|
|
Post by kemp on Mar 14, 2023 19:50:20 GMT -5
This is driven, not by market economics, but by fanatical and effed up ideology and it's happening in every corner of western civilisation, although probably not so bad in my Australia as in say some parts of the US. Also, not just the books, but we have seen the reports out of the US about 'clowns' gyrating and reading 'approved' books to kids and so on. I can't see this unfortunate trend changing trajectory for some time. I think it will come to a head when the Left demand a nation wide ban on certain religious tracts because they deem them to be 'offensive' to the alphabet community. In Texas there have been some bills to try ban books such as the Anne Frank Diary from school libraries. I think they called them 'challenged books'. I'm keeping my old collections, the Conan books, also the SSOC mags. Thankfully, people can still get REH related material from my local library, including the Del Rey editions. The ban and alter book people remind me of those guys that burned books almost 80 years ago.  |
|
|
|
Post by hyrkanian on Mar 15, 2023 4:30:07 GMT -5
I don't know if they have started to publish edited, politically correct editions of fairy tales in USA and UK, but I suppose the most interventions will be on the Sleeping Beauty.
|
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Mar 15, 2023 18:58:14 GMT -5
I don't know if they have started to publish edited, politically correct editions of fairy tales in USA and UK, but I suppose the most interventions will be on the Sleeping Beauty.
From your first link. 'When Male Fairy Tale Archetypes Are Used to Promote Harmful Sexual Ideologies The long and fluid history of fairy tales shows us that men who want to control, dehumanize, and violate women have always existed. Yet he’s a powerful enough presence that he manages to outshine his less noble brethren, showing up in wedding industry rhetoric, romantic films, and, of course, passionate defenses of heteronormative social behavior. Peterson also believes that the defining element of the female archetype is chaos, while her male counterpart is stability and power. “Enforced monogamy,” on its face, would seem to be a direct contradiction of that theory.... We would have to face the theory that in order to be fully human, a woman must be violated into wakefulness. If nothing else, the long and fluid history of fairy tales shows us that men who desire to control and dehumanize women have always existed and always will' Right, so what I took away from this is that Prince charming was an abusing rapist misogynist who was into power politics and dehumanised women  Seriously, reading the above nonsense I find it amusing, reads like some essay from an Arts humanities major in uni, but the real concern is the damage to children in their formative years if they are being exposed to the education departments ideological insecurities, and this includes a revision of popular fairy tales. Sad. |
|
|
|
Post by hyrkanian on Mar 16, 2023 6:21:26 GMT -5
Sad indeed.
Ten years ago, a Serbian publisher Čarobna knjiga published a collection of Serbian fairy tales under the title Serbian folk tales for children of the 21st century.
Original, old, traditional Serbian folk tales have been modernized, changed and butchered. In short-politically correct fairy tales for civil society.
The adaptation of fairy tales was done by new Serbian writers who in their books deal with contemporary topics and the present time, they never wrote anything related to tradition and history, and most of them have a liberal left political orientation.
Here is how the editor of the publication tried to justify this blasphemy:
In the modern version of this fairy tale, the hero invited his wife to talk and explained to her what it was all about.
Here is another example from Baš-Čelik:
When unknown forces come at night to ask for the king's 3 daughters to be their wives, in the original fairy tale two of their brothers say "No!", and the youngest brother says: "You can take our sisters".
In the modern version all 3 brothers say: "No!", and sisters say "But we would go.",
so the youngest brother says: "Well, if you want to go, then good luck to you".
These are just a few examples, but almost every fairy tale is destroyed.
I simply did not want to support that idiotic project with my money, but I was interested to see what changes were made so I borrowed the book from a friend who bought it and who said to me: - I don't care about butchered fairy tales, I know them in the original anyway, I bought the book because of the fantastic illustrations.
