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.