The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[cfbandyman]

Weird to focus on Augustus being fat when the whole Oompa Loompa origins is more, problematic.

That being said who cares. Shouldn't need to change but changing it barely alters your view of the book. Kid got bounced cause he ate a crap ton of chocolate to get there and then sucked up a pipe in a chocolate river, being obese was a by-product of the gluttony but all Dahl cared about was creating a character who got where he was cause he was gluttonous.

[star seed 7]

Dahl was by far my favorite author as a kid. I guess I really don't care either way about this though.

[MakeItRain]

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

but the whole concept seems weird to me.  in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat.  he wasn't just big.  he was a big fatso.  a fatty fat fat, as it were.  if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.

He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.

[DQ12]

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

but the whole concept seems weird to me.  in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat.  he wasn't just big.  he was a big fatso.  a fatty fat fat, as it were.  if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.

He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.

I know.  I pointed that out in the post you quoted.

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

I just brought this up because it strikes me as strange to censor art (especially when a lot of it is mundane stuff...making the oompa loompas genderless, for example) after the artist is dead.  Like I said, it's not anywhere close to the hill I care enough to die on, but changing the substance of another person's work without approval (on account of death), which has stood for like, 60 years, just seems a little strange to me.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.

The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.

The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change.  It's well within their rights to do so.

It's within their rights, but it isn't right.

To me this is in the vein of all the Lucas Star Wars remaster stuff. I get that it’s unsettling to people that even great art can be tampered with by its rightful holder, but it can be, and there’s really no moral obligation for the art holder to refrain from doing so.

No, it's in the same vein as if Disney would have done it. The creators can change the books all they want, but they should have to remove the author's name and simply acknowledge the original work if they are going to do that.

[CHONGS]

If you don't like it, push for changes in copyright law.   If his stuff was in public domain you wouldn't have to worry.  But he wanted to give the rights to his kids, and this is what they're doing with it

[DQ12]

If you don't like it, push for changes in copyright law.   If his stuff was in public domain you wouldn't have to worry.  But he wanted to give the rights to his kids, and this is what they're doing with it

Nobody is saying they don't or shouldn't have the right to do it. 

[catastrophe]

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

but the whole concept seems weird to me.  in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat.  he wasn't just big.  he was a big fatso.  a fatty fat fat, as it were.  if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.

He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.

I know.  I pointed that out in the post you quoted.

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

I just brought this up because it strikes me as strange to censor art (especially when a lot of it is mundane stuff...making the oompa loompas genderless, for example) after the artist is dead.  Like I said, it's not anywhere close to the hill I care enough to die on, but changing the substance of another person's work without approval (on account of death), which has stood for like, 60 years, just seems a little strange to me.

It’s not censoring when it’s done by the copyright owner on their own initiative.

[Dugout DickStone]

Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.

The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.

just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change.  It's well within their rights to do so.

[DQ12]

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

but the whole concept seems weird to me.  in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat.  he wasn't just big.  he was a big fatso.  a fatty fat fat, as it were.  if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.

He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.

I know.  I pointed that out in the post you quoted.

i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work.  i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous. 

I just brought this up because it strikes me as strange to censor art (especially when a lot of it is mundane stuff...making the oompa loompas genderless, for example) after the artist is dead.  Like I said, it's not anywhere close to the hill I care enough to die on, but changing the substance of another person's work without approval (on account of death), which has stood for like, 60 years, just seems a little strange to me.

It’s not censoring when it’s done by the copyright owner on their own initiative.

lol.  I mean we're getting into semantics here.  A third party (albeit the copyright owner) posthumously changed the works to make them less offensive.  I don't know what else you would call that.

[CHONGS]

Capitalism?

[Trim]

How fat are the copyright owners?

[BIG APPLE CAT]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

[DQ12]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy. 

[Brock Landers]

Enormous sounds far more insulting than fat imo.

[Dugout DickStone]

How much can I sell my vintage Charlie book to some victimized maga for?

[catastrophe]

Capitalism?

This is exactly my thought. They’re doing it to meet a market demand. It’s the opposite of censorship.

[DQ12]

Capitalism?

This is exactly my thought. They’re doing it to meet a market demand. It’s the opposite of censorship.

I'm sorry, but calling this "the opposite of censorship" is some 1984 new-speak crap.  You can think the censorship isn't that big of a deal (or good!), but calling it "the opposite of censorship" is silly.

Like, "radio edits" meet a market demand too, but bleaping out (or otherwise editing) cuss words in songs is still censorship.

[Spracne]

This is in no way censorship.

[catastrophe]

Capitalism?

This is exactly my thought. They’re doing it to meet a market demand. It’s the opposite of censorship.

I'm sorry, but calling this "the opposite of censorship" is some 1984 doublespeak crap.  You can think the censorship isn't that big of a deal (or good!), but calling it "the opposite of censorship" is silly.

Except it is the opposite of censorship.

Censorship would be telling the copyright owner what they can and can’t put in their books…kind of like what you’re doing ITT.

[DQ12]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship? 

[michigancat]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

[catastrophe]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

[Fedor]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

It' not their work.  Does holding a copyright make you the author?

[DQ12]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

This conversation is bananas.