It is a real shame that the best Serbian comic artists and illustrators participated in the project. For example -Petar Meseldžija
The only one who refused was Ivica Stevanović. These are his sketches for the fairy tale he was supposed to illustrate, before he abandoned the project.
To quote the film editor of the Serbian national television Nikola Popević:
|
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Mar 16, 2023 7:52:42 GMT -5
Shame Petar Meseldžija's work was associated with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hyrkanian on Mar 16, 2023 8:32:01 GMT -5
The editors butchered even the illustrations
The original:
From the book:
|
|
|
|
Post by darthgall on Mar 16, 2023 9:12:13 GMT -5
I don't get the outrage; the publishers are private actors and they're acting in what they sense is the best way to respond to the desires of the market; isn't this capitalism at its best? No one's barging into your house to slap the original texts out of your hands... (But yes, as noted, hang on to your originals! In addition, this is a good argument for buying physical media as opposed to just getting through streaming... your streaming source might change!) But is the market really desiring this? Was there any major outcry about Roald Dahl and James Bond books? Or is this something from someone's mind, putting it onto the public and costing the company untold income since there's not a true market for this and people aren't going to buy it? Disney, among others, has seemingly yet to learn this lesson. Their last three animated pictures did lackluster box office, but Encanto was a big success on Disney+. What set it apart from the other two? And I definitely view streaming as an extra, not a main source. You never know when someone will change it or pull it down altogether. I think the biggest thing here for me is, whether the market is asking for it or not, free market forces will sort it out. Roald Dahl edits brought lots of public scrutiny and criticism, resulting in the publisher saying "Oh, ok, we'll publish unedited editions, too." That's free market responding. Maybe they'll find market rewards for editing, maybe they'll find it's not worth it and just keep publishing as-is. But the publisher/rights owner gets to make that decision as they see fit. Personally, while some go too far for sure (the Roald Dahl edits seem kind of ridiculous), I can get behind the James Bond edits. Casual referring to black people by the N-word is jarring and pulls me out of a story quickly, so if the publisher decides that's unpalatable and takes it out for the current market? That works for me. Others see it differently, I'm sure, and they're free to vote with their dollars just as I am. There's a worrying trend in the US of people using government as a cudgel to punish expression by private companies they don't like; that's an authoritarian-adjacent problem. So when I read about this, it's kind of refreshing that it's all just companies trying to guess the demands of the market and adjusting fire as market responds positively or negatively; no gov't intervention involved! Yay, captialism! |
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Mar 16, 2023 10:45:00 GMT -5
But is the market really desiring this? Was there any major outcry about Roald Dahl and James Bond books? Or is this something from someone's mind, putting it onto the public and costing the company untold income since there's not a true market for this and people aren't going to buy it? Disney, among others, has seemingly yet to learn this lesson. Their last three animated pictures did lackluster box office, but Encanto was a big success on Disney+. What set it apart from the other two? And I definitely view streaming as an extra, not a main source. You never know when someone will change it or pull it down altogether. I think the biggest thing here for me is, whether the market is asking for it or not, free market forces will sort it out. Roald Dahl edits brought lots of public scrutiny and criticism, resulting in the publisher saying "Oh, ok, we'll publish unedited editions, too." That's free market responding. Maybe they'll find market rewards for editing, maybe they'll find it's not worth it and just keep publishing as-is. But the publisher/rights owner gets to make that decision as they see fit. Personally, while some go too far for sure (the Roald Dahl edits seem kind of ridiculous), I can get behind the James Bond edits. Casual referring to black people by the N-word is jarring and pulls me out of a story quickly, so if the publisher decides that's unpalatable and takes it out for the current market? That works for me. Others see it differently, I'm sure, and they're free to vote with their dollars just as I am. There's a worrying trend in the US of people using government as a cudgel to punish expression by private companies they don't like; that's an authoritarian-adjacent problem. So when I read about this, it's kind of refreshing that it's all just companies trying to guess the demands of the market and adjusting fire as market responds positively or negatively; no gov't intervention involved! Yay, captialism! What would be the open market is putting both out and see which one people gravitate to. But that's not where this is coming from, it's coming from a mindset of erasing the past and silencing things they don't want to hear. It's the furthest thing from an open marketplace of ideas. Because we've seen how it can go from getting rid of offensive words to getting rid of "offensive ideas" and punishing people with the loss of livelihood and imprisonment. It's a very dangerous path and never ends in a good place. This isn't like when Agatha Christie wrote one of her books, the US publisher said "Um...we'll change this to And Then There Were None". Or when Charles Saunders pulled one of his Imaro stories because he thought it wasn't presenting the character in a good light. Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Those who erase the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them. |
