It would be weird to edit the plaque if it had some racist term or wildly inaccurate fact in it?
This discussion deserves its own thread.
2 Likes
W/o wading into the details of this, itâs pretty common for later editions of books to edit out problematic bits from earlier releases.
Itâs something I think about a lot in writing my book. I donât want to put in anything thatâs going to sound dated in 10 years.
1 Like
No, that would be perfectly cromulent, but itâs the opposite of whatâs happening with Dahl. The racism is being erased to sell more books. The analogy would be removing historical facts from statues so that kids arenât offended.
1 Like
From novels? Gonna need a cite on âpretty commonâ when the author is dead and canât consent.
I wasnât thinking about dead authors.
Read my post again with less knee jerk anger. I said removing historical facts, so what youâre saying doesnât make sense.
Consent comes from the copyright holder in the estate, not from the author.
Legally but not morally. I donât really care what the law has to say.
2 Likes
No. Just like a gallery choosing to not hang this painting or that painting isnât censorship. Or a library choosing not to host a reading of James and the Giant Peach.
Then it sounds youâre manufacturing a situation out of thin air. What is a confederate monument with a historical fact that anyone wants censored?
This all seems like a distinction without a difference. So itâs fine if an owner of a piece of art decides not to display it, but shameful if he merely edits it? Same thing that tripped cassette up. What if I really like the painting but just want to scratch off the swastika in the corner?
If you own the painting you can do what you like. Just like I can edit my copy of Huckleberry Finn to my hearts content.
1 Like
Owning paintings is often a pretty bad idea seeing as how theyâre often unique and usually created for everyoneâs benefitâŚ
I dont know. I someone made a well intended attempt to navigate that, then I wouldnt care either.
My point is less a defence of the Dahl decision, more a criticism of anyone who cares.
hey I didnât make this world I just live in it.
Proplr arent mad that they are editing out things from the book. They are mad about the specifics of the editing, namely the removal of terms like fat and stuff. Its just more culture war bullshit.
1 Like
Iâm not mad about the specifics of the editing. Neither is my main man Salbass, or the lady he quotes.
https://twitter.com/SuzanneNossel/status/1627066101309018112
Good tweet thread by the way. It eloquently summarizes my concerns.
Culture war isnt just the extremes.
People getting mad about a publishing decision in another country to a book that many either havent read, or certainly will never read again⌠of course its culture war.
A comment on the australian article about this said something like
âIts the same people who care about a few words for the Ab originals!â (Wierd spelling theirs not mine)
Do you think this person is legitimately concerned about literature?
Why shouldnât people care? The idea of posthumously editing someoneâs work seems like a terrible and upsetting precedent to me.
2 Likes