FUCK YOU, YOU FAT-HEADED ROALD DAHL-CENSORING FUCKERS
March 12, 2023 4:16 AM Subscribe
McSweeney’s: “Dear Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers,
You’re censors. You’re not editors, and you’re not readers. You’re censors. You are exactly what Orwell warned us about.
So fuck you.”
A list of the logical fallacies, non-sequiturs, and just plain factual errors in this text would likely be longer than the text itself. There's probably a well-reasoned, coherent argument to be made against making changes to published books in general, and against the changes made to Dahl's book specifically, but this is neither of those, this is just an angry, bad rant.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [32 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [32 favorites]
A reminder: Lincoln Michel: "The Roald Dahl Edits Aren't About Anything Except Corporate Profits."
So, y'know, "FUCK YOU CORPORATE PROFITS".
posted by chavenet at 4:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [22 favorites]
So, y'know, "FUCK YOU CORPORATE PROFITS".
posted by chavenet at 4:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [22 favorites]
I’m hopelessly multi-handed about all this. On the one hand, surely nobody thinks the oompa-loompas should have been left as they were. Even Dahl himself changed them. On the other hand, some of the new edits look unnecessary. Then on the third hand, I sympathise with the desire not to ‘authorise’ any abusive terms that might get used in the playground. On the fourth hand, kids don’t get that stuff from literature - these terms will be used in real playgrounds anyway, and if books don’t reflect that, they lose credibility. On the fifth hand, the publisher owns the rights and is entitled to edit however they judge best. On the sixth hand, books really belong to the author in some sense. On the seventh, Dahl wasn’t Shakespeare and these are not timeless works of art: indeed some of Dahl’s views are acknowledged to have been unacceptable. On the eighth hand, the books are sort of held in great affection by many readers, though. On the ninth, but wasn’t Philip Pullman right that we should create space for new writing?
posted by Phanx at 4:42 AM on March 12, 2023 [70 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 4:42 AM on March 12, 2023 [70 favorites]
This seems like a reduction of the ecosystem that sensitivity readers exist in. I'm not involved in that industry, but the attempt to flatten this into a "both sides are the same and also equally evil" argument seems to ignore the motives behind sensitivity reading. I don't think major publishing houses are hiring sensitivity readers out of an ideological conviction that it's virtuous or socially beneficial to remove racist caricatures or discriminatory language and thereby improve society or protect readers. It seems far more convincing that publishers are using underpaid, underprofessionalized freelancers to provide plausible deniability in the event of progressive backlash while also capitalizing on controversy and outrage.
posted by wakannai at 4:44 AM on March 12, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by wakannai at 4:44 AM on March 12, 2023 [15 favorites]
Movies are next, and considering the hell raised over colorizing films, that should be an interesting shit show to watch. But, yeah, textbook Orwell.
posted by Beholder at 4:50 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by Beholder at 4:50 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
The author of this rant is the censoring jerk and has no imagination. Let there be an infinite number of versions of any book!
I was thinking that the slippery slope argument was pretty silly since there is so much literature that will never have enough commercial value to be edited like this. But on the other hand, maybe we are on the precipice of having software that could rewrite anything for almost free. Then why not have it rewrite Bukowski poems for little kids or kids books in as noir thrillers or Harry Potter with all the characters trans? Copyright law aside, works of art kinda belong to the world and everyone once they are put out into the public sphere.
Also, no one is trying to suppress the original version! They're not going to libraries and homes and taking them. It's like arguing that releasing a remastered, deluxe version of a classic album is "censoring" the original version.
posted by snofoam at 5:06 AM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
I was thinking that the slippery slope argument was pretty silly since there is so much literature that will never have enough commercial value to be edited like this. But on the other hand, maybe we are on the precipice of having software that could rewrite anything for almost free. Then why not have it rewrite Bukowski poems for little kids or kids books in as noir thrillers or Harry Potter with all the characters trans? Copyright law aside, works of art kinda belong to the world and everyone once they are put out into the public sphere.
Also, no one is trying to suppress the original version! They're not going to libraries and homes and taking them. It's like arguing that releasing a remastered, deluxe version of a classic album is "censoring" the original version.
posted by snofoam at 5:06 AM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
I find the ongoing noise about this disingenuous. Would they have been able to identify all the changes, without side-by-side comparison?
posted by ElliotH at 5:09 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by ElliotH at 5:09 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I haven’t read 1984 since high school (I assume that’s the Orwell we mean, not the cute one about talking pigs) but yeah, I’ll never forget that final scene in Room 101 where the baddies bring Winston in to suffer his worst nightmare, and it’s a pile of books that have been edited by corporate paymasters attempting to cash in on something they definitely love without cynicism called “the woke mind virus”! And they made the originals available for Winston to read too! So chilling, so prescient.
posted by Ten Cold Hot Dogs at 5:15 AM on March 12, 2023 [46 favorites]
posted by Ten Cold Hot Dogs at 5:15 AM on March 12, 2023 [46 favorites]
The previous Dahl-Censoring thread is still open, but it’s not a double….
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:16 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:16 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
And this is why I think the Dr. Seuss Foundation handled the problematic nature of some of Seuss's books perfectly by deciding that they simply weren't going to publish them anymore. Of course, we're talking about only 6 out of 47 books with Seuss, though. Is there a count on the number of Dahl books that have been edited?
posted by KingEdRa at 5:25 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by KingEdRa at 5:25 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
The thing that has kept me from freaking out about this is reminding myself: whose versions of Shakespeare's plays are more common today, Shakespeare's own or Thomas Bowlder's?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:26 AM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:26 AM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
Because it’s in McSweeney’s, I read this all the way to the end expecting a solid punchline after the extended caricature, but nope. It’s just a tedious rant.
posted by robcorr at 5:27 AM on March 12, 2023 [62 favorites]
posted by robcorr at 5:27 AM on March 12, 2023 [62 favorites]
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but there are groups of people that have long been favored by systemic biases. As some of these biases start to be eroded a little, there are individuals who seem to lash out disproportionately to defend aspects of the past culture that seem defensible. Hence, perhaps, a giant swearing rant against a corporation editing a children's book so it will still sell, positioned as an ideological stance against censorship. I feel like a lot of that energy and anger is coming from somewhere else. It's like when they split an atom for nuclear power. Take away 1% of someone's privilege and it unleashes a maelstrom of negative energy. Admittedly, I'm reading a lot into the psyche of Peter Wisniewski, but I feel like he's overreacting. Also, despite being on McSweeney's, there's zero chance this is some kind of failed satire, right?
posted by snofoam at 5:31 AM on March 12, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 5:31 AM on March 12, 2023 [13 favorites]
Wondering if free rei(g)n is meant to be the tell.
posted by GeorgeBickham at 5:31 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by GeorgeBickham at 5:31 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Wait, didn't Penguin decide to keep publishing the unexpurgated versions as well? Why are we still giving this nonsense oxygen?
If there's one thing even more irritating than confected culture-war outrage, it's a sore winner.
posted by flabdablet at 5:35 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
If there's one thing even more irritating than confected culture-war outrage, it's a sore winner.
posted by flabdablet at 5:35 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
The history of world literature is against you.
Enh, gonna disagree, given my run-ins with Piers Ploughman’s A, B, C, and ur-B texts, nevermind all the dicking around various heirs did to keep copyrights in place.
posted by Capt. Renault at 5:43 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Enh, gonna disagree, given my run-ins with Piers Ploughman’s A, B, C, and ur-B texts, nevermind all the dicking around various heirs did to keep copyrights in place.
posted by Capt. Renault at 5:43 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Because it’s in McSweeney’s, I read this all the way to the end expecting a solid punchline after the extended caricature, but nope. It’s just a tedious rant.
See, I thought that it WAS* parody, because it's taking a Serious Issue, about an Important Artist and Classic Literature
and the argument is a ranty rant
with blathering
on line
after
line.
Sort of a word vomit
that one does
whilst taking a crap.
*I am keenly disappointed that this is NOT parody...
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 5:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
See, I thought that it WAS* parody, because it's taking a Serious Issue, about an Important Artist and Classic Literature
and the argument is a ranty rant
with blathering
on line
after
line.
Sort of a word vomit
that one does
whilst taking a crap.
*I am keenly disappointed that this is NOT parody...
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 5:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
This is absolutely supposed to be parody. It might be bad parody, but it is not intended to be read straight.
posted by scantee at 6:02 AM on March 12, 2023
posted by scantee at 6:02 AM on March 12, 2023
That it's pretty much 100% indistinguishable from so much Twitter content that is intended to be read straight makes it kind of superfluous, though.
Given that everybody can already see perfectly clearly that the hellscape we're living in is a hellscape, I can't really see the point in jumping up and down and shouting "Hellscape!"
This is not entertainment. I am not entertained.
posted by flabdablet at 6:14 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
Given that everybody can already see perfectly clearly that the hellscape we're living in is a hellscape, I can't really see the point in jumping up and down and shouting "Hellscape!"
This is not entertainment. I am not entertained.
posted by flabdablet at 6:14 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
Dahl wasn’t Shakespeare and these are not timeless works of art:
Just as a data point, as an occasional amateur dramaturge (amaturge?) for my local Shakespeare company, I just want to mention that Shakespeare gets edited/"censored" all the time.
For instance, there's a line Benedick has in Much Ado About Nothing: "If I do not love her, I am a Jew". No one ever hears it because it gets cut for very obvious reasons.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 6:17 AM on March 12, 2023 [37 favorites]
Just as a data point, as an occasional amateur dramaturge (amaturge?) for my local Shakespeare company, I just want to mention that Shakespeare gets edited/"censored" all the time.
For instance, there's a line Benedick has in Much Ado About Nothing: "If I do not love her, I am a Jew". No one ever hears it because it gets cut for very obvious reasons.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 6:17 AM on March 12, 2023 [37 favorites]
And this is why I think the Dr. Seuss Foundation handled the problematic nature of some of Seuss's books perfectly by deciding that they simply weren't going to publish them anymore
I don't like it therefore no one else may have it?
posted by BWA at 6:18 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't like it therefore no one else may have it?
posted by BWA at 6:18 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I dunno. A friend of mine edits Dahl when reading to his kids because he has a habit of using body shape as a proxy for morality.
Given the current push to eradicate trans-ness, I feel like there's bigger things to worry about & I'm not terrible bothered by people editing Dahl.
posted by constraint at 6:30 AM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
Given the current push to eradicate trans-ness, I feel like there's bigger things to worry about & I'm not terrible bothered by people editing Dahl.
posted by constraint at 6:30 AM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
Just as a data point, as an occasional amateur dramaturge (amaturge?) for my local Shakespeare company, I just want to mention that Shakespeare gets edited/"censored" all the time.
Speaking as a fellow dramaturge, I think that there's a difference between an individual theater company producing a play choosing not to SAY a specific line, and a publishing company releasing a printing of that play and choosing not to PRINT that line. The reach of one decision is far broader than the other.
We ran into this all the time; my company would do mostly older American works from the "Gilded Age", and sometimes the language got hinky. And we let directors take a case-by-case basis about how to handle certain words; some lines we cut outright, other lines we kept but staged it so that when they were spoken some people gave them looks like "I can't believe you said that" or "oh God, there goes racist Uncle Albert again" or something like that. Or sometimes, there would be huge signs in the lobby and in the program warning that there was language that listeners today might find uncomfortable, and it should be considered as an unfortunate artifact of its time.
But someone seeing our production of The Octoroon with a line or two cut could still go see a different production of The Octoroon the following week with all the lines in it. Which is different from someone printing a version of The Octoroon with those lines pre-cut - and now there's only one version for theater companies to use and for someone to see.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [21 favorites]
Speaking as a fellow dramaturge, I think that there's a difference between an individual theater company producing a play choosing not to SAY a specific line, and a publishing company releasing a printing of that play and choosing not to PRINT that line. The reach of one decision is far broader than the other.
We ran into this all the time; my company would do mostly older American works from the "Gilded Age", and sometimes the language got hinky. And we let directors take a case-by-case basis about how to handle certain words; some lines we cut outright, other lines we kept but staged it so that when they were spoken some people gave them looks like "I can't believe you said that" or "oh God, there goes racist Uncle Albert again" or something like that. Or sometimes, there would be huge signs in the lobby and in the program warning that there was language that listeners today might find uncomfortable, and it should be considered as an unfortunate artifact of its time.
But someone seeing our production of The Octoroon with a line or two cut could still go see a different production of The Octoroon the following week with all the lines in it. Which is different from someone printing a version of The Octoroon with those lines pre-cut - and now there's only one version for theater companies to use and for someone to see.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [21 favorites]
> "Let there be an infinite number of versions of any book!"
As long as none of these new books say "by Roald Dahl", I'm cool with that. That isn't what's happening.
> "Also, no one is trying to suppress the original version! They're not going to libraries and homes and taking them."
I think this is a very short-sighted comment. It takes much less than you think for a new version to completely supersede an original version. People already complain about how hard it is to find the original Star Wars. Once the first version is no longer published -- and especially if the publishers of the newer version deliberately try to suppress the earlier one to avoid competition, which most certainly does happen -- it can get hard to find pretty quick. Things absolutely can and do get memory-holed.
posted by kyrademon at 6:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [18 favorites]
As long as none of these new books say "by Roald Dahl", I'm cool with that. That isn't what's happening.
> "Also, no one is trying to suppress the original version! They're not going to libraries and homes and taking them."
I think this is a very short-sighted comment. It takes much less than you think for a new version to completely supersede an original version. People already complain about how hard it is to find the original Star Wars. Once the first version is no longer published -- and especially if the publishers of the newer version deliberately try to suppress the earlier one to avoid competition, which most certainly does happen -- it can get hard to find pretty quick. Things absolutely can and do get memory-holed.
posted by kyrademon at 6:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [18 favorites]
BWA, The Dr. Seuss Foundation said that the original versions will be made available to any scholars or researchers upon request. Their decision to stop publishing the books came down to a recognition that Seuss' books now reached a broader audience of children than they did when originally published (including children in the marginalized communities that were portrayed insensitively in the books) and that rather than continue to profit on those children's pain, it was better to preserve them as historical relics of another time. They didn't call for any of the books still out in the wild to be destroyed and they made sure that the original works are still available for legitimate scholarship. I'm pretty sure that if you didn't already have those books in your personal library, they didn't mean that much to you in the first place.
posted by KingEdRa at 6:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [34 favorites]
posted by KingEdRa at 6:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [34 favorites]
I think the majority of the public commentary about the Dahl edits picked the right villain - even when they were unwilling to acknowledge that there was anything in Dahl that was unacceptable, a lot of the commentariat put the blame on the publisher. But there were a few comments that were... concerning.
I feel like the knives might be coming out for sensitivity readers. I saw one piece that concluded with the argument that sensitivity readers were awful because an author should rely only on their own experience and research, and should take the brunt of it when they're wrong - ask friends who have that lived experience to read it, not "sensitivity readers".
I was like bitch, that's a sensitivity reader, that's how it started and then I was like John Boyne still inexplicably has credibility despite increasingly howlingly bad factual errors, including where he has a Chinese character make dye out of ingredients from the most recent Zelda game. So I feel pretty confident that, actually, certain authors will be able to get away with it.
posted by Merus at 6:52 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I feel like the knives might be coming out for sensitivity readers. I saw one piece that concluded with the argument that sensitivity readers were awful because an author should rely only on their own experience and research, and should take the brunt of it when they're wrong - ask friends who have that lived experience to read it, not "sensitivity readers".
I was like bitch, that's a sensitivity reader, that's how it started and then I was like John Boyne still inexplicably has credibility despite increasingly howlingly bad factual errors, including where he has a Chinese character make dye out of ingredients from the most recent Zelda game. So I feel pretty confident that, actually, certain authors will be able to get away with it.
posted by Merus at 6:52 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Just as a data point, as an occasional amateur dramaturge (amaturge?) for my local Shakespeare company, I just want to mention that Shakespeare gets edited/"censored" all the time.
There's a world of difference between a hard copy printed text and an ephemeral single live performance.
I'm pretty sure that if you didn't already have those books in your personal library, they didn't mean that much to you in the first place.
There are plenty of books that I don't have in my personal library, books that I don't even like, that I think it would be wrong to let go out of print.
posted by BWA at 6:58 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
There's a world of difference between a hard copy printed text and an ephemeral single live performance.
I'm pretty sure that if you didn't already have those books in your personal library, they didn't mean that much to you in the first place.
There are plenty of books that I don't have in my personal library, books that I don't even like, that I think it would be wrong to let go out of print.
posted by BWA at 6:58 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
This is absolutely supposed to be parody. It might be bad parody, but it is not intended to be read straight.
posted by scantee at 9:02 AM on March 12
That was my first thought/hope, but then I read the author's other published article in McSweeney's and I just don't know anymore.
posted by ZaphodB at 6:58 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by scantee at 9:02 AM on March 12
That was my first thought/hope, but then I read the author's other published article in McSweeney's and I just don't know anymore.
posted by ZaphodB at 6:58 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't like it therefore no one else may have it?
No, I don't like it so I am not making it anymore.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:03 AM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
No, I don't like it so I am not making it anymore.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:03 AM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
I think this is a very short-sighted comment. It takes much less than you think for a new version to completely supersede an original version.
With 300 million copies of his books in print already, it would take a lot of convincing to make me believe previous editions could possibly disappear. Also, since the edits seem to be totally motivated by profit, there's no reason to think the "originals" (which mostly have already been edited post-publication) would be suppressed. If there's any demand, I'm sure they would love to profit from also selling previous versions as special "original" editions.
Star Wars special editions aren't really a good comparison for print books, which all use the same technology of ink on paper. For ebooks, it is a fair comparison. The "original" Star Wars films are hard to find because they were released on technology that is obsolete now. I could see a world where you could only pirate previous versions of Dahl books as ebooks because the official versions are all new edits.
posted by snofoam at 7:05 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
With 300 million copies of his books in print already, it would take a lot of convincing to make me believe previous editions could possibly disappear. Also, since the edits seem to be totally motivated by profit, there's no reason to think the "originals" (which mostly have already been edited post-publication) would be suppressed. If there's any demand, I'm sure they would love to profit from also selling previous versions as special "original" editions.
Star Wars special editions aren't really a good comparison for print books, which all use the same technology of ink on paper. For ebooks, it is a fair comparison. The "original" Star Wars films are hard to find because they were released on technology that is obsolete now. I could see a world where you could only pirate previous versions of Dahl books as ebooks because the official versions are all new edits.
posted by snofoam at 7:05 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I took this piece as sarcasm aimed at people taking a complex, nuanced issue as simple.
As I said in the last thread, this kind of editing seems to be the default for old books now, I'm surprised people are so surprised at it.
But I think people are ignoring the big issue: modernization of old currency. It totally changes the impact for Jo to get "15p" for delivering the ransom note in "Five Fall Into Adventure". The original would have been a half crown, a single coin worth 2 shillings and sixpence (12.5p): a pretty big deal for a kid. 15p is a tiny sum made up of multiple coins: completely different vibe. STOP UPDATING THE MONEY. Inflation will make your edit obsolete in a few years anyway.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
As I said in the last thread, this kind of editing seems to be the default for old books now, I'm surprised people are so surprised at it.