|
|
|
Post by darthgall on Mar 16, 2023 11:20:41 GMT -5
I think the biggest thing here for me is, whether the market is asking for it or not, free market forces will sort it out. Roald Dahl edits brought lots of public scrutiny and criticism, resulting in the publisher saying "Oh, ok, we'll publish unedited editions, too." That's free market responding. Maybe they'll find market rewards for editing, maybe they'll find it's not worth it and just keep publishing as-is. But the publisher/rights owner gets to make that decision as they see fit. Personally, while some go too far for sure (the Roald Dahl edits seem kind of ridiculous), I can get behind the James Bond edits. Casual referring to black people by the N-word is jarring and pulls me out of a story quickly, so if the publisher decides that's unpalatable and takes it out for the current market? That works for me. Others see it differently, I'm sure, and they're free to vote with their dollars just as I am. There's a worrying trend in the US of people using government as a cudgel to punish expression by private companies they don't like; that's an authoritarian-adjacent problem. So when I read about this, it's kind of refreshing that it's all just companies trying to guess the demands of the market and adjusting fire as market responds positively or negatively; no gov't intervention involved! Yay, captialism! What would be the open market is putting both out and see which one people gravitate to. But that's not where this is coming from, it's coming from a mindset of erasing the past and silencing things they don't want to hear. It's the furthest thing from an open marketplace of ideas. Because we've seen how it can go from getting rid of offensive words to getting rid of "offensive ideas" and punishing people with the loss of livelihood and imprisonment. It's a very dangerous path and never ends in a good place. This isn't like when Agatha Christie wrote one of her books, the US publisher said "Um...we'll change this to And Then There Were None". Or when Charles Saunders pulled one of his Imaro stories because he thought it wasn't presenting the character in a good light. Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Those who erase the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them. "What would be the open market is putting both out and see which one people gravitate to." That's literally what they're doing, though: "By making both Puffin and Penguin versions available, we are offering readers the choice to decide how they experience Roald Dahl's magical, marvellous stories," Penguin Random House Children's managing director Francesca Dow said in a statement. www.reuters.com/lifestyle/roald-dahl-publisher-release-original-versions-after-backlash-2023-02-24/I promise you, Penguin and Puffin executives will be looking at sales numbers next year and that'll drive future similar decisions. This whole incident has been the marketplace of ideas in action. Company puts out product (edited Dahl works) Public scrutiny and protest ensues. Company reconsiders, makes additional product available (unedited Dahl works) The consumer and marketplace now has a choice to make. Depending on the choices made (measured in $$$ spent), companies will make future decisions. "Because we've seen how it can go from getting rid of offensive words to getting rid of "offensive ideas" and punishing people with the loss of livelihood and imprisonment." Couple of things here... Why put "offensive ideas" in scare quotes? There are offensive ideas! The whole idea of the "marketplace of ideas" is that some ideas are better than others, and the best ideas should win out at the end of the day. Why should bad ideas be allowed to stick around? -Loss of livelihood? As long as gov't isn't involved, that's the free market at work. Markets change all the time. Do some people get caught short? Yes. Does that suck? Is it unfair? Yes and maybe, but that's the risk of a free-market. -Imprisonment? Yup, government shouldn't be in censorship business at all. I'm hopeful that the US can maintain it's mostly free market viewpoint and that gov't will stay out of the expression of ideas (see previous comment about worrying trends) but w/r/t Dahl, Fleming, etc., to my eyes those are all private businesses making business decisions, which they should be free to do, even if you disagree with them. And I have a hard time seeing the slippery slope from a publisher saying, even misguidedly, "let's clean up some of this language that is offensive now" to imprisonment, particularly in the US system. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Mar 16, 2023 12:56:51 GMT -5
It depends on who defines the offensive idea, hence the quotes.
