Well, when you put it like that, I guess I’m pwned. There would indeed be absolutely no way anyone who hasn’t already read Dahl’s books to figure out that the new editions were different from the old ones, which will all have vanished off the face of the earth and been wiped from all our consciousnesses.
Not involved in this discussion, but I do find it pretty interesting (outside of the occasional dickish comments).
I think my feelings on the matter align most closely with @SenorKeeed (which isn’t something I say often).
1 Like
(except for my occasional dickish comments)
2 Likes
The whole point of it was to make a mockery of the original and of established ideas of the time of what art should be, by creating something new from it.
It’s not at all analogous to editing Dahl, and it’s risible that someone who claims he understands these things actually has no concept of them.
3 Likes
You want Journey To The End Of The Night thrown onto the fire and public performances of Wagner banned or dropped?
This seems like a bad comparison. Running Dilbert is directly providing money and a platform to a racist/homophobe. Also, apart from Adam’s horrific personal statements, he’s used Dilbert to push anti-woke, racist, and homophobic story lines, so continuing to publish the cartoon normalizes his takes.
In that case I retract,
I missed the part that said
A statement from the Los Angeles Times, which said it had removed four Dilbert cartoons from its pages in recent months for violations of its standards, added: “Cartoonist Scott Adams made racist comments in a YouTube livestream [on 22 February], offensive remarks that the Times rejects.”
2 Likes
You’ve almost got the point I was actually trying to make. Almost.
Contrary to what you are claiming here, both LHOOQ and the new run of Dahl-ish books are creating new things. Obviously so, and as much as you want to whine about it, neither of those creations destroy anything. It’s just that you only like one of those new things.
Ok what’s the claim?
In the specific case of Dahl I don’t think there are even enough changes for it to “matter” (however, this is what makes them even more absurd, not less, but, like I said that’s a separate discussion) but is there a disclaimer?
I’ve read four Dahl books but apparently he’s written dozens and is a way bigger deal than I thought. I didn’t know Matilda was him, nor the big peach. I thought he had a smaller cult following.
So say I hadn’t opened this thread and saw the news (and that the changes didn’t get cancelled) and just picked up a new edition. How would I figure it out? Just hope somebody commented when they saw me reading a copy?
1 Like
Right. The original versions wouldn’t be “destroyed,” but copyright law would keep them out of print for fifty years.
The problem is that artistic mediums are slightly different enough that the analogies don’t track. Like with a painting, there’s just one of them and everything else is a copy or print or whatever. But with a book the original might be the first edition or might be the last edition that the author themselves contributed to editing, but there are a ton of copies which all would be “the original”.
I dunno man? How am I supposed to know that LHOOQ is making fun of “fine art” and is not, in fact, an original painting of an enigmatic lady with inexplicable facial hair when I’ve literally been raised by wolves and have zero knowledge of art or art history and refuse to read a wikipedia article on the subject?
The analogy would be mandating that all prints of the Mona Lisa produced today have to have the mustache. Probably still not a perfect analogy but none are.
1 Like
You’re not refuting my/our point nor making your own, you’re just saying you don’t care.
1 Like
No, I’m claiming your hypothetical relies on a silly level of ignorance in order to make this case the least bit bad.
1 Like
Would slapping a disclaimer on these Dahl books be sufficient for you to grant that the new publications, while perhaps not being something you would buy or read yourself, is not an offense?
Also, it’s ‘bad’ because it’s so deeply weird and dystopic (and disrespectful to the artist and their art, but I gave up on that one).
Recall that’s what started this as a heated discussion when it shouldn’t have been. @cassette offered the preposterous idea of leaving up statues honoring confederate generals and slaveowners but removing the part of the plaque that said the dudes were totally rad. You said that’s so preposterous that you can’t imagine it in real life and we said MF WE KNOW.