But I think people are ignoring the big issue: modernization of old currency. It totally changes the impact for Jo to get "15p" for delivering the ransom note in "Five Fall Into Adventure". The original would have been a half crown, a single coin worth 2 shillings and sixpence (12.5p): a pretty big deal for a kid. 15p is a tiny sum made up of multiple coins: completely different vibe. STOP UPDATING THE MONEY. Inflation will make your edit obsolete in a few years anyway.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
This is absolutely supposed to be parody. It might be bad parody, but it is not intended to be read straight.
As a kind of game, I'm curious how we can justify this reading of it, because I'm not seeing any hints.
posted by wakannai at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
As a kind of game, I'm curious how we can justify this reading of it, because I'm not seeing any hints.
posted by wakannai at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
There are plenty of books that I don't have in my personal library, books that I don't even like, that I think it would be wrong to let go out of print.
But, like, almost all books ever published are already out of print.
posted by snofoam at 7:11 AM on March 12, 2023 [15 favorites]
But, like, almost all books ever published are already out of print.
posted by snofoam at 7:11 AM on March 12, 2023 [15 favorites]
McSweeney's is a comedy website. I don't think MetaFilter should be allowed to do Roald Dahl threads anymore. It's like, a thing that the site thinks it's good at, but is actually very bad at. It is Dunning-Krugerring to MetaFilter.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:15 AM on March 12, 2023 [32 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:15 AM on March 12, 2023 [32 favorites]
I wish someone would censor David Walliams' books, or maybe just rewrite them entirely. My kids' growing up coincided with peak Walliams, and every kid in Britain was being given Walliams books for Christmas and those books absolutely stink and I hate them. Jesus Christ, they're execrable.
posted by pipeski at 7:24 AM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 7:24 AM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
The art can be all the art -- uncensored and without edits -- it no longer needs to be relevant. Coprolate Corporate success is hustle and grift.
posted by k3ninho at 7:25 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by k3ninho at 7:25 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
yep, kittens. there's certain types of topic that just do not unfold well here. the aim of a thread isn't - in my view - to stake out a position, fight like hell to be right, and shit on every commenter that even slightly diverges from that position. different approches are possible, but you've gotta show up wanting to learn more instead of be right.
/chatfilter
posted by j_curiouser at 7:29 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
/chatfilter
posted by j_curiouser at 7:29 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
This reminds me of reading "Of Mice and Men" in 6th grade with Ms Friedman. The n-word is used throughout, mostly in dialogue as I recall. It was fairly early on in reading the book together as a class that Ms Friedman announced her intention to substitute out the n-word with the word "guy." She described her disgust at the term. I knew it was wrong at that age, but that's the first time that I can recall that somebody shared their visceral response to the word and all of its baggage.
I remember one line in particular that Ms Friedman read aloud - "The guy's got a shotgun." - and recall the feeling of discomfort with a clunky change to the writing, but the relief, learned from my teacher, of avoiding the n-word in a racially and ethnically diverse classroom.
I learned a lot from that. But that learning process didn't happen from changing the original text - it was in being confronted by it and talking about it.
Twain wrote about this in "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg," too. Another author we read at a young age that required some critical engagement with the text.
posted by entropone at 7:30 AM on March 12, 2023 [13 favorites]
I remember one line in particular that Ms Friedman read aloud - "The guy's got a shotgun." - and recall the feeling of discomfort with a clunky change to the writing, but the relief, learned from my teacher, of avoiding the n-word in a racially and ethnically diverse classroom.
I learned a lot from that. But that learning process didn't happen from changing the original text - it was in being confronted by it and talking about it.
Twain wrote about this in "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg," too. Another author we read at a young age that required some critical engagement with the text.
posted by entropone at 7:30 AM on March 12, 2023 [13 favorites]
I can't find it right now, but I saw a blog post from a woman who said she had never known, until she was a grownup, that Long John Silver in Treasure Island was married to a black woman. Silver loved her and spoke fondly about her in one anecdote. When this reader was young, her copy was censored because he used a word for her that was not an offensive term at the time, not the hard R, but not what we use now. Because that anecdote about her was cut out, the young reader didn't learn that there were real, respectful interracial relationships at the time, which was a valuable historical perspective. Plus she didn't gain that insight into his character.
The point is, books are like tissue, and cutting one bit affects others in ways we don't always perceive. And yet sometimes we do -- see Sam and the Tigers, an improvement on the original, which surely isn't needed anymore. So it's hard. It makes for ugly threads because we want to be on the right side of the culture war: either against censors (bad) or against right-wing outrage grifters (worse?). Not many people just want to sit with the topic.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
The point is, books are like tissue, and cutting one bit affects others in ways we don't always perceive. And yet sometimes we do -- see Sam and the Tigers, an improvement on the original, which surely isn't needed anymore. So it's hard. It makes for ugly threads because we want to be on the right side of the culture war: either against censors (bad) or against right-wing outrage grifters (worse?). Not many people just want to sit with the topic.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
McSweeney's is a comedy website.
McSweeney's does run non-comedic pieces, such as this apparently sincere interview with a mystery shopper.
posted by Merus at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
McSweeney's does run non-comedic pieces, such as this apparently sincere interview with a mystery shopper.
posted by Merus at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Once the first version is no longer published -- and especially if the publishers of the newer version deliberately try to suppress the earlier one to avoid competition, which most certainly does happen -- it can get hard to find pretty quick. Things absolutely can and do get memory-holed.
At a time when anyone can raise the jolly roger and get a copy of the original text in the time it takes to type a title into a search engine this is pretty much a non issue.
posted by Mitheral at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
At a time when anyone can raise the jolly roger and get a copy of the original text in the time it takes to type a title into a search engine this is pretty much a non issue.
posted by Mitheral at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
> Because it’s in McSweeney’s, I read this all the way to the end expecting a solid punchline after the extended caricature, but nope. It’s just a tedious rant.
I read it as the point, that you have to allow posts like that, in order not to be censoring the critique of censoring.
I think it like that it’s kind of blunt in its delivery.
I don’t really understand why you would read books to your children that you felt you had to censor.
The bad thing about changing (works of) the past, is that everything you don’t agree with, will have to change… even when your own values will probably also change with time.
The message is: accept this dirty world as it is, and stop editing works of art to make it fit into your current value system. Or write a book about it.
posted by beesbees at 7:33 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
I read it as the point, that you have to allow posts like that, in order not to be censoring the critique of censoring.
I think it like that it’s kind of blunt in its delivery.
I don’t really understand why you would read books to your children that you felt you had to censor.
The bad thing about changing (works of) the past, is that everything you don’t agree with, will have to change… even when your own values will probably also change with time.
The message is: accept this dirty world as it is, and stop editing works of art to make it fit into your current value system. Or write a book about it.
posted by beesbees at 7:33 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
Honestly there are a lot of metafilter threads that could stand being rewritten or going out of print.
posted by phooky at 7:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by phooky at 7:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
I'm strongly on the side of "don't censor the text." If it isn't aging well, it might be time for it to fall out of fashion and become one of those markers of another era that are recognized as both problematic and important, like Kipling.
However, speaking of pieces needing editorial revisions, the McSweeny's piece didn't do anything for me. I guess it is trying to be funny? Or maybe trying to be a parody? It wasn't clear to me, and certainly wasn't funny.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:38 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
However, speaking of pieces needing editorial revisions, the McSweeny's piece didn't do anything for me. I guess it is trying to be funny? Or maybe trying to be a parody? It wasn't clear to me, and certainly wasn't funny.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:38 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
It would be easier to defend Roald Dahl's honor if he had any.
If we have to limit our defense of speech to the people we agree with, then it’s not much of a defense.
posted by heyitsgogi at 7:44 AM on March 12, 2023 [25 favorites]
If we have to limit our defense of speech to the people we agree with, then it’s not much of a defense.
posted by heyitsgogi at 7:44 AM on March 12, 2023 [25 favorites]
Let there be an infinite number of versions of any book!
Ew, no thank you.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:54 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Ew, no thank you.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:54 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I gave up on publishing when "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" was published as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the United States. Changing a book just because the audience is substantially different from the original one is some totalitarian BS.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:02 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:02 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I can't tell whether many of the comments in this post are meant in jest pls help.
posted by goatdog at 8:07 AM on March 12, 2023 [26 favorites]
posted by goatdog at 8:07 AM on March 12, 2023 [26 favorites]
I would genuinely love to know how people can tell this is satire. I get that the level of anger seems over the top, but I didn't pick up any specific cues that this was written as satire.
posted by snofoam at 8:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
(Psst. Hey. Hey you. It doesn't look like you realize this, but this article is a parody. Specifically, the thing it's making fun of is how big this rather unimportant event has become, and how charged the arguing is. The recent edits to Roald Dahl's books, while silly, are not the same as Trotsky being removed from photographs even though making that comparison builds up a huge controversy and gets clicks. If you thought the piece was poorly written, repetitive, and kept reiterating the same points over and over, yes, that's what happens when editing doesn't happen if you think "any editing is censorship and censorship is fascism". This bombastic piece is making fun of how overblown this entire issue has become, and we should really stop talking about it and move on with our lives.)
posted by AlSweigart at 8:13 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 8:13 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's all about corporate profits.
I'd say the market has spoken.
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:20 AM on March 12, 2023
I'd say the market has spoken.
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:20 AM on March 12, 2023
I am intrigued by the idea that the piece is poorly-written and repetitive on purpose as a meta critique of people who think editing is censorship, but based on the author's santa piece and the quality of McSweeney's in general, I'm don't think I have the same level of confidence that this is deliberate.
posted by snofoam at 8:22 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:22 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I would genuinely love to know how people can tell this is satire.
The media world of 2023 is very polarized. McSweeney's is a left/liberal satire site. When they post an apparently straight article espousing a position associated with right wing culture wars, either they've switched political positions and decided to stop doing satire... or it's satire.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:33 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
The media world of 2023 is very polarized. McSweeney's is a left/liberal satire site. When they post an apparently straight article espousing a position associated with right wing culture wars, either they've switched political positions and decided to stop doing satire... or it's satire.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:33 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
I would have thought the Dahl nontroversy itself was the most pointless thing people could be arguing about in 2023. But here we are.
I guess this is a reverse Poe's law situation-- any sufficiently poorly executed sincere defense of ... uh... whatever the OP is on about ... becomes indistinguishable from parody.
posted by Not A Thing at 8:36 AM on March 12, 2023
I guess this is a reverse Poe's law situation-- any sufficiently poorly executed sincere defense of ... uh... whatever the OP is on about ... becomes indistinguishable from parody.
posted by Not A Thing at 8:36 AM on March 12, 2023
McSweeney's has always specialized in a very distinctive style of "satire" – so oblique, so bone-dry that there is no "tell", no punchline, no discernible difference from a mundane straight take.
I'm still not convinced that this is intended as satire.
If it is, then it's terribly ineffective. This has happened on MetaFilter before: someone posts a McSweeney's link, and the entire thread immediately gets bogged down in confusion over how the article is meant to be taken. Because if it's meant to be read straight, then it's baffling. But it's not funny, either – in fact, it's not even shaped like something that's funny. So that reading is equally baffling. Like almost all of McSweeney's, it seems to exist in this weird superposition of "straight, but without the sincerity", and "satire, but without the humor".
I think that McSweeney's editors and writers think this is highbrow and literary, or something.
It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers and Dispatches from the Civility War are the only McSweeney's articles that have ever made any sense to me.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
I'm still not convinced that this is intended as satire.
If it is, then it's terribly ineffective. This has happened on MetaFilter before: someone posts a McSweeney's link, and the entire thread immediately gets bogged down in confusion over how the article is meant to be taken. Because if it's meant to be read straight, then it's baffling. But it's not funny, either – in fact, it's not even shaped like something that's funny. So that reading is equally baffling. Like almost all of McSweeney's, it seems to exist in this weird superposition of "straight, but without the sincerity", and "satire, but without the humor".
I think that McSweeney's editors and writers think this is highbrow and literary, or something.
It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers and Dispatches from the Civility War are the only McSweeney's articles that have ever made any sense to me.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:37 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
I would genuinely love to know how people can tell this is satire.
Part of it is that you have to trust McSweeny's to not publish something this unpolished for its face value. While the NYT has certainly muddied its waters by platforming Nazis in dapper suits and trying to turn Manhattan into TERF Island 2: National Divorce Boogaloo, McSweeny's has (unless I'm drastically out of touch with the site recently) fairly consistently published smart comedy.
But for a more direct way: the piece has "Fat people call themselves fat because they are not ashamed of themselves. But you are ashamed of us." which is a statement plainly against fatphobia. But the title itself uses fat as an insult: "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" It's parody, making fun of people so determined to shout their hot takes the loudest and fastest to get the clicks before the 24-hour news cycle moves on that they don't stop to think about what it is they're saying first.
We live in absurd times and Poe's Law reigns supreme, but I think there's still room for parody that doesn't make a knowing wink to the audience. (On the other hand, I-know-writers-who-use-subtext-and-they're-all-cowards.)
posted by AlSweigart at 8:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Part of it is that you have to trust McSweeny's to not publish something this unpolished for its face value. While the NYT has certainly muddied its waters by platforming Nazis in dapper suits and trying to turn Manhattan into TERF Island 2: National Divorce Boogaloo, McSweeny's has (unless I'm drastically out of touch with the site recently) fairly consistently published smart comedy.
But for a more direct way: the piece has "Fat people call themselves fat because they are not ashamed of themselves. But you are ashamed of us." which is a statement plainly against fatphobia. But the title itself uses fat as an insult: "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" It's parody, making fun of people so determined to shout their hot takes the loudest and fastest to get the clicks before the 24-hour news cycle moves on that they don't stop to think about what it is they're saying first.
We live in absurd times and Poe's Law reigns supreme, but I think there's still room for parody that doesn't make a knowing wink to the audience. (On the other hand, I-know-writers-who-use-subtext-and-they're-all-cowards.)
posted by AlSweigart at 8:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
This is sort of orthogonal to the topic but this thread isn’t totally on the rails as it is, and it’s been driving me nuts recently:
Every time Roald Dahl is described as “a children’s author,” or one of his books for children is described as “his most twisted work” or something, I have a moment of cognitive dissonance, as if I’m reading something written in a parallel universe. Sure, he wrote children’s books. He also wrote dozens of the darkest, most fucked up short stories for adults I remember ever reading. There’s one where a guy is tricked into having sex with a woman with leprosy, one where a guy with a tattoo by a famous artist is kidnapped and skinned, one where a scientist proves that every blade of grass screams in horrible pain when it’s cut, one where a woman leaves her bullying husband trapped in an elevator to die… this is just off the top of my head from the Best Of. And these weren’t obscure at the time, as they seem to be now - tons of them were adapted for TV both in the UK and America.
I think his short fiction is absolutely incredible - my grandpa declared Parson’s Pleasure, a story entirely about a man trying and failing to scam people out of a piece of antique furniture, to be the best horror story he ever read - but it’s also fucked up in about seventy different ways and nothing I would ever put in front of a child, or anybody else without a bunch of caveats.
And I think that any discourse around Dahl that doesn’t acknowledge that, as most of the recent discourse has seemed to, is woefully incomplete. Dahl was not “a children’s book author,” he was “an author of deliberately and self-consciously provocative and fucked-up stories, a handful of which were children’s books.”
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [61 favorites]
Every time Roald Dahl is described as “a children’s author,” or one of his books for children is described as “his most twisted work” or something, I have a moment of cognitive dissonance, as if I’m reading something written in a parallel universe. Sure, he wrote children’s books. He also wrote dozens of the darkest, most fucked up short stories for adults I remember ever reading. There’s one where a guy is tricked into having sex with a woman with leprosy, one where a guy with a tattoo by a famous artist is kidnapped and skinned, one where a scientist proves that every blade of grass screams in horrible pain when it’s cut, one where a woman leaves her bullying husband trapped in an elevator to die… this is just off the top of my head from the Best Of. And these weren’t obscure at the time, as they seem to be now - tons of them were adapted for TV both in the UK and America.
I think his short fiction is absolutely incredible - my grandpa declared Parson’s Pleasure, a story entirely about a man trying and failing to scam people out of a piece of antique furniture, to be the best horror story he ever read - but it’s also fucked up in about seventy different ways and nothing I would ever put in front of a child, or anybody else without a bunch of caveats.
And I think that any discourse around Dahl that doesn’t acknowledge that, as most of the recent discourse has seemed to, is woefully incomplete. Dahl was not “a children’s book author,” he was “an author of deliberately and self-consciously provocative and fucked-up stories, a handful of which were children’s books.”
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [61 favorites]
At a time when anyone can raise the jolly roger and get a copy of the original text in the time it takes to type a title into a search engine this is pretty much a non issue.
You don't even need to pirate them. The Internet Archive has many editions of Dahl's works available for lending, including a 1964 edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory you can read by just logging in and checking it out for an hour.
posted by mikelieman at 8:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
You don't even need to pirate them. The Internet Archive has many editions of Dahl's works available for lending, including a 1964 edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory you can read by just logging in and checking it out for an hour.
posted by mikelieman at 8:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Part of it is that you have to trust McSweeny's to not publish something this unpolished for its face value.
Thank you for sharing your reasoning, because I am genuinely trying to understand. One thing that confuses me is that his other piece is so awful, too. Also, fat-headed just means stupid. I don't think it has anything to do with being obese, so that doesn't seem like a smoking gun showing it is satire.
posted by snofoam at 8:54 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Thank you for sharing your reasoning, because I am genuinely trying to understand. One thing that confuses me is that his other piece is so awful, too. Also, fat-headed just means stupid. I don't think it has anything to do with being obese, so that doesn't seem like a smoking gun showing it is satire.
posted by snofoam at 8:54 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I don’t really understand why you would read books to your children that you felt you had to censor.
Either you have no children in your life or live in some social context where kids somehow avoid wanting to know about whatever is popular with their peers and demanding to consume it. Whether it's Harry Potter and the fat-people-are-evil with a side of casual transphobia or James and the Giant Peach.
The notion that the author's work is sacrosanct at the moment of performance has much more to do with copyright and profit than a defensible position. Orwell was also unspeakably mistaken about language somehow abridging thought but we still credit that as if it's gospel, and the issues he raised with censorship were about the state and its absolute power to rewrite history, but somehow all anybody recalls is the method because it's easy and doesn't require considering those who aren't the state who might be hurt by words - because those are your peers and their children.
posted by abulafa at 8:57 AM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
Either you have no children in your life or live in some social context where kids somehow avoid wanting to know about whatever is popular with their peers and demanding to consume it. Whether it's Harry Potter and the fat-people-are-evil with a side of casual transphobia or James and the Giant Peach.
The notion that the author's work is sacrosanct at the moment of performance has much more to do with copyright and profit than a defensible position. Orwell was also unspeakably mistaken about language somehow abridging thought but we still credit that as if it's gospel, and the issues he raised with censorship were about the state and its absolute power to rewrite history, but somehow all anybody recalls is the method because it's easy and doesn't require considering those who aren't the state who might be hurt by words - because those are your peers and their children.
posted by abulafa at 8:57 AM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
I can never see a link to a McSweeney's piece without thinking of the Achewood take on it.
