Can't it be about both? Does the profit motive make the threat to free speech more or less benign? It should be shocking to us that a company could believe it would be profitable to alter a text along these lines.
What's the free speech line here though? Authors edit their work all the time, for a variety of reasons. Those edits are speech too. The only difference here is that it's the current copyright holder and the author is dead. I think the idea we shouldn't change old work is correct, but a question of artistic integrity not free speech.
Well like I said I think the edits are embarrassing! I'm not in favor of editing old classic books. Much better to add a preface for context imho. I just don't think it's a question of "free speech."
My problem here is less with artistic integrity and more with the industry motivations underlying the edits. It suggests new industry-wide "rules." It seems to confirm what anyone who has encountered traditionally published books recently already knows: "we, the industry, will ONLY publish works that conform to an approved narrative and speech code that falls in line with our prescribed ideology and goals." Aka distributing propaganda. Whether that's because they truly believe in the cause or because they believe they have a receptive audience hungry to pay for it (or both) is irrelevant. It's happening.
This is a free speech issue if we have reason to believe an entire monopolistic industry is averse to publishing materials that fall outside the confines of a specific political or ideological imperative or to serve audiences outside this niche. They continue to prove that they are unwilling to do so. If they were a tiny conservative bakery, this would be a Supreme Court case. Because they are massive, elite lit sellers, everyone is supposed to nod along with it.
I would imagine that a bunch of states banning children's books that don't fit their ideological agenda would have a bigger chilling effect. I'm going to disagree that publishers are an ideological monolith. Every big publisher has conservative imprints, and they hold huge sway at these companies.
But it's certainly not exciting to see books be such a focus in ideological battles.
A ton of this stuff is really around children's and YA novels. It's been a battleground for a while, especially online. I don't write work for children and I think those who don't aren't necessarily as impacted by this - from either the side of state mandates or industry-based ideological capture (which does exist and is comformist, though I don't know if it is as all consuming as the internet makes it seem). Ultimately, what does it mean that children's/youth literature seems to be the place where this is manifesting? I go back to this question regarding freedom of imagination, as when we are children imagination is pretty much everything to us. Maybe it's not this "freedom of speech" question that circulates online that is the right question to ask here.
Completely agree there. It's scary that children's lit is such a focus across the political spectrum.
I think the focus on children's lit is purely because that's where people feel like they can focus. If you want to control art, it's easier to start by saying you're "saving the children" then work your way up...
Well, publishers may have conservative imprints, but from what little I know about them, they mainly handle non-fiction--politicians and pundits, etc. I'm not aware of any specifically conservative literary agencies or fiction from the big houses. But that's not what concerns me most, though it is an issue for sure. Conservatives read, too, and should be able to write and read books about their interests as much as anyone else. I even wonder why we need imprints designated by political slant?
What has been creepiest to me is the way "normie" fiction, for lack of a better term, has come under attack. Ordinary literature from across the spectrum that somehow doesn't toe this ever-shifting, invisible political and linguistic line is disappearing.
I'll give an example: I participated in a webinar with an agent who specialized in historical fiction. One of the other authors was writing a book set on the Great Plains in the 1800s. She said a member of her writing group got angry over her characters' use of the word "Indian" in her novel. She asked the agent if this was "problematic" because it was the historically accurate term people used during the period (in fact, it was one of the more polite terms). The agent told her to find another word if she wanted to be published; "Indian" was indeed offensive.
Seriously? It's exhausting. I don't want to read social justice gospels. I just want to read books. Authentic, quality books. The industry is ruining literature and we're enabling it--some of us, anyway.
I have no interest in seeing the state intervene. I oppose book bans of any kind. I just want people take a good, hard look at what they're supporting when they get on this bandwagon. And if the industry is truly profiting off of altering books in this grotesque fashion, I'd love to know who's actually buying them and why.
I agree. I don't think this is sustainable. The majority of readers dislike it, and sooner or later it will have to catch up with them. Hopefully sooner.
These corporate “editors” are not writers. The fact they think they can change art on a profitable whim shows they have no understanding of the subtleties of real creativity. And where does this end? What if this next happens to music, sculpture, photography?
The worst part is that while Dahl isn't exactly the best wordsmith, he works by being so utterly over-the-top. Kids revel in the casual cruelty of so many passages as part of the life they live, even if they were never in an English boarding school or poorhouse. "Great flabby folds of fat bulged out" to "Great folds bulged out" kills the alliteration without actually changing the tone at all, like eliding so many adjectives. It's just... pointless.
In the end, even if they have to recall and pulp every copy, they'll probably still call it a win, though. People will remember and buy the originals with all the dramatic attention, especially when the "revert" comes.
Everyone who didn’t stand up for free speech when it mattered. Everyone who didn’t stand up against censorship when it mattered. Everyone who cheered on while statues were pulled down and history was whitewashed. That’s who.
As usual, you cut right to the heart of the matter. Thank you!
This was excellent.
Ah yes the profits. Still remember when someone did a Shakespeare edition written with emojis.
Can't it be about both? Does the profit motive make the threat to free speech more or less benign? It should be shocking to us that a company could believe it would be profitable to alter a text along these lines.
What's the free speech line here though? Authors edit their work all the time, for a variety of reasons. Those edits are speech too. The only difference here is that it's the current copyright holder and the author is dead. I think the idea we shouldn't change old work is correct, but a question of artistic integrity not free speech.
