That's for their parents to decide.
Even Augustus Gloop ain't safe (Dahl being censored)
- Thread starter hyperseven
- Start date
That's for their parents to decide.
This sounds exactly like the "he only shot up his school because he played Call of Duty" argument
Nobody is preventing current writers from writing books which reflect current attitudes
Are you suggesting that those adults are wrong? What harm exactly did it cause them?
I think most people would agree that call of duty is unsuitable for young children for precisely the reason I’m saying though wouldn’t they?
you’re right, nobody is stopping anyone.
and I’m suggesting that people who think gollywogs should still be on marmalade jars have been harmed in exactly the way I‘m talking about.
yeah, but equally, it’s up to publishers if they want to publish them. its a two way street.
that’s market economics for you.
Last edited:
Penis Asymmetrical. Sounds sort of modern, 21st century
.You can't say 'flaps' anymore either, you know, 'cause.
One is rooted in commercial economics, the other in forceful oppression.
Do people really think like this
And what do think the reasoning is behind it being a commercial decision is, given that the vast majority of people could'nt give a toss if Dahl's books are (in the opinion of a tiny minority) 'problematic'. I've read all of them - they are harmless and I'd like my son to be able to enjoy them the same way I did.
Like I said - its just a matter of degree.
Internet gold star for this though.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Hahaha brilliant.
And imagine if they wanted the choice of non racist/colonial books of the same story/theme? Where removing such connotations literally left the story precisely in tact.
what do you think it is? And if it’s such a tiny minority (I’m not saying it isn’t) why Do you think the publishers are doing this?
it’s clearly not in case they cause offence, because publishers don’t give a toss about that if it makes them money.
I thought commercial economics was quite succinct, perhaps you can explain your thoughts?
my guess is something along the lines of the publishers getting a few stern emails from some do-gooder leftist tree-huggers so they’ve decided to alter their multi-million pound product out of fear of escalation.
Publishers clearly do care about causing offence. Or at least the wrong kind of offence. Without de-railing the thread there are clearly whole topics in public discourse in which it is clearly dangerous to hold what I would call a reasonable view (ie one held by the vast majority of people).
publishers only care about causing offence with regard to the bottom line. That’s how all commercial business operates.
it’s nothing to do with zeitgeist or prevailing attitudes. It’s to do with sales.
Last edited:
And then we move onto the next book, and the next book, and - I tell you what - why don't we just burn the books instead, it will be easier in the long run.
Do you see where I'm going with this.
no, not really.
perhaps instead you want to force a company to keep producing a product against their will because you like it the way it is?
are you a communist?
Last edited:
I'm not talking about young children, there are plenty of teens and young adults being violent because of films and video games
I'm not sure there's as much overlap as you're insinuating
Last edited:
Books get revised all the time to represent what is 'acceptable'. You know that right?
I see zero connection between Roald Dahl despising Israel and modern editors erasing every use of the adjectives "fat" and "skinny" and "black".
a) Try harder then
b) Well done for missing the point that the publisher is, in reality, being forced to change a product against their will.
c) Yes No Does it make a difference. Are you?