I think it's accurate.
posted by fader at 8:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [13 favorites]
I think it's accurate.
posted by fader at 8:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [13 favorites]
It's like, a thing that the site thinks it's good at, but is actually very bad at.
I agree with you that MetaFilter isn't great at satire, but this sentence above also describes McSweeney's relationship to humor, so.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 8:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
I agree with you that MetaFilter isn't great at satire, but this sentence above also describes McSweeney's relationship to humor, so.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 8:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
I emailed them to ask if this piece was satire, so maybe I will get a response and I can share it.
posted by snofoam at 9:05 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:05 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
I love his other piece about a parent explaining Santa too. It perfectly captures the situation of an adult trying to answer a child's machine gun stream of questions when they clearly don't know and couldn't know the answers. He starts by repeating "because he's magic" over and over, senses that his cover is about to be blown, so he makes up less and less convincing answers, goes back to the "it's magic" with clearly less and less patience.
(Also, I kind of get the idea that it's riffing on the flailing people exhibit when they try to claim God exists. But good satire can be applied to many different contexts beyond their original intent.)
The piece trusts the audience to work out what is going on and pick up the subtext.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:06 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
(Also, I kind of get the idea that it's riffing on the flailing people exhibit when they try to claim God exists. But good satire can be applied to many different contexts beyond their original intent.)
The piece trusts the audience to work out what is going on and pick up the subtext.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:06 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
fat-headed just means stupid
We have a *lot* of words in English that mean "unintelligent". Several of them fall somewhere on the "Wait, do we still say this? Should we still say this?" spectrum.
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:09 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
We have a *lot* of words in English that mean "unintelligent". Several of them fall somewhere on the "Wait, do we still say this? Should we still say this?" spectrum.
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:09 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Sorry, I wasn't saying that fat-headed is a good thing to call anyone, but I was just saying it isn't related to being overweight in a way that makes it's use in the piece an obvious tell that the piece is satire. At least, as far as I can tell.
posted by snofoam at 9:13 AM on March 12, 2023
posted by snofoam at 9:13 AM on March 12, 2023
It's also completely possible that it's just not a very good piece. Poe's Law is a thing. There was someone in college who wrote a piece for their dorm newspaper about our dorm, which housed the international students, that was just jaw-droppingly racist, and the author came to one of our all-dorm meetings to defend himself, and his defense? Well, if you only knew him, you'd know that he couldn't possibly be racist. He probably wasn't, at least consciously. But there was no subtext to the piece; it was just straight-up racist bullshit. Nobody bats a thousand, not McSweeney's, not the Onion, not that one site that no longer really exists that you remember fondly from back in the day.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:15 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:15 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
The piece trusts the audience to work out what is going on and pick up the subtext.
Wow, this works for everything!
"Why do you have Tucker Carlson on continuous loop in your living room?" "It's satire! I trust anyone who sees it in MY house will work out what's going on and pick up the subtext."
"Did you just hang a giant TRUMP 2024 flag on your truck?" "Yeah, I trust the audience to work out what's going on and pick up the subtext."
(I had some more horrific examples but decided not to post them. Oh no, censorship!)
TBF I think we might be better off just acknowledging that if this was actually meant to be taken as satire it wasn't very well done.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:17 AM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
Wow, this works for everything!
"Why do you have Tucker Carlson on continuous loop in your living room?" "It's satire! I trust anyone who sees it in MY house will work out what's going on and pick up the subtext."
"Did you just hang a giant TRUMP 2024 flag on your truck?" "Yeah, I trust the audience to work out what's going on and pick up the subtext."
(I had some more horrific examples but decided not to post them. Oh no, censorship!)
TBF I think we might be better off just acknowledging that if this was actually meant to be taken as satire it wasn't very well done.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:17 AM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
At the same time, there's a clear difference between Tucker Carlson and The Colbert Report.
Just because people confuse The Onion articles for being real doesn't mean The Onion is a bad parody. You just have to know that The Onion is a parody site, just like you have to know McSweeny's is a comedy site that publishes incredibly dry humor.
Every satire is not bad-faith "it's satire, bro" right-wing dog whistling, and neither is this piece.
And also... *shrug* I've never had a problem getting McSweeny's jokes. I still love "It's like 1984 but worse — maybe 1985 or even 4000" even though it was initially confusing to some people in that thread. (Internet archive link since the original domain is gone)
posted by AlSweigart at 9:29 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Just because people confuse The Onion articles for being real doesn't mean The Onion is a bad parody. You just have to know that The Onion is a parody site, just like you have to know McSweeny's is a comedy site that publishes incredibly dry humor.
Every satire is not bad-faith "it's satire, bro" right-wing dog whistling, and neither is this piece.
And also... *shrug* I've never had a problem getting McSweeny's jokes. I still love "It's like 1984 but worse — maybe 1985 or even 4000" even though it was initially confusing to some people in that thread. (Internet archive link since the original domain is gone)
posted by AlSweigart at 9:29 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Censorship of literature, even for good intentions, is a terrible thing with dreadful consequences. People can't be trusted with that power. In fact, there are lots of powers people can't be trusted with.
We need to ban people.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:34 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
We need to ban people.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:34 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm really confused by the way that some people are using the word "censorship" in this thread. As far as I'm aware, no one has banned the original versions of Dahl's books, or even proposed doing so.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
I'm uncomfortable with the hubris of editors & publishers who think that they can take a piece of art and "correct" any now-troublesome parts. But I appreciate that sometimes we have to view past works through the lens of our current understanding.
But I'm more annoyed with the sheer laziness of reworking and abusing past works just to make a fast buck. Instead of retooling older works, find and publish NEW contemporary authors.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:40 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
But I'm more annoyed with the sheer laziness of reworking and abusing past works just to make a fast buck. Instead of retooling older works, find and publish NEW contemporary authors.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:40 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
One of the entertaining things about changing Dahl's language is that much of his intent as an author was to be offensive and off-putting. See the description of his adult stories farther up the thread. Meanwhile, the death rate in his children's works are pretty impressive.
posted by Galvanic at 9:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by Galvanic at 9:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
Given that everybody can already see perfectly clearly that the hellscape we're living in is a hellscape, I can't really see the point in jumping up and down and shouting "Hellscape!"
It can be hard when you've got your head in the hell-sands.
posted by aniola at 9:49 AM on March 12, 2023
It can be hard when you've got your head in the hell-sands.
posted by aniola at 9:49 AM on March 12, 2023
Changing a book just because the audience is substantially different from the original one is some totalitarian BS.
And don't get me started on all those so-called "translations" into foreign languages.
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
And don't get me started on all those so-called "translations" into foreign languages.
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
The piece trusts the audience to work out what is going on and pick up the subtext.
Wow, this works for everything!
"Why do you have Tucker Carlson on continuous loop in your living room?" "It's satire! I trust anyone who sees it in MY house will work out what's going on and pick up the subtext."
I'm almost surprised no one has used this as a defense at the Jan 6 trials. "I wasn't really trying to overthrow the government, you just have to look at the subtext." (Hey, at least one defendant is trying to use Tucker's Jan 6 segment to get his charges dismissed, so it's not hard to believe someone would try (has tried?) this angle as well).
posted by gtrwolf at 9:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Wow, this works for everything!
"Why do you have Tucker Carlson on continuous loop in your living room?" "It's satire! I trust anyone who sees it in MY house will work out what's going on and pick up the subtext."
I'm almost surprised no one has used this as a defense at the Jan 6 trials. "I wasn't really trying to overthrow the government, you just have to look at the subtext." (Hey, at least one defendant is trying to use Tucker's Jan 6 segment to get his charges dismissed, so it's not hard to believe someone would try (has tried?) this angle as well).
posted by gtrwolf at 9:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
I didn't think this was good satire. McSweeney's was once funnier to me, but they've fallen pretty far.
Reading Swift's A Modest Proposal: Clearly we should not eat babies. You had me there and I will re-examine my attitudes towards the poor!
Reading this: Well it's very exaggerated so it must be satire. Oh, I see, culture wars and we are making too big a deal of this. But wait ... in the underlying issue, I 100% think that posthumous revision of Dahl's books to suit modern tastes is dumb and sets a bad precedent. So the ranty person here is taking it a bit far, but is correct. So ... satire??? What is the author saying? Is the saying I'm bad for not wanting to see the text changed? I don't get it.
*anyway* ... The Dahl thing is a bit different that Dr. Seuss for me because Seuss is for very little kids (age 3-7 maybe), but Dahl is generally for older kids who should be ready to think critically. I think revising the text is infantilizing, frankly. When my daughter started watching old movies with me at a pretty young age, I would say things like "Just so you know, this has some outdated stereotypes" and she would say, "Obviously. It's from 1947. I can handle it." Would I support editing the old movies to work better for today's audience? No, that seems stupid. Reading/hearing/viewing old things is also a great way to understand how the world has changed, for better or worse.
Or I guess we can go for:
God Save The Queen
She ain't no human being
She's made bad choices but still has growth potential because no one is truly bad
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:00 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
Reading Swift's A Modest Proposal: Clearly we should not eat babies. You had me there and I will re-examine my attitudes towards the poor!
Reading this: Well it's very exaggerated so it must be satire. Oh, I see, culture wars and we are making too big a deal of this. But wait ... in the underlying issue, I 100% think that posthumous revision of Dahl's books to suit modern tastes is dumb and sets a bad precedent. So the ranty person here is taking it a bit far, but is correct. So ... satire??? What is the author saying? Is the saying I'm bad for not wanting to see the text changed? I don't get it.
*anyway* ... The Dahl thing is a bit different that Dr. Seuss for me because Seuss is for very little kids (age 3-7 maybe), but Dahl is generally for older kids who should be ready to think critically. I think revising the text is infantilizing, frankly. When my daughter started watching old movies with me at a pretty young age, I would say things like "Just so you know, this has some outdated stereotypes" and she would say, "Obviously. It's from 1947. I can handle it." Would I support editing the old movies to work better for today's audience? No, that seems stupid. Reading/hearing/viewing old things is also a great way to understand how the world has changed, for better or worse.
Or I guess we can go for:
God Save The Queen
She's made bad choices but still has growth potential because no one is truly bad
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:00 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
For me the right answer would be to put an introduction right at the beginning of the books talking about the context they were written in and highlighting the problematic areas, perhaps with further footnotes in the text itself. I'm not really down with changing the text. Context is great, though, kids are really great understanding context. It's how they learn basically everything.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:02 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:02 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
Also, fat-headed just means stupid. I don't think it has anything to do with being obese.
I mean, this isn't hard: the phrase includes a word often used as a slur against a group of people and is used in a way that directly associates that group with negative trait. Like the POINT is that the phrase implies fat=stupid. Which is a pretty well known stereotype.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:05 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I mean, this isn't hard: the phrase includes a word often used as a slur against a group of people and is used in a way that directly associates that group with negative trait. Like the POINT is that the phrase implies fat=stupid. Which is a pretty well known stereotype.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:05 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Sure, he wrote children’s books. He also wrote dozens of the darkest, most fucked up short stories for adults I remember ever reading.
I can see some parent who's only familiar with Charlie & the Chocolate Factory unwittingly picking up one of Dahl's "adult" stories to read for the kids (not bothering to read the book's blurbs and thinking Dahl="kid's books"), only to discover when s/he got home.....
(Yeah in theory Dahl's "children" and "adult" books should be segregated into their separate sections. But anyone who'd been in a library or bookstore knows this isn't always the case).
posted by gtrwolf at 10:08 AM on March 12, 2023
I can see some parent who's only familiar with Charlie & the Chocolate Factory unwittingly picking up one of Dahl's "adult" stories to read for the kids (not bothering to read the book's blurbs and thinking Dahl="kid's books"), only to discover when s/he got home.....
(Yeah in theory Dahl's "children" and "adult" books should be segregated into their separate sections. But anyone who'd been in a library or bookstore knows this isn't always the case).
posted by gtrwolf at 10:08 AM on March 12, 2023
showbiz_liz makes a great point. Dahl wrote some really creepy, scary horror and horror-adjacent stuff that was certainly not meant for kids at all. I read a collection of his short stories for adults some years ago and absolutely devoured them. For reference—they were similar in content and tone to the darkest of Stephen King short stories.
I think the difference between "now and then" is that everything is expertly categorized and marketed now in ways it was not prior to the 2000s or even the 1990s by a bunch of MBAs who likely don't even read for pleasure. We now have sections of libraries and bookstores (and sales web sites) specifically devoted to age groups. For example, "YA" literature wasn't a thing until the advertising people decided it was. Now it's a colossus of money and marketing, with its own self-imposed limitations on language and content. There's books specifically marketed to narrow age groups now, and that wasn't the case in Dahl's time.
Personally, I don't like the trend of marketing specific language and books to specific ages. But that ship has sailed. Kids should be able to read what they want to read, and that's between the kids, their teachers and their guardians. Does that mean some kids will end up reading some fucked-up, lurid stuff? Sure it does. But that's still the case. Even with "Young Adult" sections in book stores (ugh, that concept makes me retch), curious kids are gonna pick up and read what they want to read—whether or not Random House's marketing department slaps a YA label on the cover.
This entire argument is about Marketing and Sales and Publishing numbers and IP contracts for TV and movies.
posted by SoberHighland at 10:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I think the difference between "now and then" is that everything is expertly categorized and marketed now in ways it was not prior to the 2000s or even the 1990s by a bunch of MBAs who likely don't even read for pleasure. We now have sections of libraries and bookstores (and sales web sites) specifically devoted to age groups. For example, "YA" literature wasn't a thing until the advertising people decided it was. Now it's a colossus of money and marketing, with its own self-imposed limitations on language and content. There's books specifically marketed to narrow age groups now, and that wasn't the case in Dahl's time.
Personally, I don't like the trend of marketing specific language and books to specific ages. But that ship has sailed. Kids should be able to read what they want to read, and that's between the kids, their teachers and their guardians. Does that mean some kids will end up reading some fucked-up, lurid stuff? Sure it does. But that's still the case. Even with "Young Adult" sections in book stores (ugh, that concept makes me retch), curious kids are gonna pick up and read what they want to read—whether or not Random House's marketing department slaps a YA label on the cover.
This entire argument is about Marketing and Sales and Publishing numbers and IP contracts for TV and movies.
posted by SoberHighland at 10:10 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
do we know whether the publishers intend to make it clear up front that "some changes have been made to the original text" (etc)? If so, that would change things somewhat for me.
I do find myself rather aligned with phanx on this issue:
I’m hopelessly multi-handed about all this.
For instance, I recall some years ago reading Dahl's sequel to Willie Wonka to my then five or six year old nephew. Starting to anyway. Because I got to maybe page three and suddenly I was encountering completely unnecessary (and yes racist) caricatures. And so I put the book down and picked up something else.
is this censorship? I think so. And I'd do it again today. So obviously, I'm okay with some censorship.
posted by philip-random at 10:14 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
I do find myself rather aligned with phanx on this issue:
I’m hopelessly multi-handed about all this.
For instance, I recall some years ago reading Dahl's sequel to Willie Wonka to my then five or six year old nephew. Starting to anyway. Because I got to maybe page three and suddenly I was encountering completely unnecessary (and yes racist) caricatures. And so I put the book down and picked up something else.
is this censorship? I think so. And I'd do it again today. So obviously, I'm okay with some censorship.
posted by philip-random at 10:14 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
God Save The Queen
She ain't no human being
She's made bad choices but still has growth potential because no one is truly bad
Except that doesn't really work, because as things stand in 2023 the Queen that the song was written about in fact has no growth potential and ain't no human being. Bereft of life, she rests in peace etc.
posted by flabdablet at 10:16 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
She's made bad choices but still has growth potential because no one is truly bad
Except that doesn't really work, because as things stand in 2023 the Queen that the song was written about in fact has no growth potential and ain't no human being. Bereft of life, she rests in peace etc.
posted by flabdablet at 10:16 AM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
My best friend in 4th grade had read a bunch of Dahl's short stories for adults because her mom got them for her thinking they were for kids. It's a thing that happens, for sure.
I couldn't tell if the linked article was satire either. If it was intended that way it did not do a good job. And if it was intended to be read straight it was not compelling. Either way I'm unclear why McSweeney's published it.
Honestly, reading it just made me profoundly tired. It feels like The Discourse, about everything, has just gotten really, really stupid in the last few years. Argumentation that wouldn't have gotten me a B- in high school is all over the opinion pages and venues that used to have at least a general reputation for standards of some kind just throw up a profanity-laced, incoherent rant and call it an article. Am I just getting old and grouch about how The Kids are expressing themselves?? I feel like Andy Rooney even expressing this opinion.
posted by potrzebie at 10:24 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I couldn't tell if the linked article was satire either. If it was intended that way it did not do a good job. And if it was intended to be read straight it was not compelling. Either way I'm unclear why McSweeney's published it.
Honestly, reading it just made me profoundly tired. It feels like The Discourse, about everything, has just gotten really, really stupid in the last few years. Argumentation that wouldn't have gotten me a B- in high school is all over the opinion pages and venues that used to have at least a general reputation for standards of some kind just throw up a profanity-laced, incoherent rant and call it an article. Am I just getting old and grouch about how The Kids are expressing themselves?? I feel like Andy Rooney even expressing this opinion.
posted by potrzebie at 10:24 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
If another humor site posted this piece with a tagline like "Best of McSweeney's 2023" that would be decent satire.
posted by snofoam at 10:27 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:27 AM on March 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
1. I look back on my naivete as a kid and cringe. That may be sign that I've matured, maybe progressed, maybe learned something, maybe gained a use bit of perspective. It keeps me humble to think that I've not arrived, but I'm on a continuum of some sort, and I'll probably never get there, wherever there is.
2. I distinguish between systemic racism and personal folly. One is curable via rules and regulation, while the other is more reasonably addressed one generation at a time, by parent's (see 1.) who try to teach their children about their own youthful folly. Inertia makes this a problem. Parents will infect their children using jokes and stories and even atrocious conduct, so kids have to go to outside influence, peers, schools, books, to develop a different paradigm. This is difficult because only a few humans ever have the will to develop their own paradigms, and they are usually lonely people who get cast out of their peer group.
3. The signal scene in 1984 is when Winston sincerely repents, and professes his love for Big Brother, and kisses the ring before he kneels for the bullet to the back of his head.
4. What could possibly be wrong with having an underpaid and undertrained sensitivity reader Bowdlerized a book? Follow-up question: What's wrong with a university clipping their teaching program before the censors even have a chance to review their curricula?
5. Full disclosure: I hope the following juxtapositions makes sense to other people: I was probably in high-school when I found out a) girls can fart, too. And b) not all girls can sing. So then, why is it wrong to read Huck Finn before the censors have a chance to remove certain words that are now recognized as being offensive?
6. Have we learned nothing?: they have come for the teachers and librarians. Who's next?
7. The OP brought us a great rant. I like a good rant, but I will read a good argument with a different eye. (I have not read any Willie Wonka, so there's that, but) I grew up on Phillip K. Dick's semi-prescient paranoia, and I have been infected with latent paranoid underpinnings ever since.
8. Finally. This thread comes after the ChatGPT discussion on the Gray. Nice going, MeFites, I'll sleep a lot better tonight.
posted by mule98J at 10:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
2. I distinguish between systemic racism and personal folly. One is curable via rules and regulation, while the other is more reasonably addressed one generation at a time, by parent's (see 1.) who try to teach their children about their own youthful folly. Inertia makes this a problem. Parents will infect their children using jokes and stories and even atrocious conduct, so kids have to go to outside influence, peers, schools, books, to develop a different paradigm. This is difficult because only a few humans ever have the will to develop their own paradigms, and they are usually lonely people who get cast out of their peer group.
3. The signal scene in 1984 is when Winston sincerely repents, and professes his love for Big Brother, and kisses the ring before he kneels for the bullet to the back of his head.
4. What could possibly be wrong with having an underpaid and undertrained sensitivity reader Bowdlerized a book? Follow-up question: What's wrong with a university clipping their teaching program before the censors even have a chance to review their curricula?
5. Full disclosure: I hope the following juxtapositions makes sense to other people: I was probably in high-school when I found out a) girls can fart, too. And b) not all girls can sing. So then, why is it wrong to read Huck Finn before the censors have a chance to remove certain words that are now recognized as being offensive?
6. Have we learned nothing?: they have come for the teachers and librarians. Who's next?
7. The OP brought us a great rant. I like a good rant, but I will read a good argument with a different eye. (I have not read any Willie Wonka, so there's that, but) I grew up on Phillip K. Dick's semi-prescient paranoia, and I have been infected with latent paranoid underpinnings ever since.
8. Finally. This thread comes after the ChatGPT discussion on the Gray. Nice going, MeFites, I'll sleep a lot better tonight.
posted by mule98J at 10:32 AM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
WTF, I love McSweeney's now! I'm especially glad they took the censors to task for the changing of "cashier" which is basically saying working class women aren't good enough or failures at living up to their potential as women. Fuck that sky high.
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:34 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:34 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Am I just getting old and grouch about how The Kids are expressing themselves?? I feel like Andy Rooney even expressing this opinion.
Lemme come over to yours and we'll commiserate over a Brawndo. It's got the electrolytes that grouches crave!
posted by flabdablet at 10:35 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Lemme come over to yours and we'll commiserate over a Brawndo. It's got the electrolytes that grouches crave!
posted by flabdablet at 10:35 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
When my daughter started watching old movies with me at a pretty young age, I would say things like "Just so you know, this has some outdated stereotypes" and she would say, "Obviously. It's from 1947. I can handle it."
Not that I disagree with you or am arguing for changing the books, but I think that hateful stereotypes and language feel more oppressive the more inescapable they are. That is, the more widely beloved and widely read/watched, the more they feel like something we have not in fact moved past.
Another way of putting it is that things don't pass out of the cultural milieu when they age, but when people stop reading or watching or listening them. It's definitely easier to compartmentalize when you've grown up in a supportive environment and understand how the world has changed, but it's still impossible to escape the knowledge: This author hated me and their hate is still part of my cultural landscape.
Of course, many kids don't have that supportive environment. A lot of the "outdated" hateful stereotypes and language are still perpetuated by vast swathes of people.
(There's also the fact that the more beloved a work is, the more less critical or emotionally intelligent readers feel compelled to defend the bad parts as not that bad.)
Sometimes I try to imagine what it would have been like to be a straight white boy when I got into classic SFF, and not having to constantly compartmentalize or reckon with the way these authors felt about women and queer people. And sometimes I try to imagine what it would have been like to be a kid who isn't white, or isn't thin, or is Jewish, and so on, and to have had to compartmentalize/reckon with even more.
I don't think that there is an obvious solution to this at all, and I hesitate to even post this comment because my experience of MetaFilter lately has been of hostility to nuance when it comes to hot-button topics. But maybe if I ask people to please be kind and not take this an argument for something they disagree with, I will not be immediately attacked as pro-censorship or whatever.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
Not that I disagree with you or am arguing for changing the books, but I think that hateful stereotypes and language feel more oppressive the more inescapable they are. That is, the more widely beloved and widely read/watched, the more they feel like something we have not in fact moved past.
Another way of putting it is that things don't pass out of the cultural milieu when they age, but when people stop reading or watching or listening them. It's definitely easier to compartmentalize when you've grown up in a supportive environment and understand how the world has changed, but it's still impossible to escape the knowledge: This author hated me and their hate is still part of my cultural landscape.
Of course, many kids don't have that supportive environment. A lot of the "outdated" hateful stereotypes and language are still perpetuated by vast swathes of people.
(There's also the fact that the more beloved a work is, the more less critical or emotionally intelligent readers feel compelled to defend the bad parts as not that bad.)
Sometimes I try to imagine what it would have been like to be a straight white boy when I got into classic SFF, and not having to constantly compartmentalize or reckon with the way these authors felt about women and queer people. And sometimes I try to imagine what it would have been like to be a kid who isn't white, or isn't thin, or is Jewish, and so on, and to have had to compartmentalize/reckon with even more.
I don't think that there is an obvious solution to this at all, and I hesitate to even post this comment because my experience of MetaFilter lately has been of hostility to nuance when it comes to hot-button topics. But maybe if I ask people to please be kind and not take this an argument for something they disagree with, I will not be immediately attacked as pro-censorship or whatever.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
The satire in this piece is subtle, but it's not ambiguous.
A lot of people aren't picking up on it (and, again, it very much is there to be picked up) and concluding the piece is bad, the author's other piece is bad, McSweeny's is bad or at least not as good as it used to be, and a whole lot of making sure everyone knows they find this yum to be yuck.
I don't have anything more to add to this thread. I'll step away.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
A lot of people aren't picking up on it (and, again, it very much is there to be picked up) and concluding the piece is bad, the author's other piece is bad, McSweeny's is bad or at least not as good as it used to be, and a whole lot of making sure everyone knows they find this yum to be yuck.
I don't have anything more to add to this thread. I'll step away.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:39 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Isn't that, like, exactly the failure mode of satire? "It's not bad, you just don't get it" is not a very interesting defense.
posted by sagc at 10:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by sagc at 10:41 AM on March 12, 2023 [16 favorites]
Yeah, I guess my tolerance for Totally Ironic Racism is a little lower now than it was a few decades ago, for some reason.
On the "fat-headed" discussion, it's perhaps worth noting that "stupid" is used frequently, including in this particular way, as a slur against intellectually disabled people, as if intellectual ability had any bearing on human merit. (In fact, I had to self-censor a previous comment to avoid engaging in precisely this usage. Old habits die hard.)
But ableism against ID people is definitely something MeFi has not yet matured enough to handle, so I guess I'll just leave that there.
posted by Not A Thing at 10:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
On the "fat-headed" discussion, it's perhaps worth noting that "stupid" is used frequently, including in this particular way, as a slur against intellectually disabled people, as if intellectual ability had any bearing on human merit. (In fact, I had to self-censor a previous comment to avoid engaging in precisely this usage. Old habits die hard.)
But ableism against ID people is definitely something MeFi has not yet matured enough to handle, so I guess I'll just leave that there.
posted by Not A Thing at 10:48 AM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Whether the article is satire or not, preferring the version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where it says "enormously fat" instead of "pleasantly plump" isn't a deep cultural sin that requires correction. Dahl was a mean writer, that's why children love him (and grown ups dread reading him aloud).
To reference another children's story, there's always a Princess and the Pea tone to these conversations--a sort of awe that one's ancestors and less-educated peers could possibly be so uncouth as to use certain terms and a certainty that we're at the exact pinnacle of linguistic refinement right now. Then things change and whoever was using the "correct" terms becomes "kids these days!"
posted by kingdead at 10:54 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
To reference another children's story, there's always a Princess and the Pea tone to these conversations--a sort of awe that one's ancestors and less-educated peers could possibly be so uncouth as to use certain terms and a certainty that we're at the exact pinnacle of linguistic refinement right now. Then things change and whoever was using the "correct" terms becomes "kids these days!"
posted by kingdead at 10:54 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I have no strong opinion about the choice the publisher made here, but I sure do have thoughts.
I bet parents who read this website have had this experience a lot, of revisiting books that we remember fondly, and finding that they have been defaced with hateful ideas while we had our backs turned for thirty years. This experience is so salutary because it reminds me that my memory is fallible, that I will die, that my bad ideas will die, that even immovable things will change, and that all of that is probably for the best.
In my music major days twenty+ years ago, I remember having an interesting conversation with someone about so-called early music. They pointed out that no matter what you do with intonation or instrument construction, you can't ever perfectly recreate a four hundred year old experience. The meaning of your choices has changed, because the cultural context of your performance has changed. It is analogous to the difficulties that translators face. We can't read Dahl exactly as he was written for the same reason that I am puzzled when I return to his books and find them already defaced. His cultural context is dead.
posted by eirias at 10:55 AM on March 12, 2023 [15 favorites]
I bet parents who read this website have had this experience a lot, of revisiting books that we remember fondly, and finding that they have been defaced with hateful ideas while we had our backs turned for thirty years. This experience is so salutary because it reminds me that my memory is fallible, that I will die, that my bad ideas will die, that even immovable things will change, and that all of that is probably for the best.
In my music major days twenty+ years ago, I remember having an interesting conversation with someone about so-called early music. They pointed out that no matter what you do with intonation or instrument construction, you can't ever perfectly recreate a four hundred year old experience. The meaning of your choices has changed, because the cultural context of your performance has changed. It is analogous to the difficulties that translators face. We can't read Dahl exactly as he was written for the same reason that I am puzzled when I return to his books and find them already defaced. His cultural context is dead.
posted by eirias at 10:55 AM on March 12, 2023 [15 favorites]
Yes, the failure mode for satire is the people you're attempting to mock thinking that you're endorsing them. Which is why satire is not a useful tool unless you can control your audience.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:55 AM on March 12, 2023
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:55 AM on March 12, 2023
The media world of 2023 is very polarized. McSweeney's is a left/liberal satire site. When they post an apparently straight article espousing a position associated with right wing culture wars, either they've switched political positions and decided to stop doing satire... or it's satire.
It's disturbing to me that the point of view that censorship is wrong and people can be taught (if children) or trusted (if adults) to handle and think critically about unadulterated literature is now considered somehow "right wing" and laughably tedious.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:01 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
It's disturbing to me that the point of view that censorship is wrong and people can be taught (if children) or trusted (if adults) to handle and think critically about unadulterated literature is now considered somehow "right wing" and laughably tedious.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:01 AM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
"It's not bad, you just don't get it" is not a very interesting defense.
QFT. It's a bad artist who blames the audience when their art falls flat.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 11:01 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
QFT. It's a bad artist who blames the audience when their art falls flat.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 11:01 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
I don't like it therefore no one else may have it?
Ah, the tedious bad faith argument of reducing discussions of bigotry and hate in media down to "dislike". I have pretty much lost my patience with this as it is an attempt to dodge the actual questions being raised.
Whether the article is satire or not, preferring the version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where it says "enormously fat" instead of "pleasantly plump" isn't a deep cultural sin that requires correction.
Tell me you don't have to deal with our culture's bigotry towards larger people without telling me. Because as someone who has (and still does) struggle with his weight and how people respond to it, I can tell you that it is real, and has material impact on my life (and frankly, what I deal with is mild compared to what women and minorities who are also larger deal with.)
To reference another children's story, there's always a Princess and the Pea tone to these conversations--a sort of awe that one's ancestors and less-educated peers could possibly be so uncouth as to use certain terms and a certainty that we're at the exact pinnacle of linguistic refinement right now. Then things change and whoever was using the "correct" terms becomes "kids these days!"
I seriously doubt you would make this argument about racial slurs - which demonstrates why the argument fails.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
Ah, the tedious bad faith argument of reducing discussions of bigotry and hate in media down to "dislike". I have pretty much lost my patience with this as it is an attempt to dodge the actual questions being raised.
Whether the article is satire or not, preferring the version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where it says "enormously fat" instead of "pleasantly plump" isn't a deep cultural sin that requires correction.
Tell me you don't have to deal with our culture's bigotry towards larger people without telling me. Because as someone who has (and still does) struggle with his weight and how people respond to it, I can tell you that it is real, and has material impact on my life (and frankly, what I deal with is mild compared to what women and minorities who are also larger deal with.)
To reference another children's story, there's always a Princess and the Pea tone to these conversations--a sort of awe that one's ancestors and less-educated peers could possibly be so uncouth as to use certain terms and a certainty that we're at the exact pinnacle of linguistic refinement right now. Then things change and whoever was using the "correct" terms becomes "kids these days!"
I seriously doubt you would make this argument about racial slurs - which demonstrates why the argument fails.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
Guys, look. It's a dumb, reductive argument that eschews nuance, and the point of every third word being "fuck" is that this is how dumb people think about issues related to censorship. It's supposed to be juvenile, but also to think it's profound. That's the joke. If this appeared in the New York Times, it would be obvious it's not a joke; then it would simply be a stupid opinion. Because it appears on a comedy website, it's obvious that this piece is meant in jest.
What's the joke? Is it that people who are against the "censorship" of Roald Dahl's work may in fact be morons who have no real idea what they're talking about and are responding reflexively to anything that smacks of censorship, as they grasp the concept in their limitedYeah. Yes. That's the joke. I say this with every certainty. There is no question in my mind. If you're not sure, please listen to me, because I am right. I'm not a smart person, but I am right, in this case. These are comedy jokes. That's what appears on the comedy joke website, just as weather reports appear on the weather report website. Just because the weather reports are sometimes wrong does not make them sports reports, and just because a joke is not funny doesn't mean it's not a joke. You don't have to think this article is funny in order to not take this article seriously. I don't think it's funny, as I often do not think McSweeney's is funny, but I do know it is supposed to be funny.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
What's the joke? Is it that people who are against the "censorship" of Roald Dahl's work may in fact be morons who have no real idea what they're talking about and are responding reflexively to anything that smacks of censorship, as they grasp the concept in their limitedYeah. Yes. That's the joke. I say this with every certainty. There is no question in my mind. If you're not sure, please listen to me, because I am right. I'm not a smart person, but I am right, in this case. These are comedy jokes. That's what appears on the comedy joke website, just as weather reports appear on the weather report website. Just because the weather reports are sometimes wrong does not make them sports reports, and just because a joke is not funny doesn't mean it's not a joke. You don't have to think this article is funny in order to not take this article seriously. I don't think it's funny, as I often do not think McSweeney's is funny, but I do know it is supposed to be funny.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
Like for all jokes, having it explained afterwards makes it funnier.
posted by flabdablet at 11:33 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:33 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
Oh, man. This is a funny thread.
But anyway, if you are sincerely concerned about bowdlerized Dahl, take heart! In the distant future of 2060 or whenever the Dahl books fall out of copyright, it will be the unbowdlerized versions in the public domain. This all but guarantees that future generations will see the original versions as definitive, if they still read Dahl at all.
posted by surlyben at 11:34 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
But anyway, if you are sincerely concerned about bowdlerized Dahl, take heart! In the distant future of 2060 or whenever the Dahl books fall out of copyright, it will be the unbowdlerized versions in the public domain. This all but guarantees that future generations will see the original versions as definitive, if they still read Dahl at all.
posted by surlyben at 11:34 AM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
I enjoyed reading the Dahl books to my kids right up until I didn't any more. I didn't know about his personal life or views, and the meanness of the tone and characters was TBH kind of refreshing after the pabulum that you end up with in so many kids' books.
The first speed bump was the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It is just garbage. Seems like it was phoned in to meet a contractual deadline with no concern at all for making it a good book. I have no idea if that's really the case but it is just so bad it made me mad. That's not enough to write off Dahl but it definitely took the shine off.
Then I got to The Witches. This book is genuinely scary to a lot of kids and for good reason. That was fun. But I live in New York City and it wasn't long before I noticed that all the traits of "witches" are basically describing stereotypes of Jews, specifically Orthodox Jewish women.
I don't actually know if in Dahl's time these specific stereotypes (wig wearing, clunky shoes, killing little Christian children, secret society to try to take over the world) were all active, but it was enough to make me google "Roald Dahl antisemite" and go from there.
At this point I really think the best thing would be to just stop publishing the books. No need to edit them, that is just more rent-seeking by his estate. It's NOT censorship, because Dahl's expressed will is for whoever is making these decisions now to make exactly those kinds of decisions about his literary estate. But IMO such a terrible person really doesn't need a second act long after his death. Just let it go and let the books fall out of print.
posted by bgribble at 11:44 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
The first speed bump was the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It is just garbage. Seems like it was phoned in to meet a contractual deadline with no concern at all for making it a good book. I have no idea if that's really the case but it is just so bad it made me mad. That's not enough to write off Dahl but it definitely took the shine off.
Then I got to The Witches. This book is genuinely scary to a lot of kids and for good reason. That was fun. But I live in New York City and it wasn't long before I noticed that all the traits of "witches" are basically describing stereotypes of Jews, specifically Orthodox Jewish women.
I don't actually know if in Dahl's time these specific stereotypes (wig wearing, clunky shoes, killing little Christian children, secret society to try to take over the world) were all active, but it was enough to make me google "Roald Dahl antisemite" and go from there.
At this point I really think the best thing would be to just stop publishing the books. No need to edit them, that is just more rent-seeking by his estate. It's NOT censorship, because Dahl's expressed will is for whoever is making these decisions now to make exactly those kinds of decisions about his literary estate. But IMO such a terrible person really doesn't need a second act long after his death. Just let it go and let the books fall out of print.
posted by bgribble at 11:44 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
It's disturbing to me that the point of view that censorship is wrong and people can be taught (if children) or trusted (if adults) to handle and think critically about unadulterated literature is now considered somehow "right wing" and laughably tedious.
(Almost) Everyone believes that there are things that shouldn't be published and presented to children. The thing that makes this a right-wing issue and laughably tedious is that THIS is what's considered worth getting upset about, instead of say the actual censorship and book-banning that is going on in libraries and schools around the nation.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:46 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
(Almost) Everyone believes that there are things that shouldn't be published and presented to children. The thing that makes this a right-wing issue and laughably tedious is that THIS is what's considered worth getting upset about, instead of say the actual censorship and book-banning that is going on in libraries and schools around the nation.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:46 AM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
It's a bad artist who blames the audience when their art falls flat.
sometimes. But the flipside is also true: the audience that takes it personally when a joke eludes their grasp. My older brother comes to mind. He hated Monty Python as a teen because he hated to be that guy in a room that wasn't getting the joke. Later, something connected and he came around.
Was Stravinksy a bad artist in 1913 when Rite of Spring premiered?
posted by philip-random at 11:51 AM on March 12, 2023
sometimes. But the flipside is also true: the audience that takes it personally when a joke eludes their grasp. My older brother comes to mind. He hated Monty Python as a teen because he hated to be that guy in a room that wasn't getting the joke. Later, something connected and he came around.
Was Stravinksy a bad artist in 1913 when Rite of Spring premiered?
posted by philip-random at 11:51 AM on March 12, 2023
Come to think of it, there is a distinct whiff of FUCK YOU, YOU FAT-HEADED ROALD DAHL-CENSORING FUCKERS about The Rite of Spring.
/me beats rhythmically on philip-random's head with my fists
posted by flabdablet at 11:55 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
/me beats rhythmically on philip-random's head with my fists
posted by flabdablet at 11:55 AM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
... The thing that makes this a right-wing issue and laughably tedious is that THIS is what's considered worth getting upset about, instead of say the actual censorship and book-banning that is going on in libraries and schools around the nation.
The right wing loves it because it allows them to pretend to be on the side of intellectual freedom while standing up for fat jokes, racism, and other hateful things instead of for minorities. That's why "freeze peach" has become such a well-known bad faith argument.
The libertarian and right-wing idea of free speech is defined by main force -- you can say anything you like and repress anything you don't want your family or servants to read, so long as you have the power to do it. If you have the power, it must be good that you have the power, and therefore your standards are standard.
[Ed.: changed "force majeure" to "main force," wrong usage I think]
posted by Countess Elena at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
The right wing loves it because it allows them to pretend to be on the side of intellectual freedom while standing up for fat jokes, racism, and other hateful things instead of for minorities. That's why "freeze peach" has become such a well-known bad faith argument.
The libertarian and right-wing idea of free speech is defined by main force -- you can say anything you like and repress anything you don't want your family or servants to read, so long as you have the power to do it. If you have the power, it must be good that you have the power, and therefore your standards are standard.
[Ed.: changed "force majeure" to "main force," wrong usage I think]
posted by Countess Elena at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
I also once helped run a high school literary magazine. I did not imagine it was a viable career.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:06 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:06 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Is it that people who are against the "censorship" of Roald Dahl's work may in fact be morons who have no real idea what they're talking about and are responding reflexively to anything that smacks of censorship, as they grasp the concept in their limitedYeah.
If you don't agree with me, you're stupid. Lovely. MetaFilter doesn't do certain topics well because people here are incapable of civil disagreement. The jury's still out on whether the article was meant as satire (thanks, snofoam, for attempting to find out). Yes, McSweeney's is generally a satire site, but it's a pretty lame one, and as more than one person has mentioned, it's not all satire all the time. And the site is a sister site to the Believer and thus it wouldn't be outside the realm of probability that it might publish a strong opinion on a literary matter. Whatever you think of the style or tone, it makes some cogent points. I don't think people who aren't 100% sure this is satire are dumb.
And Gygesringtone, just because it's done by a different method, doesn't make it not censorship. Are we okay with covering up offensive sections of visual artwork? Sure, there are things that shouldn't be presented to children, but apart from things that where the very presentation of such would be abuse in and of itself (such as pornography, images of extreme violence) that's generally up to the child's caretaker to decide. I was one of those kid's who was given an adult book of short stories by Roald Dahl by an unwitting (or perhaps not) adult at the age 9. I read it yet I was not irreparably damaged by the experience or damaged at all that I can tell. Despite having very strict parents, the one thing they allowed me was free reign at the library as a kid and that freedom was without a doubt one of the greatest gifts anyone has ever given me.
posted by Jess the Mess at 12:06 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
If you don't agree with me, you're stupid. Lovely. MetaFilter doesn't do certain topics well because people here are incapable of civil disagreement. The jury's still out on whether the article was meant as satire (thanks, snofoam, for attempting to find out). Yes, McSweeney's is generally a satire site, but it's a pretty lame one, and as more than one person has mentioned, it's not all satire all the time. And the site is a sister site to the Believer and thus it wouldn't be outside the realm of probability that it might publish a strong opinion on a literary matter. Whatever you think of the style or tone, it makes some cogent points. I don't think people who aren't 100% sure this is satire are dumb.
And Gygesringtone, just because it's done by a different method, doesn't make it not censorship. Are we okay with covering up offensive sections of visual artwork? Sure, there are things that shouldn't be presented to children, but apart from things that where the very presentation of such would be abuse in and of itself (such as pornography, images of extreme violence) that's generally up to the child's caretaker to decide. I was one of those kid's who was given an adult book of short stories by Roald Dahl by an unwitting (or perhaps not) adult at the age 9. I read it yet I was not irreparably damaged by the experience or damaged at all that I can tell. Despite having very strict parents, the one thing they allowed me was free reign at the library as a kid and that freedom was without a doubt one of the greatest gifts anyone has ever given me.
posted by Jess the Mess at 12:06 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
The jury's still out on whether the article was meant as satire (thanks, snofoam, for attempting to find out).
I for one eagerly await their reply.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2023
I for one eagerly await their reply.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2023
As do I.
posted by Jess the Mess at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2023
posted by Jess the Mess at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2023
(Also for anyone else prone to getting the wires crossed, The Believer is the one with the woodcut style covers; and The Baffler is the one on culture and politics edited by Thomas Frank.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:11 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:11 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
How will we find out whether the reply is satirical?
posted by flabdablet at 12:11 PM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 12:11 PM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
Part of it is that you have to trust McSweeny's to not publish something this unpolished for its face value.
That's the joke. If this appeared in the New York Times, it would be obvious it's not a joke; then it would simply be a stupid opinion. Because it appears on a comedy website, it's obvious that this piece is meant in jest.
Right. For me this is the reason it falls completely flat, like the satire in the movie Starship Troopers. The whole joke is "it's actually fascism, a fascist could have made this." When it's word-for-word, or shot-for-shot, what a fascist or anti-woke person would do, and you can only tell it's a joke by external signifiers that the artist secretly agrees with you, I don't get the point. I feel like satire isn't biting or funny unless the subjects are going to feel embarrassed to be associated with some core part of how they're being depicted.
But lots of people love the movie and think it's funny! I'm a bit of an outlier.
So I guess I'm saying I think it's fine and humor is subjective and people shouldn't get worked up about it just because it's not their thing. Or that or everyone should view this as a learning opportunity and finally realize that Paul Verhoeven is objectively unfunny. Either one is a good outcome IMO.
posted by mark k at 12:38 PM on March 12, 2023
That's the joke. If this appeared in the New York Times, it would be obvious it's not a joke; then it would simply be a stupid opinion. Because it appears on a comedy website, it's obvious that this piece is meant in jest.
Right. For me this is the reason it falls completely flat, like the satire in the movie Starship Troopers. The whole joke is "it's actually fascism, a fascist could have made this." When it's word-for-word, or shot-for-shot, what a fascist or anti-woke person would do, and you can only tell it's a joke by external signifiers that the artist secretly agrees with you, I don't get the point. I feel like satire isn't biting or funny unless the subjects are going to feel embarrassed to be associated with some core part of how they're being depicted.
But lots of people love the movie and think it's funny! I'm a bit of an outlier.
So I guess I'm saying I think it's fine and humor is subjective and people shouldn't get worked up about it just because it's not their thing. Or that or everyone should view this as a learning opportunity and finally realize that Paul Verhoeven is objectively unfunny. Either one is a good outcome IMO.
posted by mark k at 12:38 PM on March 12, 2023
And Gygesringtone, just because it's done by a different method, doesn't make it not censorship.
I mean, look, I don't actually care if this is censorship or not. Sorry, but I refuse to participate in some game of "gotcha!" when I freely admit: there are things I think children should not be exposed to, but there are other things I'm fine with them being exposed to. I really have better things to care about then if not including the fat jokes some dead guy made fundamentally changes the work or not. I get that you, as an individual, care about the abstract concept in a way that I don't. That's probably a good thing that there are people out there like you.
What I VERY MUCH care about is the motivation of the people who are fanning the flames of this debate. Because, while you may be engaging in this conversation in good faith, there's every reason to believe that those working the bellows are not. The truth of the matter is, when something burns there's no way of telling which particular flame consumed it. When this debate ends up burning real people, or uses up fuel that could have been spent fighting other censorship with a much more harmful effect, that's partially on people who didn't stop to consider why all of the sudden THIS set of fat jokes was worth caring about.
posted by Gygesringtone at 12:46 PM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
I mean, look, I don't actually care if this is censorship or not. Sorry, but I refuse to participate in some game of "gotcha!" when I freely admit: there are things I think children should not be exposed to, but there are other things I'm fine with them being exposed to. I really have better things to care about then if not including the fat jokes some dead guy made fundamentally changes the work or not. I get that you, as an individual, care about the abstract concept in a way that I don't. That's probably a good thing that there are people out there like you.
What I VERY MUCH care about is the motivation of the people who are fanning the flames of this debate. Because, while you may be engaging in this conversation in good faith, there's every reason to believe that those working the bellows are not. The truth of the matter is, when something burns there's no way of telling which particular flame consumed it. When this debate ends up burning real people, or uses up fuel that could have been spent fighting other censorship with a much more harmful effect, that's partially on people who didn't stop to consider why all of the sudden THIS set of fat jokes was worth caring about.
posted by Gygesringtone at 12:46 PM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
Fun fact: Roald Dahl hosted a Twilight Zone-style anthology sci-fi/horror series called 'Way Out, several episodes of which are available on Youtube. And he pronounced his name Ru-ald!
posted by goatdog at 12:51 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by goatdog at 12:51 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don't think this is satire, I don't think it's mimicking a right-wing viewpoint (it uses none of the signifiers employed by the right-wing "anti-woke" crowd, and in fact calls right-wingers "assholes" and "fascist fuckwads"), and y'all are weirding me out a bit, honestly.
posted by kyrademon at 1:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 1:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
view this as a learning opportunity and finally realize that Paul Verhoeven is objectively unfunny.
You have twenty seconds to comply.
posted by flabdablet at 1:02 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
You have twenty seconds to comply.
posted by flabdablet at 1:02 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
For those who find it all Orwellian: read a goddamn other book sometime, eh?
posted by MartinWisse at 1:03 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by MartinWisse at 1:03 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
This is kind off to one side, but I think Starship Troopers is terrific, and it was always quite clear to me what it was. It was also clear to a friend's dad, a very conservative man who loved the Heinlein book and knew, watching the film, that he was being fucked with. Of course, he would about be 80 now if he were still alive, and I guess it's possible that the ability to detect sarcasm is fading in successive generations.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
The odd thing is that they ran an actually funny Dahl piece a few days before this: Don’t Worry, We Didn’t Remove the Part Where James Has Sex With the Giant Peach
posted by staggernation at 1:05 PM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by staggernation at 1:05 PM on March 12, 2023 [12 favorites]
A bunch of people I normally agree with are saying this is a parody, but I’m not seeing it.
Great writing is not incompatible with censorship. Censorship in Shakespeare's England was heavy-handed indeed:
Great writing is not incompatible with censorship. Censorship in Shakespeare's England was heavy-handed indeed:
Elizabeth's court were displeased by the publication. Circulation of this pamphlet was prohibited, and Stubbs, his printer, and publisher were tried at Westminster, found guilty of "seditious writing", and sentenced to have their right hands cut off by means of a cleaver driven through the wrist by a mallet. Initially Queen Elizabeth had favoured the death penalty but was persuaded by adviser John Jovey to opt for the lesser sentence. The printer was subsequently pardoned by Elizabeth, but in the case of Stubbs and his publisher the sentence was carried out, and Stubbs' right hand was cut off on 3 November 1579. At the time Stubbs protested his loyalty to the Crown, and immediately before the public dismemberment delivered a shocking pun: "Pray for me now my calamity is at hand."[3] His right hand having been cut off, he removed his hat with his left hand and cried "God Save the Queen!" before fainting.[3]posted by jamjam at 1:06 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
And Gygesringtone, just because it's done by a different method, doesn't make it not censorship
How can it be censorship when the editing of Dahl's work has been persistent and ongoing, with his consent, since he was alive? Odds are none of the people outraged about it ever read an UnCenSoReD version of his books in the first place.
Worse, Penguin is publishing the OrIgInAl VeRsIoN as well, so all of this was just a dumb publicity stunt that let itself be deliberately hijacked by the rightwing culture warriors and if you genuinely think this is a censorship issue, you're the useful idiot.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:08 PM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
How can it be censorship when the editing of Dahl's work has been persistent and ongoing, with his consent, since he was alive? Odds are none of the people outraged about it ever read an UnCenSoReD version of his books in the first place.
Worse, Penguin is publishing the OrIgInAl VeRsIoN as well, so all of this was just a dumb publicity stunt that let itself be deliberately hijacked by the rightwing culture warriors and if you genuinely think this is a censorship issue, you're the useful idiot.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:08 PM on March 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
If you don't mind another non-Dahl/censorship comment, here ya go.
McSweeney's: After twenty years of repeating "fuck" dozens of times in one piece of alleged humor and possible satire, it is no longer funny.
posted by kozad at 1:08 PM on March 12, 2023
McSweeney's: After twenty years of repeating "fuck" dozens of times in one piece of alleged humor and possible satire, it is no longer funny.
posted by kozad at 1:08 PM on March 12, 2023
It's not just a set of "fat jokes" though - it's a pretty wide-ranging working over of his books. Like the "cashier" bit I pointed out above. There's nothing harmful or offensive about a woman being a cashier, though it might not be the feminist ideal. I think people care so much about this all of a sudden because it opens the door to any book being reworked into meaninglessness. And I don't think censorship needs to be approved or disapproved of case by case based on the assumed politics of the people eager to censor it. It's one of those of things it's easier and better to have a flat policy on with a limited number of exceptions (such as for pornography, etc).
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:10 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:10 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Look we update stuff. The baby sitters club had walkmans changed to iPods after the Walkman was dated.
I literally just finished reading Charlie with my kid and the slathering disgusted tone of describing fatness was uncomfortable to read out loud and I’m behind the changes 100%. It’s ok that Augustus was fat. But the way it was described just seethed with hate… yuk.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:20 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I literally just finished reading Charlie with my kid and the slathering disgusted tone of describing fatness was uncomfortable to read out loud and I’m behind the changes 100%. It’s ok that Augustus was fat. But the way it was described just seethed with hate… yuk.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:20 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
> "How can it be censorship when the editing of Dahl's work has been persistent and ongoing, with his consent, since he was alive?"
Because he's dead now and can't agree.
> "Worse, Penguin is publishing the OrIgInAl VeRsIoN as well"
After their actions provoked so much outrage that they began to worry about the backlash.
> "all of this was just a dumb publicity stunt that let itself be deliberately hijacked by the rightwing culture warriors"
Yes.
> "and if you genuinely think this is a censorship issue, you're the useful idiot"
No.
posted by kyrademon at 1:20 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Because he's dead now and can't agree.
> "Worse, Penguin is publishing the OrIgInAl VeRsIoN as well"
After their actions provoked so much outrage that they began to worry about the backlash.
> "all of this was just a dumb publicity stunt that let itself be deliberately hijacked by the rightwing culture warriors"
Yes.
> "and if you genuinely think this is a censorship issue, you're the useful idiot"
No.
posted by kyrademon at 1:20 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
It's one of those of things it's easier and better to have a flat policy on with a limited number of exceptions (such as for pornography, etc).I'm actually not convinced it's that much easier, since the definition of pornography is a lot of what's at stake in the current right-wing attack on school and public libraries. And I'm also not convinced it's better. You seem to agree with the right-wingers that depictions of sex are an appropriate reason for censorship, but overt racism and other bigotry are not. That is an ideological position, and I'm not willing to accept it uncritically.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:43 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I'm against or re-writing censoring Dahl's books - or any books - for the same reasons we shouldn't re-write Mein Kampf.
Partially because we shouldn't be re-writing history to make it more palatable or comfortable. But mostly we shouldn't be polishing people's histories for them when they've been on the record as terrible human beings saying terrible things and letting them off the hook for those things.
Dahl is no hero, and when people tell you who they are - believe them.
And, sure, they're imaginative and fun stories when you get past all of the meanness,
There are plenty of other childrens and YA lit books out there that don't suck or aren't as mean and gross as Dahl's books. The world isn't going to end if Dahl's work falls mostly into the dustbin of history like so many other problematic authors, like H.G Wells. The world isn't going to end or change dramatically if kids don't grow up reading Dahl's books. They aren't even remotely essential Maybe this means school libraries don't carry or restock his books any more. Maybe they're replaced by better, more contemporary books. Maybe this means people paraphrase them if they read them to kids, that's fine.
But republishing them with less meanness and more polish? Well, for starters that's one hell of a cynical cash grab by his estate and publishers, but it's also polishing the dry old turd that is Dahl in ways that's definitely edging too close for my comfort towards the Orwellian.
On the other hand I also wouldn't really mind if we threw copyright out of the window and let anyone rewrite or republish the good parts of these stories.
Just don't put Dahl's name on it. Inspired by? Sure, whatever. But doing them as rewrites and republishing them under his name lets him off the hook way too easily and goes a long ways towards erasing who he actually was.
I mean I remember this very site and my generally leftist/progressive cohort getting all kinds of bent out of shape about censorship when Blockbuster and some cable channels started offering heavily edited, sanitized movies to make them more palatable to Christian audiences and I didn't like that, either.
posted by loquacious at 1:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
Partially because we shouldn't be re-writing history to make it more palatable or comfortable. But mostly we shouldn't be polishing people's histories for them when they've been on the record as terrible human beings saying terrible things and letting them off the hook for those things.
Dahl is no hero, and when people tell you who they are - believe them.
And, sure, they're imaginative and fun stories when you get past all of the meanness,
There are plenty of other childrens and YA lit books out there that don't suck or aren't as mean and gross as Dahl's books. The world isn't going to end if Dahl's work falls mostly into the dustbin of history like so many other problematic authors, like H.G Wells. The world isn't going to end or change dramatically if kids don't grow up reading Dahl's books. They aren't even remotely essential Maybe this means school libraries don't carry or restock his books any more. Maybe they're replaced by better, more contemporary books. Maybe this means people paraphrase them if they read them to kids, that's fine.
But republishing them with less meanness and more polish? Well, for starters that's one hell of a cynical cash grab by his estate and publishers, but it's also polishing the dry old turd that is Dahl in ways that's definitely edging too close for my comfort towards the Orwellian.
On the other hand I also wouldn't really mind if we threw copyright out of the window and let anyone rewrite or republish the good parts of these stories.
Just don't put Dahl's name on it. Inspired by? Sure, whatever. But doing them as rewrites and republishing them under his name lets him off the hook way too easily and goes a long ways towards erasing who he actually was.
I mean I remember this very site and my generally leftist/progressive cohort getting all kinds of bent out of shape about censorship when Blockbuster and some cable channels started offering heavily edited, sanitized movies to make them more palatable to Christian audiences and I didn't like that, either.
posted by loquacious at 1:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
It's one of those of things it's easier and better to have a flat policy on with a limited number of exceptions (such as for pornography, etc).
And the people who get hurt in the process, well....they're the price of freedom, right? As I've said in other threads, "sticks and stones" is a contemptable lie (and we have the science to prove it.) I honestly believe that part of why we're in the place we're at now is because we say culturally that we're obliged to give bigots a seat at the table, which they've then used to drive their victims into hiding.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:47 PM on March 12, 2023
And the people who get hurt in the process, well....they're the price of freedom, right? As I've said in other threads, "sticks and stones" is a contemptable lie (and we have the science to prove it.) I honestly believe that part of why we're in the place we're at now is because we say culturally that we're obliged to give bigots a seat at the table, which they've then used to drive their victims into hiding.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:47 PM on March 12, 2023
No, I don't think written depictions of sex should be censored. A lot of written depictions of sex aren't child appropriate, but again that's mostly up to caretakers. I read some pretty steamy romance novels as a pre-teen and again, I don't feel damaged by it. By blanket exceptions, I mean stuff like child porn and depiction of actual violence against living creatures for entertainment purposes - stuff that is universally beyond the pale.
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:50 PM on March 12, 2023
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:50 PM on March 12, 2023
No, don't change the books. And yes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is literature and a genuine piece of 20th Century culture.
I do not want to see kid's libraries full of Reader's Digest versions of books that are constantly updated by whatever Sensitive Topic of the Decade Committee deems appropriate. I get that there are hurtful things in the books (and thousands of other books!), but leave the books alone. Slippery Slope argument, yes, but publishing companies and IP and copyright holders are already slimy enough without more encouragement.
posted by SoberHighland at 2:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
I do not want to see kid's libraries full of Reader's Digest versions of books that are constantly updated by whatever Sensitive Topic of the Decade Committee deems appropriate. I get that there are hurtful things in the books (and thousands of other books!), but leave the books alone. Slippery Slope argument, yes, but publishing companies and IP and copyright holders are already slimy enough without more encouragement.
posted by SoberHighland at 2:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [17 favorites]
All art is born of its time. It reflects its time.
I blame Disney for ruining this sentiment. Rather than letting art change as thoughts and generations change, we're stuck trying to reckon with the same repackaged shit because a giant media company doesn't want to give up any of its copyrights. Art loses all context when it becomes an endlessly monetizable commodity.
posted by lock robster at 2:01 PM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
I blame Disney for ruining this sentiment. Rather than letting art change as thoughts and generations change, we're stuck trying to reckon with the same repackaged shit because a giant media company doesn't want to give up any of its copyrights. Art loses all context when it becomes an endlessly monetizable commodity.
posted by lock robster at 2:01 PM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
To clarify: Depictions of sex do not equal pornography
As far as children's access to actual visual porn, whether in digital (Pornhub) or glossy (Penthouse) format, I think we're handling that now in a more or less appropriate way - libraries and schools don't have it or limit it to adults and parents do their best to keep their kids away from it. I do admit the line can be kind of fuzzy and people try to stretch it for unsavoury purposes but that's not really what we're talking about and I don't think there are many teachers or librarians trying to push pornograpy on children.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
As far as children's access to actual visual porn, whether in digital (Pornhub) or glossy (Penthouse) format, I think we're handling that now in a more or less appropriate way - libraries and schools don't have it or limit it to adults and parents do their best to keep their kids away from it. I do admit the line can be kind of fuzzy and people try to stretch it for unsavoury purposes but that's not really what we're talking about and I don't think there are many teachers or librarians trying to push pornograpy on children.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Tangential point: Dahl isn't going to fall into "the dustbin of history" (as has been posited a few times here) anytime soon. Something that hasn't come up much in this thread is that his books continue to be adapted; many are on their second round of film adaptations (Matilda: the Musical on Netflix and the version of The Witches that came out a few years ago and was, iirc, recently scrubbed from HBOmax) and some on their third (the upcoming Willy Wonka with Timothée Chalamet in the title role).
Adaptations sell books, and that's part of the corporate profit motivations here: an overall media strategy. (And I can't tell you how many times YouTube served me, an uninterested person, brief videos of various young women doing the "red beret girl" dance break from Matilda in the last week? So many times.) I think we may be in the middle of a Dahlaissance, like it or not. The media furor over the latest round of changes to the books is also publicity for all of it.
posted by verbminx at 2:12 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Adaptations sell books, and that's part of the corporate profit motivations here: an overall media strategy. (And I can't tell you how many times YouTube served me, an uninterested person, brief videos of various young women doing the "red beret girl" dance break from Matilda in the last week? So many times.) I think we may be in the middle of a Dahlaissance, like it or not. The media furor over the latest round of changes to the books is also publicity for all of it.
posted by verbminx at 2:12 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
But don't you think NoxAeternum that trying to go back and delete every mean, nasty thing anyone has ever said (or depicted?) is going to be kind of an uphill battle?
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:15 PM on March 12, 2023
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:15 PM on March 12, 2023
I like loquacious' view on this. There is something... disembodied-heads-in-Futurama-ish about trying to preserve literature that was very much of its time through extraordinary measures. The contents of a book can be bad, and changing it to match the times can also miss the mark, because not all works are meant for immortality.
posted by eirias at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by eirias at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
And the people who get hurt in the process, well....they're the price of freedom, right
Yes, actually.
posted by Galvanic at 2:25 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Yes, actually.
posted by Galvanic at 2:25 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
By blanket exceptions, I mean stuff like child porn and depiction of actual violence against living creatures for entertainment purposes - stuff that is universally beyond the pale.
In the not-so-distant past, harming animals in the service of entertainment (or something like it) was not universally beyond the pale. Andrei Rublev famously has a shot of an actual horse that was actually shot, pushed down a flight of stairs, stabbed with a spear, and then shot in the head (off-camera). And it is still considered one of the greatest films of all time.
What is to be done?
posted by nosewings at 2:25 PM on March 12, 2023
In the not-so-distant past, harming animals in the service of entertainment (or something like it) was not universally beyond the pale. Andrei Rublev famously has a shot of an actual horse that was actually shot, pushed down a flight of stairs, stabbed with a spear, and then shot in the head (off-camera). And it is still considered one of the greatest films of all time.
What is to be done?
posted by nosewings at 2:25 PM on March 12, 2023
Oh boy you got me there.
That's terrible and I am glad we don't allow it anymore, but that's a bit a different from a snuff film or animal torture film where the pain of the creature is the entire point.
This is way off topic, though.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:31 PM on March 12, 2023
That's terrible and I am glad we don't allow it anymore, but that's a bit a different from a snuff film or animal torture film where the pain of the creature is the entire point.
This is way off topic, though.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:31 PM on March 12, 2023
I don't think this is satire, I don't think it's mimicking a right-wing viewpoint (it uses none of the signifiers employed by the right-wing "anti-woke" crowd, and in fact calls right-wingers "assholes" and "fascist fuckwads"), and y'all are weirding me out a bit, honestly.
It reads like a satire of extremely angry left-wing folks online, somebody who's kind of exhausting but whose heart is in the right place so you don't get into it with them. If it was on Medium, I'd take it as straight and not read that person's Medium again. But as it's McSweeney's, I take it that it must be satire, and as such, "I get it. It ain't making me laugh, but I get it."
I now feel slightly salty about getting a piece rejected by McSweeney's twenty years ago. I don't really remember if it was that great or not, but it certainly wasn't this.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
It reads like a satire of extremely angry left-wing folks online, somebody who's kind of exhausting but whose heart is in the right place so you don't get into it with them. If it was on Medium, I'd take it as straight and not read that person's Medium again. But as it's McSweeney's, I take it that it must be satire, and as such, "I get it. It ain't making me laugh, but I get it."
I now feel slightly salty about getting a piece rejected by McSweeney's twenty years ago. I don't really remember if it was that great or not, but it certainly wasn't this.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
But don't you think NoxAeternum that trying to go back and delete every mean, nasty thing anyone has ever said (or depicted?) is going to be kind of an uphill battle?
It's telling that you keep using words like "mean" and "nasty" while avoiding "bigotry" and "hate". It's a subtle reframing of the argument that dodges why people find this content problematic and harmful, playing down their complaints.
Yes, actually.
It's nice to see the cheerleaders for Omelas openly admitting to it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:44 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's telling that you keep using words like "mean" and "nasty" while avoiding "bigotry" and "hate". It's a subtle reframing of the argument that dodges why people find this content problematic and harmful, playing down their complaints.
Yes, actually.
It's nice to see the cheerleaders for Omelas openly admitting to it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:44 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
In high school my choir director loved the shit out of some Jesus and had us singing religious songs, almost exclusively. Like Ride On, King Jesus etc. Of course it didn't bother me at the time, despite being an atheist, because it was just, like, Art, right? Anyhow, one of the songs we did which was a "traditional" was When Rooks Fly Homeward which has the line "then comes the quiet of Christ to me" in it. And at some point we were doing a joint choral thing with another school and their choir director had us change the word "Christ" to "peace" and, wow, I got hepped up about it. Not because I loved Jesus, which I didn't, but because it felt censorious and disrespectful to the original text. O how I shook my fist in outrage!
And now, many, many years later, I'm of the mind that maybe the other choir director had the right idea, because Jesus really has no place in a public school setting, particularly not on Long Island but pretty much not anywhere. But I couldn't see that, swimming in those waters. Those toxic, racist, borderline evangelical waters.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:46 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
And now, many, many years later, I'm of the mind that maybe the other choir director had the right idea, because Jesus really has no place in a public school setting, particularly not on Long Island but pretty much not anywhere. But I couldn't see that, swimming in those waters. Those toxic, racist, borderline evangelical waters.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:46 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I am relieved someone is finally acknowledging that being anti-censorship is traditionally a left wing view while being pro-censorship is typically the authoritarian fascist one. I was starting to doubt my sanity there for a while.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:50 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:50 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
And the people who get hurt in the process, well....they're the price of freedom, right?
when people are getting hurt, something definitively un-free is happening.
So what do we do about it? Censor? As soon as this happens, I suspect other people are getting hurt in the process. In a different way. But hurt is hurt.
It's a complex issue. I am glad it's getting discussed, and not just here.
posted by philip-random at 2:57 PM on March 12, 2023
Starship Troopers, the Movie, was nothing like the chapter in Heinlein's book. His story featured a political treatise pushing the theory that all people, who want to vote or receive certain of the fruits of a prosperous society, should enlist in government service, typically, but not limited to military service. His story was a straight forward presentation, not satirical, and any humor in it was probably an awkward task for him to compose. I liked his books when I was in junior high school. Nowadays many folks consider him to be a bit of a fascist. Maybe so, but I still think of him as a might-have-been renaissance man. If he hadn't developed a problem with his lungs he might have been a useful officer in some branch of the military.
The movie was masterfully presented work of satire, but it dealt with only the Bug Wars, a single facet of Heinlein's vision in that book. The most disturbing scene in the movie was not the carnage, but where a group of children stood around in a circle, stomping bugs. The girl clapping her hands and giggling gleefully sent chills up my spine. Do you want to know more?
I believe the role of satire is to disturb you, not to make you laugh. When satire yanks your scab off, it's done it's job. When you believe it's yanking someone else's scab off, you are not paying attention. When you are not sure what the fuck it's doing, it's objective is at its zenith if you are provoked to think about it. After that, the only place left to go is to have a discussion with people who have been inspired, or pissed off enough to talk about it. As far as I can tell this is not great literature. It's a cousin to groundwork for political activism.
Censorship is an ugly term for something that ranges from book-burning to editing for tone or pace, if you want to toss a net that large. No bright line exists for us to use as a guide. How do we accurately difine the object of any work (considered for censorship), and what tools should be used? Do we shoot people who compose or read proscribed works? That tack had some measure of short-term success in some countries. Do we just change a few words, and take the original stuff off library shelves, and if so, which of these works can be left in public libraries but removed from schools, and if from schools which schools? If you are sick to death of hearing about Orwell's book, fine. Look to Bradbury. Or whomever. Don't try to changed the past to suit your version of the present. Your children will not look upon you kindly for that.
If some literary definitive Grand Unification Theory is at hand that is obvious to some people, I hope someone spells it out in so many words at a level that we in the hoi-polloi section of the peanut gallery can understand.
Another bit of disclosure I never thought I would mention: In grammar schools, we used to stand, put our little hands over our hearts, and mouth the "Pledge of Allegiance" first thing every morning. I clearly remember when the phrase "...under God..." was inserted. I went along with this until I was in high-school, and ever since then I just take a breath while the rest of the crowd says it. As I look back on this, I understand that kids are not as uncritical as adults often think they are. They will usually do as you do rather than as you say.
posted by mule98J at 3:01 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
The movie was masterfully presented work of satire, but it dealt with only the Bug Wars, a single facet of Heinlein's vision in that book. The most disturbing scene in the movie was not the carnage, but where a group of children stood around in a circle, stomping bugs. The girl clapping her hands and giggling gleefully sent chills up my spine. Do you want to know more?
I believe the role of satire is to disturb you, not to make you laugh. When satire yanks your scab off, it's done it's job. When you believe it's yanking someone else's scab off, you are not paying attention. When you are not sure what the fuck it's doing, it's objective is at its zenith if you are provoked to think about it. After that, the only place left to go is to have a discussion with people who have been inspired, or pissed off enough to talk about it. As far as I can tell this is not great literature. It's a cousin to groundwork for political activism.
Censorship is an ugly term for something that ranges from book-burning to editing for tone or pace, if you want to toss a net that large. No bright line exists for us to use as a guide. How do we accurately difine the object of any work (considered for censorship), and what tools should be used? Do we shoot people who compose or read proscribed works? That tack had some measure of short-term success in some countries. Do we just change a few words, and take the original stuff off library shelves, and if so, which of these works can be left in public libraries but removed from schools, and if from schools which schools? If you are sick to death of hearing about Orwell's book, fine. Look to Bradbury. Or whomever. Don't try to changed the past to suit your version of the present. Your children will not look upon you kindly for that.
If some literary definitive Grand Unification Theory is at hand that is obvious to some people, I hope someone spells it out in so many words at a level that we in the hoi-polloi section of the peanut gallery can understand.
Another bit of disclosure I never thought I would mention: In grammar schools, we used to stand, put our little hands over our hearts, and mouth the "Pledge of Allegiance" first thing every morning. I clearly remember when the phrase "...under God..." was inserted. I went along with this until I was in high-school, and ever since then I just take a breath while the rest of the crowd says it. As I look back on this, I understand that kids are not as uncritical as adults often think they are. They will usually do as you do rather than as you say.
posted by mule98J at 3:01 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
It's nice to see the cheerleaders for Omelas openly admitting to it.
she?
Ursula Le Guin's estate has announced the editing of a number of her works, like Omelas, because of the harm they've done to people, including the town of Salem, Oregon. So you can’t use it anymore.
posted by Galvanic at 3:02 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
she?
Ursula Le Guin's estate has announced the editing of a number of her works, like Omelas, because of the harm they've done to people, including the town of Salem, Oregon. So you can’t use it anymore.
posted by Galvanic at 3:02 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Ursula Le Guin implement lots of policies in the real world, did she?
The whole point of the story was to note the immorality of building a society on harming others. You want to argue that freedom calls for people to be harmed for the greater good, then accept what that means, and who ultimately pays the price.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:08 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
The whole point of the story was to note the immorality of building a society on harming others. You want to argue that freedom calls for people to be harmed for the greater good, then accept what that means, and who ultimately pays the price.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:08 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I wish there was some evaluation of motives for censorship. One person over here might want to cut Dahl's uglier prose and another person over there wants to, say, remove Spiegelman's Maus altogether. Not sure that any of it does much to help readers deal with the issues raised by what is censored, but arguably it does seem to help the censors further their economic, social or political agendas.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:13 PM on March 12, 2023
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:13 PM on March 12, 2023
Didn't we hash this one out in another thread already?
I love Dahl's books, he was not a perfect person. New edits of books happen all the time, this isn't 1984. The original texts should be preserved (and ideally made available, maybe as free ebooks) and the revised editions should be readily identifiable as such so people know what they're getting. I still have my old print copies, if I read any of them to the niblets they're getting the uncensored version, with commentary and discussion included free of charge from Unkie signsofrain.
Let's put this one to bed.
posted by signsofrain at 3:18 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I love Dahl's books, he was not a perfect person. New edits of books happen all the time, this isn't 1984. The original texts should be preserved (and ideally made available, maybe as free ebooks) and the revised editions should be readily identifiable as such so people know what they're getting. I still have my old print copies, if I read any of them to the niblets they're getting the uncensored version, with commentary and discussion included free of charge from Unkie signsofrain.
Let's put this one to bed.
posted by signsofrain at 3:18 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
You want to argue that freedom calls for people to be harmed for the greater good, then accept what that means, and who ultimately pays the price.
I think that’s what I did.
posted by Galvanic at 3:28 PM on March 12, 2023
I think that’s what I did.
posted by Galvanic at 3:28 PM on March 12, 2023
Also, just as a note, Heinlein's Starship Troopers is much better than the movie, and much more complex. A fascist novel with a non white hero?
posted by Galvanic at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Galvanic at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Right. For me this is the reason it falls completely flat, like the satire in the movie Starship Troopers. The whole joke is "it's actually fascism, a fascist could have made this." When it's word-for-word, or shot-for-shot, what a fascist or anti-woke person would do, and you can only tell it's a joke by external signifiers that the artist secretly agrees with you, I don't get the point. I feel like satire isn't biting or funny unless the subjects are going to feel embarrassed to be associated with some core part of how they're being depicted.
I've come across this position on STARSHIP TROOPERS before, and I find it totally baffling. I can't imagine how it being satire could be more overt, short of a flashing chyron from frame one reading, "THIS IS SATIRE. ALL OF THIS STUFF IS ACTUALLY BAD."
posted by brundlefly at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [16 favorites]
I've come across this position on STARSHIP TROOPERS before, and I find it totally baffling. I can't imagine how it being satire could be more overt, short of a flashing chyron from frame one reading, "THIS IS SATIRE. ALL OF THIS STUFF IS ACTUALLY BAD."
posted by brundlefly at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [16 favorites]
It's nice to see the cheerleaders for Omelas openly admitting to it.
If the price of Omelas was reading the children's books of Roald Dahl with the insulting parts about fat people and women in wigs still in instead of keeping a child in a cage, then yes, I think I would have to be for Omelas. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world so I'll have to concern myself with other dilemmas.
posted by kingdead at 3:47 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
If the price of Omelas was reading the children's books of Roald Dahl with the insulting parts about fat people and women in wigs still in instead of keeping a child in a cage, then yes, I think I would have to be for Omelas. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world so I'll have to concern myself with other dilemmas.
posted by kingdead at 3:47 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Oh hi, it’s me, MeFi’s own Roald Dahl expert. (That’s my website roalddahlfans.com linked up at the start of the thread.) I found out about the proposed changes last month with The Telegraph got me on a phone interview and were clearly hoping I’d take the bait and turn into this McSweeney’s caricature. I resisted the urge. Look, I’ve been running that website for 28 years. Dahl was a terrible person. Towards the end of his life his editors had a hell of a time toning down the overt racism in some of his most beloved stories. I don’t like the idea of editing the books further now, but only because it lets him off the hook. He was not a twinkly, saintly Grandpa, and I resent the continual efforts by the RDSC to frame him as such.
posted by web-goddess at 3:48 PM on March 12, 2023 [102 favorites]
posted by web-goddess at 3:48 PM on March 12, 2023 [102 favorites]
In re Starship Troopers, the movie prompted in me the mulling of a law, which is that whenever you see a TV ad in a movie you know you are in the realm of satire. Or at least cultural criticism. And absolutely so if the film is Sci Fi.
Will you buy that for a dollar?
posted by chavenet at 3:49 PM on March 12, 2023 [20 favorites]
Will you buy that for a dollar?
posted by chavenet at 3:49 PM on March 12, 2023 [20 favorites]
Verhoeven has said time and again that the movie is meant to take the piss out of fascist fantasies; whether or not there was more to the Heinlein novel.
From Indiewire in 2016, on occasion of discussion of a reboot:
Will you buy that for a dollar?
"Do you want to know more?"
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
From Indiewire in 2016, on occasion of discussion of a reboot:
“Our philosophy was really different [from Heinlein’s book],we wanted to do a double story, a really wonderful adventure story about these young boys and girls fighting, but we also wanted to show that these people are really, in their heart, without knowing it, are on their way to fascism,” Verhoeven said.
The film was widely rejected in 1997. At the time, critics didn’t see the double narrative and panned the film for advocating the very the neo-Nazi tendencies Verhoeven and Neumeier were actively trying to skewer. Watching the film today, 19 years removed, it is hard to understand how people missed Verhoeven’s obvious satiric perspective, with its heightened artifice, campy performances, propaganda newsreels and clear references to Nazi flags and uniforms.
Will you buy that for a dollar?
"Do you want to know more?"
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
web-goddess, I flagged your comment as fantastic. Thanks for sharing that.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:10 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:10 PM on March 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
As far as this piece, I don't think it quite works, much for the same reason as mark k. It does seem indistinguishable from the real thing. The only thing that would have tipped me off (aside from the publication) is the insistent misuse of the word "fascist," which I thought was over the top even for the kind of rant it's spoofing.
posted by brundlefly at 4:20 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by brundlefly at 4:20 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
That rant is very well-crafted in that it falls perfectly into the tiny gap between satire and passionate argument, without touching the sides of either. At least, I assume the author intended that.
I don't like the idea of books being changed, although this is very common in terms of correcting errors etc and even more invisible in e-books. However, I prefer stories to be kept whole as they were written and, if that means they are no longer fit for consumption by modern humans, then let them no longer be published. Of course, none of this is about the integrity of stories, but about stories as commodities and profit will always overrule integrity.
posted by dg at 4:58 PM on March 12, 2023
I don't like the idea of books being changed, although this is very common in terms of correcting errors etc and even more invisible in e-books. However, I prefer stories to be kept whole as they were written and, if that means they are no longer fit for consumption by modern humans, then let them no longer be published. Of course, none of this is about the integrity of stories, but about stories as commodities and profit will always overrule integrity.
posted by dg at 4:58 PM on March 12, 2023
The reason this form of satire (and, whether you find it well-executed or not, it is satirical and not to be taken on its face) is valuable is that it trains your bullshit detector.
If you demand that your Nazis always be presented over-the-top with skulls on their caps to tell you they are the baddies, then actual Nazis will realize that all they have to do is take off their SS uniform and put on a dapper suit to get platformed by the ostensibly liberal moderates at the New York Times.
When I first read this piece, I was confused. Is this piece for real? Is this a satire? If it's a satire, what is it satirizing and how can you tell?
The thing is, if you sincerely try to answer these questions and give it another look, there are enough clues in the text to unambiguously tell you that it is satirical and what it is satirizing. You need to employ your bullshit detector to parse the text for its subtext. The parts that distinguish it aren't lit up with a neon sign, but they are there. Whether you find the satire amusing or not is up to your tastes, but it is distinguishable from what it is satirizing. You can say you don't find it funny or witty, but if you say it is not satire (or bad-faith, bigotry-calling-itself-satire satire) then you are simply mistaken.
Give it another look. If you tell me that proposing we eat Irish babies is ludicrous satire but this piece titled "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" published on a comedy web site is not, I think you need to work on your bullshit detector.
Would you like to know more?
posted by AlSweigart at 5:41 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
If you demand that your Nazis always be presented over-the-top with skulls on their caps to tell you they are the baddies, then actual Nazis will realize that all they have to do is take off their SS uniform and put on a dapper suit to get platformed by the ostensibly liberal moderates at the New York Times.
When I first read this piece, I was confused. Is this piece for real? Is this a satire? If it's a satire, what is it satirizing and how can you tell?
The thing is, if you sincerely try to answer these questions and give it another look, there are enough clues in the text to unambiguously tell you that it is satirical and what it is satirizing. You need to employ your bullshit detector to parse the text for its subtext. The parts that distinguish it aren't lit up with a neon sign, but they are there. Whether you find the satire amusing or not is up to your tastes, but it is distinguishable from what it is satirizing. You can say you don't find it funny or witty, but if you say it is not satire (or bad-faith, bigotry-calling-itself-satire satire) then you are simply mistaken.
Give it another look. If you tell me that proposing we eat Irish babies is ludicrous satire but this piece titled "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" published on a comedy web site is not, I think you need to work on your bullshit detector.
Would you like to know more?
posted by AlSweigart at 5:41 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Would you like to know more?
Yes! Why does it require multiple thousands of words to explain that, yes, this is humor?
posted by Galvanic at 5:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Yes! Why does it require multiple thousands of words to explain that, yes, this is humor?
posted by Galvanic at 5:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
there are enough clues in the text to unambiguously tell you that it is satirical and what it is satirizing
I would love to know what they are, and I would love to know what is being satirized.
posted by snofoam at 5:48 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I would love to know what they are, and I would love to know what is being satirized.
posted by snofoam at 5:48 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Whether the piece is satire or not, I'm finding the whole equating of people opposed to changing Dahl's books to Nazis to be wild, just mind-bogglingly wild. Unless that's not really what you were trying to say there?
posted by Jess the Mess at 5:51 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 5:51 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
now i know what the first council of nicaea must have been like
posted by pyramid termite at 6:19 PM on March 12, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 6:19 PM on March 12, 2023 [16 favorites]
> "Give it another look."
OK. I have just done so.
> "there are enough clues in the text to unambiguously tell you that it is satirical"
Where? I do not see them.
> "and what it is satirizing"
What? I do not get it.
> "You need to employ your bullshit detector to parse the text for its subtext."
Which is...?
> "it is distinguishable from what it is satirizing"
I do not know what it is supposed to be satirizing, but assuming you mean that it is satirizing ... the thing it appears to be, that is to say, someone vociferously protesting the alteration of these books without the author's consent on the grounds that it is a form of censorship, then ... how is it distinguishable?
> "if you say it is not satire (or bad-faith, bigotry-calling-itself-satire satire)"
OK, wait ... so you are now implying that one possibility is that this piece, which I do not think is satire or pretending to be satire, is only presenting itself as satire -- which again, I do not see how it is doing -- in bad faith, because it actually *IS* the thing it is only pretending to be a satire of, but I am so foolish that I did not ever realize that it was pretending at all and therefore I accidentally interpreted it as meaning what it secretly intended to mean?
Now my head hurts.
That's before we getting into the idea that this is either a satire of bigotry, or perhaps actual bigotry pretending to be a satire of bigotry by making the satire so subtle that is in invisible, when it contains arguments like, "Then, if a parent or teacher reads the book to a kid, and there’s a part that’s risky or controversial, discussions can be had," which... does not seem like bigotry or a satire of bigotry, but an opinion it is possible to reasonably hold?
I mean, that's hardly saying, "If a book says insulting things about you, you have to take it and like it, you whiner!" which is something I could understand as being either a satire of bigotry or actual bigotry, but that isn't what this piece even remotely says. Or, I guess, pretends to say?
posted by kyrademon at 6:25 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
OK. I have just done so.
> "there are enough clues in the text to unambiguously tell you that it is satirical"
Where? I do not see them.
> "and what it is satirizing"
What? I do not get it.
> "You need to employ your bullshit detector to parse the text for its subtext."
Which is...?
> "it is distinguishable from what it is satirizing"
I do not know what it is supposed to be satirizing, but assuming you mean that it is satirizing ... the thing it appears to be, that is to say, someone vociferously protesting the alteration of these books without the author's consent on the grounds that it is a form of censorship, then ... how is it distinguishable?
> "if you say it is not satire (or bad-faith, bigotry-calling-itself-satire satire)"
OK, wait ... so you are now implying that one possibility is that this piece, which I do not think is satire or pretending to be satire, is only presenting itself as satire -- which again, I do not see how it is doing -- in bad faith, because it actually *IS* the thing it is only pretending to be a satire of, but I am so foolish that I did not ever realize that it was pretending at all and therefore I accidentally interpreted it as meaning what it secretly intended to mean?
Now my head hurts.
That's before we getting into the idea that this is either a satire of bigotry, or perhaps actual bigotry pretending to be a satire of bigotry by making the satire so subtle that is in invisible, when it contains arguments like, "Then, if a parent or teacher reads the book to a kid, and there’s a part that’s risky or controversial, discussions can be had," which... does not seem like bigotry or a satire of bigotry, but an opinion it is possible to reasonably hold?
I mean, that's hardly saying, "If a book says insulting things about you, you have to take it and like it, you whiner!" which is something I could understand as being either a satire of bigotry or actual bigotry, but that isn't what this piece even remotely says. Or, I guess, pretends to say?
posted by kyrademon at 6:25 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't think we should alter the historical facts to 'protect' children, who are often a lot more robust and resilient and discerning than we give them credit for.
I saw the World at War series when it first came out, when I was in my early teens. It was horrible and confronting, but I have no regrets learning about it at that age. Still one of the most important early experiences in my life.
We should instead make children aware of problems with historical views and attitudes, and be prepared to discuss it and answer their questions about it all. Similar to how (as I understand it) Germany handles their history of the Nazi era. By contrast see Japan's complete non-handling of their history in the same era for a lesson in how to not do it, and my own country's difficult and still very much incomplete reckoning with our own sometimes genocidal treatment of its first peoples. (See this recent, excellent, and disturbing account of it all.)
I would get children to read both the original problematic version and a version edited for modern sensibilities, and discuss and deal with it that way, via compare and contrast.
Rewriting the facts of history is never a good idea, IMHO.
posted by Pouteria at 6:29 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I saw the World at War series when it first came out, when I was in my early teens. It was horrible and confronting, but I have no regrets learning about it at that age. Still one of the most important early experiences in my life.
We should instead make children aware of problems with historical views and attitudes, and be prepared to discuss it and answer their questions about it all. Similar to how (as I understand it) Germany handles their history of the Nazi era. By contrast see Japan's complete non-handling of their history in the same era for a lesson in how to not do it, and my own country's difficult and still very much incomplete reckoning with our own sometimes genocidal treatment of its first peoples. (See this recent, excellent, and disturbing account of it all.)
I would get children to read both the original problematic version and a version edited for modern sensibilities, and discuss and deal with it that way, via compare and contrast.
Rewriting the facts of history is never a good idea, IMHO.
posted by Pouteria at 6:29 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
someone smarter than I should point out that we re-write history all the time as new information becomes available etc...
posted by some loser at 6:34 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by some loser at 6:34 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
my grandpa declared Parson’s Pleasure, a story entirely about a man trying and failing to scam people out of a piece of antique furniture, to be the best horror story he ever read
I really had no intention of commenting in this thread, but Parson’s Pleasure is probably my favorite Dahl adult story too - it still makes me deeply uncomfortable in the best way. Most of Dahl’s characters are horrible people. i always assumed that was kind of the point.
posted by Mchelly at 6:43 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I really had no intention of commenting in this thread, but Parson’s Pleasure is probably my favorite Dahl adult story too - it still makes me deeply uncomfortable in the best way. Most of Dahl’s characters are horrible people. i always assumed that was kind of the point.
posted by Mchelly at 6:43 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I could drop any one of several offensive words into this thread and at least until our own censors erased it there would a tremendous distraction and the path of this thread would be completely diverted. The flow would be ruined and value of the thread would be greatly reduced because of a word that was in common use thirty years ago.
The same is true when reading a book.
So while it’s fun to claim censorship (that would require making the original work unavailable), what we’re seeing here is someone trying to keep these works accessible to readers used to modern conventions. There will always be a place for the original version, but due to the way our brains work if we come across offensive words then that is what we’re going to remember.
Great stories can survive this sort of editing. If a story is so dependent on using a particular term in a particular place then it’s probably not worth saving anyway.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
The same is true when reading a book.
So while it’s fun to claim censorship (that would require making the original work unavailable), what we’re seeing here is someone trying to keep these works accessible to readers used to modern conventions. There will always be a place for the original version, but due to the way our brains work if we come across offensive words then that is what we’re going to remember.
Great stories can survive this sort of editing. If a story is so dependent on using a particular term in a particular place then it’s probably not worth saving anyway.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I saw this post this morning when it didn't have any responses, and immediately thought it was the typical McSweeney's "heh" kind of humor it usually invokes in me when it shows up on the blue, without even reading. I also thought it would be a good MF trolling activity, and now, with over 170 responses in just a few hours, I think that was a good assessment.
I kind of wish I'd been wrong.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I kind of wish I'd been wrong.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:00 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
someone smarter than I should point out that we re-write history all the time as new information becomes available etc...
posted by some loser
Difference between re-interpreting history, particularly with the benefit of new information and understandings, and changing a known historical fact (the indisputably existing text of a book, in this example).
Reassessing Dahl is one thing, and completely legitimate. Literally changing what he wrote is quite another and much more problematic approach.
posted by Pouteria at 7:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by some loser
Difference between re-interpreting history, particularly with the benefit of new information and understandings, and changing a known historical fact (the indisputably existing text of a book, in this example).
Reassessing Dahl is one thing, and completely legitimate. Literally changing what he wrote is quite another and much more problematic approach.
posted by Pouteria at 7:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
I've read the McSweeny piece twice and for me it completely fails. I don't get the humor, I don't get the parody. Maybe that is my failing as a reader, but I'm clearly not alone in this.
So while it’s fun to claim censorship (that would require making the original work unavailable), what we’re seeing here is someone trying to keep these works accessible to readers used to modern conventions. ...
Great stories can survive this sort of editing.
I completely disagree. I think this concept is easy when we are all in agreement about the conventions. But for a very large portion of the country, removing a reference to, say, same-sex love would be "making the work accessible to modern conventions," especially considering the rightward swing in public life in recent years -- are you equally happy with that? I would argue that is a terrible approach to edit out the discomfiting sections of books or artworks. Should we splash paint over problematic portions of paintings in museums? Put a red line through problematic text in the scriptures?
Like I said way up above, I think it is find for works to drop out of use due to being irredeemably problematic, or to be known only through adaptations. However, Bowlderizing works was cheesy when the word's namesake was doing it, and it's cheesy now.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
So while it’s fun to claim censorship (that would require making the original work unavailable), what we’re seeing here is someone trying to keep these works accessible to readers used to modern conventions. ...
Great stories can survive this sort of editing.
I completely disagree. I think this concept is easy when we are all in agreement about the conventions. But for a very large portion of the country, removing a reference to, say, same-sex love would be "making the work accessible to modern conventions," especially considering the rightward swing in public life in recent years -- are you equally happy with that? I would argue that is a terrible approach to edit out the discomfiting sections of books or artworks. Should we splash paint over problematic portions of paintings in museums? Put a red line through problematic text in the scriptures?
Like I said way up above, I think it is find for works to drop out of use due to being irredeemably problematic, or to be known only through adaptations. However, Bowlderizing works was cheesy when the word's namesake was doing it, and it's cheesy now.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:04 PM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
I think editing Dahl is like editing Kipling, there's something at the heart of the work that doesn't scan and you can't get around that by changing a word here and there. Much better to present it exactly like it is and know that it's of its time. I loved Dahl as a kid incidentally and probably read every book.
posted by subdee at 7:12 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by subdee at 7:12 PM on March 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Cancel the post, the joke is too subtle.
I think it helps to know beforehand that these very serious conversations about free speech and the value of dangerous art are happening around the work of a writer who predominately wrote toothless, mildly reactionary pablum for tots. It's usually silly to rewrite literature for modern sensibilities to keep them marketable, but no one on either side had an interest in re-reading any version of The Witches anyway, so it's all moot.
posted by jy4m at 7:26 PM on March 12, 2023
I think it helps to know beforehand that these very serious conversations about free speech and the value of dangerous art are happening around the work of a writer who predominately wrote toothless, mildly reactionary pablum for tots. It's usually silly to rewrite literature for modern sensibilities to keep them marketable, but no one on either side had an interest in re-reading any version of The Witches anyway, so it's all moot.
posted by jy4m at 7:26 PM on March 12, 2023
I mean, sure, I guess we could pretend that this immensely popular, highly influential, and intensely problematic author is irrelevant because some of his works were for kids, but I'm not sure why we'd want to do that.
posted by kyrademon at 7:36 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 7:36 PM on March 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
Great stories can survive this sort of editing. If a story is so dependent on using a particular term in a particular place then it’s probably not worth saving anyway.
A word is one thing. Lines of well crafted prose turned into dippy nothing is another. Some of the edits I saw were way over the line for me. Glad for now the edits aren't happening, cause it was so much.
Original:
Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire,
And dry as a bone, only drier.
She was so long and thin
If you carried her in
You could use her for poking the fire!
Revised:
Aunt Spiker was much the same
And deserves half the blame
Ta-ra, Aunt Spiker!
(Though we never did like her)
It's sad but true.
If only she knew,
How the absence of charm
Can do so much harm
With thoughts so frightful
One can't be delightful
And now worms will have Spiker for tea!
Maybe don't consider these books as for young kids and leave it there.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
A word is one thing. Lines of well crafted prose turned into dippy nothing is another. Some of the edits I saw were way over the line for me. Glad for now the edits aren't happening, cause it was so much.
Original:
Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire,
And dry as a bone, only drier.
She was so long and thin
If you carried her in
You could use her for poking the fire!
Revised:
Aunt Spiker was much the same
And deserves half the blame
Ta-ra, Aunt Spiker!
(Though we never did like her)
It's sad but true.
If only she knew,
How the absence of charm
Can do so much harm
With thoughts so frightful
One can't be delightful
And now worms will have Spiker for tea!
Maybe don't consider these books as for young kids and leave it there.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:45 PM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
If Roald Dahl’s writing was “toothless pablum” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
posted by Jess the Mess at 8:07 PM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 8:07 PM on March 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
the work of a writer who predominately wrote toothless, mildly reactionary pablum for tots.
Mmmm....no. He did not.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:13 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Mmmm....no. He did not.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:13 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
tiny frying pan, that rewrite is nastier than the original imho and it reads like it was written by ChatGPT.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 8:29 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 8:29 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
not to mention intensely presumptuous on somebody's part. This is the prose (or I suppose I should say poetry) equivalent of some studio hack guitarist not just replacing parts of Jimi Hendrix solos (because for whatever reason, they weren't appropriate anymore) but extending those parts, wanking.
posted by philip-random at 8:43 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 8:43 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's worth at least skimming through the full array of edits that were made; it's worse than I had guessed from the descriptions. At least, if they were going to make edits, couldn't they have found someone who cared about language? The rewrites are so clumsy.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:46 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 8:46 PM on March 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
The satire in this piece is subtle, but it's not ambiguous.
I think we can safely say at this point it's ambiguous.
