interest among the English readers has grown. > "actually the original Grimms' stories were pretty dark" > kids should be exposed to the earliest, least expurgated versions of the story possible, which is very odd. I read "The Hobbit" as a kid, it's pretty dark too, but I loved it. Read it again as an adult, didn't like it that much. People are different, kids are not a monolith, they come from different backgrounds, especially different parents' backgrounds and opinions and values. People I know don't let their kids watch Peppa Pig or the Winx, others don't want them to be schooled about religious stuff, they should be exposed doesn't mean they should be forced to read them, but that we should not pretend that we know better than them what it's good for them It's not pornography or nonsense gore violence.

segasaturn 2y ago

Indeed, today's issues of censorship and "sanitization" isn't caused by the government, or bands of overzealous activists, but the Free Market and capitalism working as intended - appeal to the greatest possible audience by removing anything that could be seen as questionable/objectionable to capture the largest possible market share & thus derive the most profit. The free market has created a kind of crisis of creativity where all the movies, TV shows and books kind of look and feel the same, where nobody's feelings get hurt and nobody's ideas are challenged, because that kind of media is objectively the most profitable.

techostritch 2y ago
I’d like to be more charitable to your response so please correct me here: Wouldn’t it be more censorship to say that people are not to create such media where “nobody’s feelings get hurt and nobody’s ideas are challenged.” Like who would decide what media is sufficiently challenging? I feel like this is always the problem with the complaint about popular culture is it seems like the only solution is something that doesn’t look like freedom.
philwelch 2y ago
That's not entirely true. Media corporations (or, to be more precise, the managers running them) often impose their own preferences and agendas even when doing so is contrary to audience preferences. This is a classic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge