How do you see the modification of literature; where the authors intent is changed or censored. Some books are outright banned, but that isn't really what I'm thinking about. I'm more interested in your thoughts on how books are more subtly modified, this kind of modification has been happening for thousands of years. Modern examples are Roald Dhal's stories being changed, but the Victorians modified Chaucer in similar ways.

Obviously autocratic censorship is terrible; anything that restricts general access to knowledge is bad (in my opinion).

I'm conflicted on the practice, for example reading the Famous Five books by Enid Blyton in the original and the modern reinterpretation; the modern versions flow better because the more familiar language. I haven't gone through with a fine tooth comb to see if the story hasn't changed.

[–] liv 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it really depends on both the text and the reason for it.

I have been involved in some publications and I always insist that the moral rights of the authors are asserted alongside copyright. ("Moral rights" are things like the right to have no one change it without your permission or excerpt it without attribution, and unlike copyright you do have to actually assert them in order to have them).

Simple english versions of novels for the purpose of having something to teach adult literacy with, I have no problem with.

Readers Digest Condensed novels for the purpose of allowing people to think they have read these books without ever having to encounter unusual words or long chapters, I think is regrettable but to each their own.

Bowdlerizing (removing objectionable material to make it more palatable) is something I disagree with entirely and see as an act of moral cowardice that probably flattens people's understanding of history and context.

[–] absGeekNZ 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think Bowdlerising children's books isn't really a problem, but anything aimed at a more sophisticated audience; 14-15yo and up; should not be edited at all.

I was mainly thinking on the context of kids books, I the a lot of these at the moment.

[–] liv 1 points 1 year ago

Oh ok, that's a bit different. I think it's okay. Young children lack the ability to contextualise things like racism or misogyny.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. Sitting here waiting for someone else to tell me what to think 😆

I think there is probably an element of judgement here. Some I'll be ok with, others not. A rewriting of the Famous Five I think would be ok if it's clear that's what it is (the same as there is a more modern version of the Willy Wonka movie - but I'd be upset if I went into the movie thinking I was seeing Gene Wilder and ending up with Jonny Depp).

With regards to editing Roald Dahl to make them more PC, I think I'm ok with it if the edits are minor. But I'm eager to have my mind changed if there's something I haven't thought of.

[–] absGeekNZ 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the problem with this is the line where updating becomes censoring; this is a good example of the decision point fallacy.

e.g. the paradox of the heap: A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are removed individually. With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?

The fallacy is assuming that since no definitive point can be drawn when the edits become censorship; then either all edits are censorship or none are. Thus since we can all agree that continuing to edit a book until there are no words left, is clearly censorship, therefore all edits are censorship.

This is difficult because my personal view is that editing becomes censoring when the authors intent is changed or the edits remove the style of the authors voice. e.g. in the Roald Dhal case, the intent of the author (my interpretation) is to entertain children and teach vocabulary, the edits are not changing that intent and his style is maintained; thus they are not censorship.

[–] absGeekNZ 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a lot more to say on this also, when does updating become "white washing the past"? When does updating change the meaning of a word, and thus a sentence and how that relates to the text around it?

This is similar to the issues when translating between languages, how do you deal with translating a word in one language to another when there is no word that fits and it is context dependent? This I think also comes down to intent.

Oh and there is only one version of the Willy Wonka movie. There is also Captain Jack Sparrow in a industrial chocolate facility.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I think the Roald Dahl example is probably the easiest. Change it because it's just a fun story.

When you get into nonfiction works, or fiction works that address societal problems, it becomes harder to say whether to edit them.

[–] absGeekNZ 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed, in the case of nonfiction, the intent test should be very stringent. As for fiction, it would very much depend on the themes covered.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I have an issue with the heap paradox. It's not that there are two states, heap and not heap. There are three. Heap, not heap, and an in between murky state where you could consider it a heap or not a heap and each interpretation could be valid. The fact you cannot identify whether it's a heap or not does not change that if you start with something that is very clearly a heap then remove one grain, it's still clearly a heap.

If you change a couple of words in a book that at the time were not considered an issue but now they are, I think that's clearly not censorship. There's a grey area one you start pulling out more, but I think we still have a "clearly not censorship" state.

[–] absGeekNZ 2 points 1 year ago

That is the point of the paradox, it is to highlight the fallacy. The fallacy is to assume a binary when there is a continuum.

The hipster example: When does stubble become a beard? At some point the hair gets long enough to be considered a beard, but when does this happen?

Just because there are two states at the end, doesn't mean that there are two states from a continuous observation point of view. There is a difference between showing a million people one picture each of a bunch of pictures (taken 10 minutes apart) and asking "stubble or beard?" And asking one person every 10 minutes "is it a beard yet?"