Basis behind things like the Klan-offensive
Deciding certain aspects of public policy-not offensive, yet just this past week we had people practically physically attacked because of just that reason.
The Dahl thing didn't start out that way, as noted they changed in a hurry. Same thing with the Dr. Seuss books a few years back. Was this issue causing a loss of sales with the offending materials? Not to anyone's knowledge, Lord knows someone would've brought it up before.
To me it just comes from a mindset of "You peasants can't understand this was bad, so we'll make the decision for you." That's how Disney views Song of the South. By dumping everything one pile, the distinctions between the truly offensive and in some cases downright evil with something mildly offensive blur to the point they go away.
We did Swing Time back in film class and the professor was surprised more people weren't offended by Fred Astaire's dance in blackface as a tribute to Bill Bojangles Robinson. Yeah, it's a little uncomfortable to watch but it comes from a place of respect. It's just not how we would do it anymore. Then again that was the late 80s and I'd be interested to see how a class today would react. From what I've seen, panic and horror would be the two most likely. To draw another film example, Birth of a Nation is utterly horrific in its warped view of history, but we watched it and we're able to talk about it and didn't resort to calling DW Griffith names. If you want to correct something you have to know exactly what's wrong. If you treat people with love and respect, you can read a book and just shake your head at some attitudes we don't hold anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Mar 16, 2023 18:59:12 GMT -5
The editors butchered even the illustrations
The original:
From the book:
Not even the Balkans are safe from WOKE. |
|
|
|
Post by darthgall on Mar 17, 2023 9:32:35 GMT -5
It depends on who defines the offensive idea, hence the quotes. Basis behind things like the Klan-offensive Deciding certain aspects of public policy-not offensive, yet just this past week we had people practically physically attacked because of just that reason. The Dahl thing didn't start out that way, as noted they changed in a hurry. Same thing with the Dr. Seuss books a few years back. Was this issue causing a loss of sales with the offending materials? Not to anyone's knowledge, Lord knows someone would've brought it up before. To me it just comes from a mindset of "You peasants can't understand this was bad, so we'll make the decision for you." That's how Disney views Song of the South. By dumping everything one pile, the distinctions between the truly offensive and in some cases downright evil with something mildly offensive blur to the point they go away. We did Swing Time back in film class and the professor was surprised more people weren't offended by Fred Astaire's dance in blackface as a tribute to Bill Bojangles Robinson. Yeah, it's a little uncomfortable to watch but it comes from a place of respect. It's just not how we would do it anymore. Then again that was the late 80s and I'd be interested to see how a class today would react. From what I've seen, panic and horror would be the two most likely. To draw another film example, Birth of a Nation is utterly horrific in its warped view of history, but we watched it and we're able to talk about it and didn't resort to calling DW Griffith names. If you want to correct something you have to know exactly what's wrong. If you treat people with love and respect, you can read a book and just shake your head at some attitudes we don't hold anymore. Yeah, that's fair. And I'm not saying that companies don't get it wrong ever; they do, plenty. But like I said, I'm hopeful that there's some consumer demand that counteracts it. Dahl's estate got to the right answer through market pressure, so I'm hoping that holds. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Mar 17, 2023 11:50:52 GMT -5
It depends on who defines the offensive idea, hence the quotes. Basis behind things like the Klan-offensive Deciding certain aspects of public policy-not offensive, yet just this past week we had people practically physically attacked because of just that reason. The Dahl thing didn't start out that way, as noted they changed in a hurry. Same thing with the Dr. Seuss books a few years back. Was this issue causing a loss of sales with the offending materials? Not to anyone's knowledge, Lord knows someone would've brought it up before. To me it just comes from a mindset of "You peasants can't understand this was bad, so we'll make the decision for you." That's how Disney views Song of the South. By dumping everything one pile, the distinctions between the truly offensive and in some cases downright evil with something mildly offensive blur to the point they go away. We did Swing Time back in film class and the professor was surprised more people weren't offended by Fred Astaire's dance in blackface as a tribute to Bill Bojangles Robinson. Yeah, it's a little uncomfortable to watch but it comes from a place of respect. It's just not how we would do it anymore. Then again that was the late 80s and I'd be interested to see how a class today would react. From what I've seen, panic and horror would be the two most likely. To draw another film example, Birth of a Nation is utterly horrific in its warped view of history, but we watched it and we're able to talk about it and didn't resort to calling DW Griffith names. If you want to correct something you have to know exactly what's wrong. If you treat people with love and respect, you can read a book and just shake your head at some attitudes we don't hold anymore. Yeah, that's fair. And I'm not saying that companies don't get it wrong ever; they do, plenty. But like I said, I'm hopeful that there's some consumer demand that counteracts it. Dahl's estate got to the right answer through market pressure, so I'm hoping that holds. a Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Mar 17, 2023 19:25:08 GMT -5
The material presented by Hyrkanian on traditional Serb folk tales getting butchered by Serbian liberal left ideologues made me think on what the current situation was in Russia. Russian classics seem to be safe at the moment, I don't think anyone in Russia has to fear 'War and Peace' getting a liberal make over or being removed from book store shelves, and I suppose it's easy to think of Russia as a kind of traditional bastion holding out against the leftist ideology coming out of the west like some uncompromising political force. Perhaps in the case of Russia, literary restrictions are coming from the other side of the political spectrum. 'Since President Vladimir Putin sent troops to Ukraine on February 24, Russian authorities have strengthened controls on the flow of information, including in the arts. Last week, lawmakers approved a bill banning all forms of LGBTQ "propaganda" in books, films, the media and the internet.' At the "Non/Fiction" book fair in Moscow -- an important annual cultural event in the Russian capital that opened Thursday -- many publishers, booksellers and readers were concerned. Yevgeny Kopyov, of the large Eksmo publishing house, said he was worried by the "broad interpretation" of the LGBTQ propaganda law. He warned that it "may affect a large amount of literature, including the classics." "Everything will depend on our interaction with the regulatory authorities," he concluded. Many publishers like Kopyov are waiting for authorities to clarify what they believe is LGBTQ "propaganda" or not.' www.france24.com/en/live-news/20221201-russian-booksellers-worried-by-spectre-of-censorshipI am against censorship where people are generally restricted from purchasing reading material based on the politics of the day, left or right, but I can't see the Russian population getting overly bothered by the restrictions on alternative lifestyle material, they are probably thinking at least it keeps the promotion and indoctrination out of schools and I can understand that aspect of it. |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Mar 17, 2023 19:37:51 GMT -5
It is interesting to consider how an armed conflict between neighbouring peoples can play a strong part in censorship.  'Ukraine to erase all signs of ‘Russification’, purges millions of Russian books In June last year Ukrainian education ministry proposed to ban around 40 authors, including Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Alexander Pushkin, as well as Boris Pasternak and Mikhail Sholokhov, both of whom won the Nobel Prize for literature Around 19 million books been removed from Ukraine’s public libraries, including 11 million in Russian, as of November, according to Kravchuk, the deputy chair of the Committee on Humanitarian and information Policy. Russia has responded to the measures as discriminatory.' www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-to-erase-all-signs-of-russification-purges-millions-of-russian-books-12124342.html |
|