How can this not negatively impact freedom of imagination?
Well like I said I think the edits are embarrassing! I'm not in favor of editing old classic books. Much better to add a preface for context imho. I just don't think it's a question of "free speech."
My problem here is less with artistic integrity and more with the industry motivations underlying the edits. It suggests new industry-wide "rules." It seems to confirm what anyone who has encountered traditionally published books recently already knows: "we, the industry, will ONLY publish works that conform to an approved narrative and speech code that falls in line with our prescribed ideology and goals." Aka distributing propaganda. Whether that's because they truly believe in the cause or because they believe they have a receptive audience hungry to pay for it (or both) is irrelevant. It's happening.
This is a free speech issue if we have reason to believe an entire monopolistic industry is averse to publishing materials that fall outside the confines of a specific political or ideological imperative or to serve audiences outside this niche. They continue to prove that they are unwilling to do so. If they were a tiny conservative bakery, this would be a Supreme Court case. Because they are massive, elite lit sellers, everyone is supposed to nod along with it.
I would imagine that a bunch of states banning children's books that don't fit their ideological agenda would have a bigger chilling effect. I'm going to disagree that publishers are an ideological monolith. Every big publisher has conservative imprints, and they hold huge sway at these companies.
But it's certainly not exciting to see books be such a focus in ideological battles.
A ton of this stuff is really around children's and YA novels. It's been a battleground for a while, especially online. I don't write work for children and I think those who don't aren't necessarily as impacted by this - from either the side of state mandates or industry-based ideological capture (which does exist and is comformist, though I don't know if it is as all consuming as the internet makes it seem). Ultimately, what does it mean that children's/youth literature seems to be the place where this is manifesting? I go back to this question regarding freedom of imagination, as when we are children imagination is pretty much everything to us. Maybe it's not this "freedom of speech" question that circulates online that is the right question to ask here.
Completely agree there. It's scary that children's lit is such a focus across the political spectrum.
I think the focus on children's lit is purely because that's where people feel like they can focus. If you want to control art, it's easier to start by saying you're "saving the children" then work your way up...
Well, publishers may have conservative imprints, but from what little I know about them, they mainly handle non-fiction--politicians and pundits, etc. I'm not aware of any specifically conservative literary agencies or fiction from the big houses. But that's not what concerns me most, though it is an issue for sure. Conservatives read, too, and should be able to write and read books about their interests as much as anyone else. I even wonder why we need imprints designated by political slant?
What has been creepiest to me is the way "normie" fiction, for lack of a better term, has come under attack. Ordinary literature from across the spectrum that somehow doesn't toe this ever-shifting, invisible political and linguistic line is disappearing.
I'll give an example: I participated in a webinar with an agent who specialized in historical fiction. One of the other authors was writing a book set on the Great Plains in the 1800s. She said a member of her writing group got angry over her characters' use of the word "Indian" in her novel. She asked the agent if this was "problematic" because it was the historically accurate term people used during the period (in fact, it was one of the more polite terms). The agent told her to find another word if she wanted to be published; "Indian" was indeed offensive.
Seriously? It's exhausting. I don't want to read social justice gospels. I just want to read books. Authentic, quality books. The industry is ruining literature and we're enabling it--some of us, anyway.
I have no interest in seeing the state intervene. I oppose book bans of any kind. I just want people take a good, hard look at what they're supporting when they get on this bandwagon. And if the industry is truly profiting off of altering books in this grotesque fashion, I'd love to know who's actually buying them and why.
Honestly, I think these legacy industries are just pushing themselves towards their demise.
I agree. I don't think this is sustainable. The majority of readers dislike it, and sooner or later it will have to catch up with them. Hopefully sooner.
Free speech and artistic integrity are good friends.
It can be both. Censors are delusional of course. Consider how many big budget movies with woke narratives have flopped.
Here in the real world, there are many politically incorrect books making millions, so I don’t buy the ‘good for business’ line. It’s wokeness.
Exactly. I don't think there is a very large audience for this--quite the opposite. Something much uglier is driving it.
I agree with you 100 percent. This is madness and utter stupidity, but it is not censorship.
These corporate “editors” are not writers. The fact they think they can change art on a profitable whim shows they have no understanding of the subtleties of real creativity. And where does this end? What if this next happens to music, sculpture, photography?
The worst part is that while Dahl isn't exactly the best wordsmith, he works by being so utterly over-the-top. Kids revel in the casual cruelty of so many passages as part of the life they live, even if they were never in an English boarding school or poorhouse. "Great flabby folds of fat bulged out" to "Great folds bulged out" kills the alliteration without actually changing the tone at all, like eliding so many adjectives. It's just... pointless.
In the end, even if they have to recall and pulp every copy, they'll probably still call it a win, though. People will remember and buy the originals with all the dramatic attention, especially when the "revert" comes.
To quote the Australian columnist
Joe Hildebrand:
Who killed Roald Dahl? Everyone.
Everyone who didn’t stand up for free speech when it mattered. Everyone who didn’t stand up against censorship when it mattered. Everyone who cheered on while statues were pulled down and history was whitewashed. That’s who.
A thought out piece with balanced viewpoints
Lebron James does not like this