[ SECRET POST #5908 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5908 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Tombstone - Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer]



__________________________________________________



03.
[The Other Boleyn Girl]



__________________________________________________



04.
[Mass Effect]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________




















08. [SPOILERS for Iron Widow]




__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for inevitable JKR wank]




__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for discussion of antisemitism]




__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for possible discussion of sexual abuse]


































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #845.
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)]

Wow. If anyone needs any proof that FS is more right wing than it thinks, this comment and the fact that it has agreement would be it.

I'm out and about so someone else with sense can explain the difference between erasing history and editing children's books to keep their intended purpose, entertaining children. And why respecting a dead persons wishes when that person's wishes were just bigotry is not a thing we need to concern ourselves with.

[(Anonymous)]

You have no idea what right-wing ideology even is, do you.

[(Anonymous)]

You’re advocating for censorship and saying the people against that are right wing lmao

[(Anonymous)]

NA but.... it's really not censorship and it's not erasing the past. It's not a case where people are banning the old books, and it's not a case where the old books are going to be impossible to find. In fact I believe they're still going to be sold by the same company. It's a private company choosing to make edits to the books and sell new editions of them.

And to be clear I'm not particularly in favor of it, I think it's just sort of a silly exercise and a money grab. But really, I mean - it's really not that big of a deal either way. People making changes to new editions of books they own the rights to is just a thing that happens. There are benefits to reading old versions of books that haven't been edited to reflect the times; there are also times where people just want to read a dang book and not have to deal with things like slurs showing up in the book. Both of those things are pretty reasonable to me. It's OK for people to want different things from books. We just don't need to treat it like the end of the world if people print a new version of a book. It's fine. It just doesn't matter that much.

[(Anonymous)]

Clearly you are not a creator of any kind :/
And no, the prior editions weren’t going to still be printed and sold. And there were exactly zero slurs getting erased. They were simply changing the words to reflect contemporary sensibilities. Because apparently that’s easier than teaching children to read critically.

[(Anonymous)]

I just absolutely guarantee you that there are many, many creators out there who disagree with you. Just an absolutely huge number.

And there was about 4 days between the revisions being announced and them announcing they would continue to sell the original versions (and IMO there's almost no chance that they were ever going to stop selling them entirely). Again I don't really think it makes sense to change the language either, I just don't think it matters much, especially when these companies are clearly willing to continue selling the old versions, which are extremely easy to find if you want to. It's just not that big of a deal.

[(Anonymous)]

Several authors have decided to change their own works, which is a different thing to someone else changing the work. Several authors expressed horror at an estate changing the works of a deceased creator. Some of those were the same people. I wouldn’t be surprised if some trusts/estates have been redrafted to prevent this happening to works created by contemporary, living authors.

The plan was to change the books and then a few days later they scrapped that idea because of the backlash. There was never any intent to sell both versions side by side.

[(Anonymous)]

according to this they're selling both versions

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/proposed-roald-dahl-books-spark-backlash/story?id=97350999

"The Roald Dahl Classic Collection" from the Penguin imprint will feature the original texts of 17 of Dahl's children's books while the publisher said they would also keep the recently published and separate Roald Dahl books for young readers under the Puffin imprint. The Puffin versions of Dahl's books are meant for younger readers who are new to reading.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah I hadn’t seen that! What I saw was they were changing them and then they backtracked and were leaving the originals up for sale. I think this is a soft step and it still leaves a bad taste because it wasn’t the author’s choice but at least they’re not erasing his word choices completely yet.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

A push against being able to edit old books would be as bad a push for requiring it (i.e. censorship). It's an attempt to control people's freedom to choose what they read. If some people want Roald Dahl stories without casual reminders that the author hated them, and there are publishers willing to give it to them, that's simply them being able to choose their reading experience more freely. If other people want the original versions because they're purists or want to use them as a teaching tool about bigotry (or ya know, they agree with his views which makes them suck, but hatred still isn't and shouldn't be illegal), that's also their choice and no edited versions of the books existing alongside them is taking it away.

[(Anonymous)]

>I wouldn’t be surprised if some trusts/estates have been redrafted to prevent this happening to works created by contemporary, living authors.

Oh, I hope so.

[(Anonymous)]

From my experience, only the right wing wants to censor things... the left puts disclaimers and warnings...so....

[(Anonymous)]

Both left and right have had calls to censor, and censoring racism tends to be the call of the left. The right tends to want to censor mentions of "racism is bad" and "gay people exist"

However, you're right that only the left offers the grown-up compromise of disclaimers and warnings.

[(Anonymous)]

If the right had its way, we'd be forced back into a world where "decent" women find out what sex is from their husbands on their wedding night. They are notoriously censorship-happy.

But I miss living in a country where one party thought ignorance was virtuous, and unapproved information should be illegal, while the other one Did Not. Now, it increasingly feels like Tweedledee and Tweedledum just get pissy about different things.

[(Anonymous)]

There was a time when that was true, but these days, the mainstream left wants a lot of things censored. And many people who actually believe in the importance of independent thought have distanced themselves from that. Which meant the remaining left went "oh, shit, look how few we are!" and doubled down on all the stuff that was driving people away in the first place.

It's the erroneous belief that if they are powerful enough to keep people from ever seeing disagreement, they will have ideological conformity. And that political powers they use to get rid of stuff they don't like will *never* be used against them by the other political party they're endlessly playing musical chairs with. Those who fight to turn burning books into a chill, progressive thing when they are "bigoted" books, have precious little ideological ground to stand on when the conservatives go after everything they don't like. And everyone loses.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's deeply disrespectful to everyone involved, prominently including children, to assume that the only goal of reading before you reach some magic age is to avoid boredom.

And I'll say one other thing: the more well-intentioned people strive to make it hard to find racism, sexism, mischievousness, and mean-spiritedness of every kind in printed media, the more fascinated kids are likely to be with people who are unapologetically like this, in real life. That's a real danger. And it's something liberals should have learned from conservatives' abject failure to indoctrinate many of their children, despite going to great lengths to expose them to the right things and prevent them from seeing the wrong things. You do NOT want to contribute to a kid's first conversation with an actual neo-Nazi having the forbidden-fruit appeal that I've seen over and over, with Evangelical kids who were energetically kept away from atheists and secular humanists.