[ SECRET POST #3336 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3336 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #477.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

to be honest I disagree that books should never be "sanatized".

yes, within a context like school you can teach kids about it. but there are plenty of parents who seek out literature like it because they approve of the content exactly because it's old-fashioned racist/ableist/heteronormative.

look at racist Warner Brother cartoons on youtube. yes, the yt comment sections are already the fucking worst, but racist enjoy these cartoons. no disclaimer will take them away from them.

you can't take away the content from them anyway, but you can at least make it harder for the casual racist.

[(Anonymous)]

So you believe content should be censored because it doesn't agree with your progressive beliefs. And when your beliefs become out of step will you wave a fond goodbye to the books and films you treasured?

[(Anonymous)]

You can't stop racist people from seeking out racist literature, and I don't think that censorship is particularly helpful. When we carefully excise mentions of racism from the past, such as in works of literature, the people who read it may well grow up with the misconception that racism wasn't an issue back then. That would be laughably inaccurate.

[(Anonymous)]

I think we can wash out some of the availability if there's an demand for well-edited "censored" literature. no, facists won't be deterred, but there are enough casual racists who don't go out of their way to get the stuff.

let's be honest, many old books are NOT enjoyed for their historic implications and metaphors. it might be fun to read up on the backstory, but the Wizard of Oz or Gullivers' travels or Alice in Wonderland are already read the ""wrong"" way if it really were about growing up with the meta of the story in mind.

these classics already got adapted widely.
why not have an edition that's close to the original, but throws out some stuff that's unnecessary. the readers can decide if it was done well or not.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think the issue is that simple. Who decides what stuff is unnecessary? That's a key question right there. If I'm a publisher who decides to publish an edition of the Diary of Anne Frank, what happens if I decide that going on about the whole Nazi and Holocaust thing isn't really necessary?

Another question is how a first time reader can decide how well it was done when they have no basis for comparison. You leave a book whole and unedited, and you give readers the most freedom to read and decide for themselves whether they enjoy it or not, what parts are necessary or not, and whether the issues are handled well or not. Any edit of the original novel that is done to omit specific content curtails that freedom of the reader to find out for themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

funny that you used that example, because Japanese schools already teach the Diary of Anne Frank with the whole Nazi and Holocaust thing and still manage to miss what Europeans would consider the "necessary" morale of historic responsibility
(s. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.569938)

I don't think the original wouldn't be available anymore. I'm not for censorship by law, I'm for having editions without -isms.

re: who gets to decide? the editors and the market who already get to decide how to abridge, localize or adapt classics.

most first time reader's of classics are introduced to it either through their parents or know it's an edited version.

the parents will choose which version they want to buy and remember the original. the others might buy an original version with or without annotations. or they might enjoy reading the edited version more.

[(Anonymous)]

"The market" doesn't really work for children and teenagers who don't have control over what books or other media they can buy or access. Whole school districts declare books off-lmits

[(Anonymous)]

This, thank you. I dislike the idea of leaving it to the market to decide, it's not the best solution for everything.

[(Anonymous)]

The Japanese have their own issues about editing out the objectionable portions of history, i.e. the Nanking Massacre. I think it's repugnant and frankly, a damn good example of why doing it is a terrible idea.

Clearly our opinions differ. I think your intentions are good, but I also think you're pretty naive about the negative repercussions of your suggestions.

[(Anonymous)]

That's an interesting comment, considering that Anne's bisexuality was purposely edited out of her diary before publication.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but I'm highly skeptical that racists jonesing for old-fashioned racist literature is enough of a significant problem that we need to censor literature just to thwart them. That sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[diet_poison]

I don't think censorship is the answer to racism. What you're saying basically sounds like putting a band-aid on a bigger problem by trying to take away racist peoples' access to old works with historically racist depictions. They're still gonna be racist. Preventing them from seeing YouTube videos that they can comment on will not make them un-racist.

[(Anonymous)]

nah, I'm not saying censor youtube videos. someone will upload the original anyway. I say publish book editions without it. if there's a demand for it, why not? not everyone wants that kind of content, not because it's "PC" but because its uncomfortable. and not everyone can improv while reading it to their kid.

I say, if it's an unnecessary part then... just drop it. Do you know Don Camillo, the Italian priest who's in a friendly rivalry with the communist mayor? The author was racist as fuck. The prefaces he wrote are outright racist and I only stumbled over it in an old edition. Nobody misses them.

Prefaces are kinda superfluous anyway, but if I could read a version of these stories without the racist undertones, I would. It would improve the work for me.

[(Anonymous)]

And who chooses? Whose version of morally correct will will out?

[(Anonymous)]

the same people who produce and edit the simple english version, the book of the movie adaption of the original, the abridgements for the audio book, the reimagination with zombies, localizations and translations etc of a book :)

and whose version will win out? obviously the one which sells the most books.

[(Anonymous)]

Who buys the books? Children don't have that control - they have to take what adults permit them access to.

[(Anonymous)]

but if I could read a version of these stories without the racist undertones, I would. It would improve the work for me.

Read a different book, then, or some sort of sanitised fanfic, but bowlderised versions to cater to your discomfort?... Nah. These attitudes were real and these books - those of them that have lasted this long - tend to be fine works and the fact they do notreflect contemporary values is incidental to their worth. Introductory material can tackle such matters for those who want some additional context.

Or, if you feel you can justify abridging or altering someone else's work, the the publisher should stick to fanfic protocol - "not my characters, not my original work, changes not sanctioned by author" - just so the reader is good and clear what they are getting.

[(Anonymous)]

if the racism "is incidental to their worth", then you can also leave it out tho.

you don't want it to be "easy" for me, but I feel under no obligation to feel uncomfortable and constantly aware about issues that pertain me in real life if it adds nothing to the story.

[(Anonymous)]

Other books are available.

[(Anonymous)]

Why does your personal discomfort trump the author's right to have her work represented accurately? Like most keen readers, I encounter material that I sometimes find uncomfortable, challenging and distressing. If I find it too much, I can always stop, read something else, and come back later if I want. So can you.

[(Anonymous)]

This, exactly. Trying to use the power of censorship for good is a tricky line to walk, and I don't think ayrt's suggestions would be useful or necessary.

da

[(Anonymous)]

uh, that's not what censorship is.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

Hacking chunks out of books because you've decided, in your wisdom, that other people shouldn't be exposed to the bits you deem damaging? What else would you call it?

[(Anonymous)]

You know what? I like movies that feature little kids being plucky protagonists.

But actually...I bet pedophiles get a real kick out of them too. Can't have the pedophiles getting their jollies off to kids on screen!

We'd better ban those movies! We can at least make it harder for the casual pedophile to enjoy them.

[(Anonymous)]

+1