And I thought canceling Laura Ingalls Wilder was bad

[jinjuku]

They are re-writing Roald Dahl books. Thank goodness I have the collection that I read to my child so they can be passed down un-adultered.

I never want to hear about 'book banning' that liberals accuse conservatives of again. They've edited out fat, ugly, hag, female, male etc...

 

[isolar8001]

Hey, at least Fox News will forget about Gas Stoves and Hunter Biden's laptop....for a few hours anyhow.

 

[jinjuku]

I don't mind edits were the racism is removed but that's the edge case.

 

[isolar8001]

I don't mind edits were the racism is removed but that's the edge case.

Yeah, it is a ridiculous thing to do....art should never be tampered with.

 

[shadyJ]

Yeah, it is a ridiculous thing to do....art should never be tampered with.

Tell that to George Lucas...

 

[isolar8001]

Tell that to George Lucas...

What he did was akin to putting Sharpie mustaches on everyone !

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'll say this, try reading some classic children's books in original literal translation - like Hans Christian Andersen, for example.
Or the 1838's The Tinderbox, and I'm quoting from Wiki:
"On the day of execution, the soldier sends a boy for his tinderbox, and, at the scaffold, asks to have a last smoke. He then strikes the tinderbox and the three monstrous dogs appear. They toss the judge and the councillors, the King and Queen into the air. All are dashed to pieces when they fall to earth."
A bit graphic for pre-teens? Don't you think so?

 

[jinjuku]

I'll say this, try reading some classic children's books in original literal translation - like Hans Christian Andersen, for example.
Or the 1838's The Tinderbox, and I'm quoting from Wiki:
"On the day of execution, the soldier sends a boy for his tinderbox, and, at the scaffold, asks to have a last smoke. He then strikes the tinderbox and the three monstrous dogs appear. They toss the judge and the councillors, the King and Queen into the air. All are dashed to pieces when they fall to earth."
A bit graphic for pre-teens? Don't you think so?

There is no graphic details in that passage. That's at least written to let the reader fill in the blanks. Probably why it's a classic.

 

[highfigh]

I don't mind edits were the racism is removed but that's the edge case.

I'm not supporting racism, but you want censorship, decided by whom? If by the government, we lose free speech and that's NOT just for the media/newspapers. That said, writing racist crap is a 'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should' situation.

I would say that using racism as a way to portray someone's character in a book, movie, etc is OK, as long as it's not intended to advance their hatred.

We really should have moved past it, by now.

 

[Trell]

They are re-writing Roald Dahl books. Thank goodness I have the collection that I read to my child so they can be passed down un-adultered.

I never want to hear about 'book banning' that liberals accuse conservatives of again. They've edited out fat, ugly, hag, female, male etc...

Isn't the copyright holders of the books that are doing this re-write? You do see there is a difference between that and banning books?

 

[highfigh]

I'll say this, try reading some classic children's books in original literal translation - like Hans Christian Andersen, for example.
Or the 1838's The Tinderbox, and I'm quoting from Wiki:
"On the day of execution, the soldier sends a boy for his tinderbox, and, at the scaffold, asks to have a last smoke. He then strikes the tinderbox and the three monstrous dogs appear. They toss the judge and the councillors, the King and Queen into the air. All are dashed to pieces when they fall to earth."
A bit graphic for pre-teens? Don't you think so?

Have you seen the news or video games? What about life in many American inner cities? Are the shooting deaths of kids in America not MORE graphic when they happen on the same block, or even next door? What about when Mom and Dad have a blow out fight and someone is killed in front of the kids?

At least someone can tell the kids that they're too young to read something- they can't very well do that with life, can they?

Life is graphic.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I know Highfigh, that you generally hold conservative ideas, but this remark is insanely inappropriate.
If it wasn't clear, let me repeat again - we are talking about stories for pre-teens. These are young kids and as a parent, I will shield them from RL violence until they grow at least a bit older.

 

[highfigh]

I know Highfigh, that you generally hold conservative ideas, but this remark is insanely inappropriate.
If it wasn't clear, let me repeat again - we are talking about stories for pre-teens. These are young kids and as a parent, I will shield them from RL violence until they grow at least a bit older.

That dumb rating really hurts......

Parents can prevent their kids' access to reading materials- and they should do it if they want to. Do you want to rewrite everything, just because it's a bit too graphic for the kids?

