[ 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)]

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)]

that's censorship. offering books without certain content is not censorship.

[(Anonymous)]

If no access to the original text is offered, it most certainly is censorship.

[(Anonymous)]

that would make an abridged audiobook censorship.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it wouldn't. Those items are clearly flagged as abridged and, insofar as they are abridged, it's for length, not for so-called "objectionable" content (or maybe it is in the US - who the fuck knows?). The option to either read the full-length book or have someone read it to you is still there. Audiobooks are not gussied-up to reflect contemporary sensibilities. Increasingly, they are available unabridged anyway - abridgements were more to do with the difficulty and expense of delivering and multi-tape or multi-CD product. Now that they are delivered as sound files, that's less of an issue - the expense only lies in the recording costs, not the physical product.

Mary's attitudes towards the Indian staff help illuminate her character and values to the reader. Editing that out does the reader a disservice.

[(Anonymous)]

censorship is about the suppression of the original. having different versions available is not suppressing the original.

[(Anonymous)]

For children, freely accessing the original could be impossible, especially if restrictions on unedited work extend beyond their family to their whole community, including their school and library service.

And anyway, Mary's attitude towards the Indian staff before she arrived in England go a long way towards explaining her character and actions. The novel really would not benefit from the removal of that material. Why would you want to edit out that material? If you or your child can't fully process that, then let your child choose another book until they are able for this one.

[(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.