Why not just mark it as 'edited, for graphic content' as they do for TV, and let people decide for themselves.

You're also forgetting about the context of the time when this was written- life was much more harsh in the early 1800s and before- death and disease were everywhere in most places and this book reflects that. You're thinking about modern kids's sensitivity and your desire to shield them but if you think about it, kids are pretty resilient and often move on from bad events better than many adults. People who are alive now wouldn't know how bad it was if they don't read about it.

This isn't about your perception of where my ideas are positioned WRT Conservative or Liberal, it's about reality- rewriting a few books doesn't reduce the exposure of many kids to terrible events.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

That dumb rating really hurts......

Parents can prevent their kids' access to reading materials- and they should do it if they want to. Do you want to rewrite everything, just because it's a bit too graphic for the kids?

Why not just mark it as 'edited, for graphic content' as they do for TV, and let people decide for themselves.

You're also forgetting about the context of the time when this was written- life was much more harsh in the early 1800s and before- death and disease were everywhere in most places and this book reflects that. You're thinking about modern kids's sensitivity and your desire to shield them but if you think about it, kids are pretty resilient and often move on from bad events better than many adults. People who are alive now wouldn't know how bad it was if they don't read about it.

This isn't about your perception of where my ideas are positioned WRT Conservative or Liberal, it's about reality- rewriting a few books doesn't reduce the exposure of many kids to terrible events.

I don't want nor suggest rewriting "everything". Plenty of very graphic books which meant for adults and should NOT be edited. I was only suggesting that some VERY outdated books (like in my example over 100 years old) maybe not be appropriate for very young kids. Disney does it all the time. Plenty of origin stories Disney content based published are not 100% fitting to modern society. I am perfectly aware of both the context and timing of original stories. I also know that many children's Stories weren't meant for children in the first place.
I recommend you to go back and try to read original and unedited "children" books from 100-200 years ago and you'll see what I mean.

Kids are different, and some are more resilient than others. My younger 5y could cry just watching cartoons because he felt bad about the cartoon character.

Again, I am not trying to permanently shield kids from reality, just merely delaying it until it would age appropriate.

I wasn't defending the idea of re-writing Roald Dahl books - these are great as is as they are very fairly modern and recent. Just making a point that sometime old stories could and should be edited due to drastically different contexts and appropriate for younger age kids.

 

[cpp]

Doing what they are doing to books and history is so lame. These kids see so much more on their phones, TikToc, FB, just surf on a kids phone and look at their history. Ya books, these kids with phones know how get to around banned books. The "OLDER law making nuts, who are making these book banning s just don't understand the nature of the internet and whats on it. Fix that and maybe they can limit sex, violence, bullying and race issues. This is reality.

 

[highfigh]

Kids are different, and some are more resilient than others. My younger 5y could cry just watching cartoons because he felt bad about the cartoon character.

Again, I am not trying to permanently shield kids from reality, just merely delaying it until it would age appropriate.

I wasn't defending the idea of re-writing Roald Dahl books - these are great as is as they are very fairly modern and recent. Just making a point that sometime old stories could and should be edited due to drastically different contexts and appropriate for younger age kids.

It's a sticky topic. Maybe libraries should use a proof of age or parental consent system. If you watch the news, they show adults crying for reasons that aren't much worse than the cartoons and I know of people who were much better able to handle 'things' as children than some adults.

As you wrote, kids are different and some are amazingly mature for their age. The kid across the alley would cry at the drop of a hat when we were kids.

 

[jinjuku]

Isn't the copyright holders of the books that are doing this re-write? You do see there is a difference between that and banning books?

Hey if you own the copyright to the Mona Lisa go ahead and sharpie on a mustache.

Also what are the titles of the banned books you are referring to?

 

[jinjuku]

Just making a point that sometime old stories could and should be edited due to drastically different contexts and appropriate for younger age kids.

Stories get re-imagined all the time. The issue I'm bringing up is that what they are effectively doing is stopping publication of the original Dahl works. That is de-facto banning.

 

[jinjuku]

I'm not supporting racism, but you want censorship, decided by whom?

I'll give you the point on this one. I don't need to lived in a sanitized world.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Stories get re-imagined all the time. The issue I'm bringing up is that what they are effectively doing is stopping publication of the original Dahl works. That is de-facto banning.

I see. Then I withdraw my previous comments. I missed that one MAJOR detail.