I mean I get it, the author was probably deliberately sounding like a crazy * asshole, but frankly, on today's internet, that's not really the over-the-top exaggeration of discourse that they might be aiming for. I'm pretty sure I already read the same comment on Reddit.
Is it satire? I have no idea. It was probably meant that way because I know McSweeney's, I'm a fan of their writing, I laugh at almost everything they publish and I found the author's * Santa piece hilarious. But it doesn't read that way to me.
I'm really confused by the way that some people are using the word "censorship" in this thread.
Me too! And just for fun I've replaced two incredibly offensive words in this comment with asterisks. Am I a censor now too?
posted by mmoncur at 9:07 PM on March 12, 2023
I think we can safely say at this point it's ambiguous.
I mean I get it, the author was probably deliberately sounding like a crazy * asshole, but frankly, on today's internet, that's not really the over-the-top exaggeration of discourse that they might be aiming for. I'm pretty sure I already read the same comment on Reddit.
Is it satire? I have no idea. It was probably meant that way because I know McSweeney's, I'm a fan of their writing, I laugh at almost everything they publish and I found the author's * Santa piece hilarious. But it doesn't read that way to me.
I'm really confused by the way that some people are using the word "censorship" in this thread.
Me too! And just for fun I've replaced two incredibly offensive words in this comment with asterisks. Am I a censor now too?
posted by mmoncur at 9:07 PM on March 12, 2023
OK, I'm bored, so I'm going to play Is It Satire?
As I understand it, the object of satire in the style of A Modest Proposal is to stake out an unreasonable, indefensible, or unethical position and argue in favor of it with a straight face, thereby exposing through mockery the moral vacancy of those who have made seriously-intended arguments which are either similar or veiled equivalents.
So! Are the arguments in this piece unreasonable, indefensible, or unethical? Let's break them down!
1) Altering the work of a dead author and presenting that work as the original is a form of censorship ("You’re not editors, and you’re not readers. You’re censors.")
IS IT SATIRE? Hm. Censorship can reasonably be defined as the suppression of works or parts thereof that the censor considers unacceptable. To consider this argument unreasonable, you would need to think that such an alteration cannot reasonably be considered in this light. There are arguments in this thread that these alterations will not *successfully* suppress the original, but that seems to be more about the realistic effect than the intent. Doesn't seem like satire yet.
2) It is Orwellian ("You are exactly what Orwell warned us about.")
IS IT SATIRE? One of the key features of the dystopia in 1984 was altering texts and then presenting them as the original. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable position to take. Doesn't seem like satire yet.
3) It is fascist ("Only fascists censor books.")
IS IT SATIRE? Maaaaaaaybe? This could be a way of poking fun at the tendency of some on the left to call any position they disagree with "fascist", rendering the word void of real meaning. On the other hand, censorship is a genuine aspect of fascism. I'll buy that making the leap from "altering some words in a children's book" to "fascist state" might be an unreasonably extreme one. I think later arguments the piece make undercut the idea that the author thought this unreasonably extreme, but for now I'll say, there's a possibility it could be intended as satirical.
4) It is condescending ("When you censor, you condescend.") to the people you are putatively trying to protect ("Fat people call themselves fat because they are not ashamed of themselves. But you are ashamed of us ... Apparently, you think the word “cashier” is offensive ... hundreds of thousands of actual people are cashiers, and they don’t agree.")
IS IT SATIRE? Maaaaaybe? The piece leaves out the fact that the replaced text in question is pretty insulting and offensive, not just the words but the context. So this could be seen as an unreasonable point of view. But ... the piece leaves that out. Outside knowledge has to be brought in to clarify that this might be unreasonable. That seems like something that would be emphasized rather than elided if this were satire. This reads more like a poor, but seriously intended, argument. But once again, I'll leave open the possibility it could be intended as satirical, although I'm dubious.
5) It is a slippery slope ("By the precedent you set, even the most carefully calibrated book written today, censored by censors like you, will be censored by someone else tomorrow.")
IS IT SATIRE? Hm. In recent years, quite a lot of people have become disenchanted with the slippery slope argument, noting that it is often used disingenuously to imply that incremental steps will inevitably lead to unlikely extremes. So, this could be a satire of that kind of argument. However, it doesn't seem like it. The end result posited here is that the exact same thing will be done by other people, perhaps in a way that is unpalatable to those who did it originally, rather than some extreme and outre amplified version. Although maybe the presented end result was intended to read as extreme and outre ("Endless, unlimited censorship—a world where every craven group like yours has free reign to mangle every book ever written.") Will once again leave open the possibility, am once again dubious.
6) It is anti-art ("You are anti-art.") and anti-freedom ("You are anti-freedom.") because art must be free and uncensored to be art ("Art must be free. Art must be unsafe. Art must be controversial.")
IS IT SATIRE? I mean, I suppose it could be a parody of the extreme way people talk about art, juxtaposing this very high-flown rhetoric with changes to mundanely insulting text. But it mostly reads as the way people talk about art, period. I'm very dubious that this is satirical.
7) It is comparable to what the right-wing is doing ("At the moment, the right wing of the US is censoring books. They are fighting to keep non-white and LGBTQ+ narratives from kids ... You are no better than these right-wing assholes. Both you and these fascist fuckwads are afraid of books. Afraid of ideas. You condescend to everyone by thinking you should be the judge of what is said and read.")
IS IT SATIRE? Honestly, this is the part where even the vague intimations that it might be satire I was entertaining previously falls apart for me. This is a pretty straightforward argument that the two positions are identical. There's nothing in the text of the piece indicating any possible differences that would make this seem like an unreasonable position to take. Such arguments might exist, but if so they have to be brought in entirely by the reader; instead the similarities are highlighted. And if this is seriously intended by the author, then the previous arguments that the alterations are fascist, condescending, etc., begin to make a lot more logical sense in light of the author's stance. The concluding argument of this segment is very simple ("If you don’t want censorship from the right, you can’t have it from the left") and doesn't seem particularly unreasonable. I do not think this is intended satirically.
8) There is a better way to handle offensive or controversial text ("if a parent or teacher reads the book to a kid, and there’s a part that’s risky or controversial, discussions can be had")
IS IT SATIRE? This doesn't seem like an unreasonable position at all. If this is satire, I have no idea what it's supposed to be satirizing.
9) People are capable of maturely dealing with the unaltered text of problematic works ("People who come to the art later can handle the context, the different words, the different attitudes ... we are complex creatures capable of complex thoughts.")
IS IT SATIRE? I ... guess you could maybe sort of see this as unreasonable because the books are aimed at children, who are less capable of handling context? But previously the author said that parents and teachers should have discussions with their children about such things, which would obviate that point. So I don't think that's what it's going for. I think the only way to view this as unreasonable is if you think that people are basically uncomplicated idiots, which seems more like the opposite of satire. This seems seriously intended.
CONCLUSION: I do not think this is satire. I think it is seriously intended, and can be agreed with or disagreed with at face value. I do not think I am wrong, but if I am, I guess I'm one of those people who in 1729 would have thought, "Wow, those babies do sound delicious!" So I hope I am not wrong.
posted by kyrademon at 9:09 PM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
As I understand it, the object of satire in the style of A Modest Proposal is to stake out an unreasonable, indefensible, or unethical position and argue in favor of it with a straight face, thereby exposing through mockery the moral vacancy of those who have made seriously-intended arguments which are either similar or veiled equivalents.
So! Are the arguments in this piece unreasonable, indefensible, or unethical? Let's break them down!
1) Altering the work of a dead author and presenting that work as the original is a form of censorship ("You’re not editors, and you’re not readers. You’re censors.")
IS IT SATIRE? Hm. Censorship can reasonably be defined as the suppression of works or parts thereof that the censor considers unacceptable. To consider this argument unreasonable, you would need to think that such an alteration cannot reasonably be considered in this light. There are arguments in this thread that these alterations will not *successfully* suppress the original, but that seems to be more about the realistic effect than the intent. Doesn't seem like satire yet.
2) It is Orwellian ("You are exactly what Orwell warned us about.")
IS IT SATIRE? One of the key features of the dystopia in 1984 was altering texts and then presenting them as the original. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable position to take. Doesn't seem like satire yet.
3) It is fascist ("Only fascists censor books.")
IS IT SATIRE? Maaaaaaaybe? This could be a way of poking fun at the tendency of some on the left to call any position they disagree with "fascist", rendering the word void of real meaning. On the other hand, censorship is a genuine aspect of fascism. I'll buy that making the leap from "altering some words in a children's book" to "fascist state" might be an unreasonably extreme one. I think later arguments the piece make undercut the idea that the author thought this unreasonably extreme, but for now I'll say, there's a possibility it could be intended as satirical.
4) It is condescending ("When you censor, you condescend.") to the people you are putatively trying to protect ("Fat people call themselves fat because they are not ashamed of themselves. But you are ashamed of us ... Apparently, you think the word “cashier” is offensive ... hundreds of thousands of actual people are cashiers, and they don’t agree.")
IS IT SATIRE? Maaaaaybe? The piece leaves out the fact that the replaced text in question is pretty insulting and offensive, not just the words but the context. So this could be seen as an unreasonable point of view. But ... the piece leaves that out. Outside knowledge has to be brought in to clarify that this might be unreasonable. That seems like something that would be emphasized rather than elided if this were satire. This reads more like a poor, but seriously intended, argument. But once again, I'll leave open the possibility it could be intended as satirical, although I'm dubious.
5) It is a slippery slope ("By the precedent you set, even the most carefully calibrated book written today, censored by censors like you, will be censored by someone else tomorrow.")
IS IT SATIRE? Hm. In recent years, quite a lot of people have become disenchanted with the slippery slope argument, noting that it is often used disingenuously to imply that incremental steps will inevitably lead to unlikely extremes. So, this could be a satire of that kind of argument. However, it doesn't seem like it. The end result posited here is that the exact same thing will be done by other people, perhaps in a way that is unpalatable to those who did it originally, rather than some extreme and outre amplified version. Although maybe the presented end result was intended to read as extreme and outre ("Endless, unlimited censorship—a world where every craven group like yours has free reign to mangle every book ever written.") Will once again leave open the possibility, am once again dubious.
6) It is anti-art ("You are anti-art.") and anti-freedom ("You are anti-freedom.") because art must be free and uncensored to be art ("Art must be free. Art must be unsafe. Art must be controversial.")
IS IT SATIRE? I mean, I suppose it could be a parody of the extreme way people talk about art, juxtaposing this very high-flown rhetoric with changes to mundanely insulting text. But it mostly reads as the way people talk about art, period. I'm very dubious that this is satirical.
7) It is comparable to what the right-wing is doing ("At the moment, the right wing of the US is censoring books. They are fighting to keep non-white and LGBTQ+ narratives from kids ... You are no better than these right-wing assholes. Both you and these fascist fuckwads are afraid of books. Afraid of ideas. You condescend to everyone by thinking you should be the judge of what is said and read.")
IS IT SATIRE? Honestly, this is the part where even the vague intimations that it might be satire I was entertaining previously falls apart for me. This is a pretty straightforward argument that the two positions are identical. There's nothing in the text of the piece indicating any possible differences that would make this seem like an unreasonable position to take. Such arguments might exist, but if so they have to be brought in entirely by the reader; instead the similarities are highlighted. And if this is seriously intended by the author, then the previous arguments that the alterations are fascist, condescending, etc., begin to make a lot more logical sense in light of the author's stance. The concluding argument of this segment is very simple ("If you don’t want censorship from the right, you can’t have it from the left") and doesn't seem particularly unreasonable. I do not think this is intended satirically.
8) There is a better way to handle offensive or controversial text ("if a parent or teacher reads the book to a kid, and there’s a part that’s risky or controversial, discussions can be had")
IS IT SATIRE? This doesn't seem like an unreasonable position at all. If this is satire, I have no idea what it's supposed to be satirizing.
9) People are capable of maturely dealing with the unaltered text of problematic works ("People who come to the art later can handle the context, the different words, the different attitudes ... we are complex creatures capable of complex thoughts.")
IS IT SATIRE? I ... guess you could maybe sort of see this as unreasonable because the books are aimed at children, who are less capable of handling context? But previously the author said that parents and teachers should have discussions with their children about such things, which would obviate that point. So I don't think that's what it's going for. I think the only way to view this as unreasonable is if you think that people are basically uncomplicated idiots, which seems more like the opposite of satire. This seems seriously intended.
CONCLUSION: I do not think this is satire. I think it is seriously intended, and can be agreed with or disagreed with at face value. I do not think I am wrong, but if I am, I guess I'm one of those people who in 1729 would have thought, "Wow, those babies do sound delicious!" So I hope I am not wrong.
posted by kyrademon at 9:09 PM on March 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
now i know what the first council of nicaea must have been like...
hey don't get me started
posted by ovvl at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
hey don't get me started
posted by ovvl at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: This is not entertainment. I am not entertained.
As long as none of these new books say "by Roald Dahl", I'm cool with that. That isn't what's happening.
Yeah, I worked in publishing long enough to be pretty sure that's not how publishing works.
In high school my choir director loved the shit out of some Jesus and had us singing religious songs, almost exclusively.. And now, many, many years later, I'm of the mind that maybe the other choir director had the right idea, because Jesus really has no place in a public school setting...
When I was training to be a music teacher, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we were taught that sacred music was OK if it also had historical or musical significance. So, you couldn't just fill a program with any old religious pap, but something like a Bach cantata was fine.
I really don't have strong feelings about this situation one way or another. I do remember that our classroom copy of Little House on the Prairie (of all things) was redacted, but I still managed to read the version with no blacked-out words. I read some pretty fucked-up stuff as a kid, because our parents didn't believe in curating our reading. But Mom was always willing to take the time to explain things to us, even if she had to do research to understand it herself. Does every parent have the time, energy, and resources to do that? I'm not a parent myself, but I can see the appeal of having these new editions available if I didn't think my kid was ready yet for the whole "things were different back then" concept.
Anyway, Han shot first, and we have the Despecialized Editions to prove it.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:35 PM on March 12, 2023
As long as none of these new books say "by Roald Dahl", I'm cool with that. That isn't what's happening.
Yeah, I worked in publishing long enough to be pretty sure that's not how publishing works.
In high school my choir director loved the shit out of some Jesus and had us singing religious songs, almost exclusively.. And now, many, many years later, I'm of the mind that maybe the other choir director had the right idea, because Jesus really has no place in a public school setting...
When I was training to be a music teacher, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we were taught that sacred music was OK if it also had historical or musical significance. So, you couldn't just fill a program with any old religious pap, but something like a Bach cantata was fine.
I really don't have strong feelings about this situation one way or another. I do remember that our classroom copy of Little House on the Prairie (of all things) was redacted, but I still managed to read the version with no blacked-out words. I read some pretty fucked-up stuff as a kid, because our parents didn't believe in curating our reading. But Mom was always willing to take the time to explain things to us, even if she had to do research to understand it herself. Does every parent have the time, energy, and resources to do that? I'm not a parent myself, but I can see the appeal of having these new editions available if I didn't think my kid was ready yet for the whole "things were different back then" concept.
Anyway, Han shot first, and we have the Despecialized Editions to prove it.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:35 PM on March 12, 2023
Why all this sturm und drang about a very minor rewrite? The originals aren't going away. Were people shouting "censorship!!" when someone (ETA: Baz Luhrmann) did Romeo & Juliet but changed the setting? Why was that fine, but these changes to Dahl aren't? Purely because of motive?
posted by Dysk at 10:35 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 10:35 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Why all this foofaraw about a silly rewrite? The originals are still going to be there. Did people shout "censorship!!" when some guy (I'm looking at you, Baz Luhrmann) did Romeo & Juliet but changed various aspects? Why was that somehow no big deal, but these changes to Dahl are a very big deal? Purely because of motive?
posted by Dysk on March 12 [+] [!]
My point being -- I'm editing/paraphrasing you here, changing you word selection and to some degree your emphasis, perhaps even your meaning. But I'm leaving your signature on the comment. And (to carry the point through) you're dead so there's nothing you can do to address the issue.
posted by philip-random at 10:53 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk on March 12 [+] [!]
My point being -- I'm editing/paraphrasing you here, changing you word selection and to some degree your emphasis, perhaps even your meaning. But I'm leaving your signature on the comment. And (to carry the point through) you're dead so there's nothing you can do to address the issue.
posted by philip-random at 10:53 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
But philip-random, you didn't delete his original comment. Also, you don't own the copyright to Dysk's comment in the first place. So you didn't censor them. What you did is write a fanfic version of their comment. That's hardly a violation of their sacred First Amendment rights.
When a mod deletes a comment, is that censorship? Sure, I guess. But it is capital-C, erasing-Trotsky-from-photographs, pulling-LGBT-books-from-library-shelves Censorship?
posted by AlSweigart at 11:16 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
When a mod deletes a comment, is that censorship? Sure, I guess. But it is capital-C, erasing-Trotsky-from-photographs, pulling-LGBT-books-from-library-shelves Censorship?
posted by AlSweigart at 11:16 PM on March 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Hitler! The people demand to know if this is satire or not. It’s too hard to figure out…and also could you please not say fuck. Thanks.
posted by beesbees at 11:19 PM on March 12, 2023
posted by beesbees at 11:19 PM on March 12, 2023
Okay, I'm outlining how you can tell this is satire and not meant to be taken at face value. Like dissecting a frog, explaining a joke makes you understand it better but it's dead now. Feel free to skip this comment.
First, let's do a proof by contradiction. Let's assume it's meant to be taken at face value, and then find out why that explanation doesn't work. This piece is on McSweeney's, a comedy website rather than a political pundit website. The title of this piece is "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" but lets look at other headlines on this site that could just have easily been written straight by a right-wing/moderate/"I'm above left-right politics"/well-meaning, let's-hear-the-fascists-out liberal person (we're just looking at headlines right now, but I provided links because they are a fun read if you're curious):
"It’s My Right As a Man to Yawn All Over Everyone"
"Macroeconomic Changes Have Made It Impossible for Me to Want to Pay You"
How to Age as a Woman
Honestly, We Just Hate Women
Why There Should Be A Starbucks In Every Local Library
And these classics which use obscenity for comic effect:
It’s Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers
I’m Comic Sans, Asshole
The satire aspect is of course a bit more obvious with these, but let me point out that after browsing through the archive one thing I didn't find: a straight-written op-ed that is earnestly speaking truth to power in a direct way with passionate rage. McSweeney's is not that kind of site.
McSweeney's is not a right-wing site, and it is also not a "moderate" site that is willing to platform right-wingers in order to appear "objective". It's not a political site, but it is associated with left-wing values. (One article is a comedy piece that is pro-bike lanes and riffs on the NYPD, another is about transphobic violence.)
It doesn't make sense for McSweeney's to have a free speech absolutist screed for the sake of having a free speech absolutist screed. If this piece were on some dude's Medium or Substack, you can be led to think that this is a free speech absolutist screed.
But, importantly, it is not.
But if it were on Medium or Substack, it would be hard to distinguish this as a satire.
But, again, it actually is not on Medium or Substack.
Let's look at the other McSweeney's comedy article about the Roald Dahl edits: Don’t Worry, We Didn’t Remove the Part Where James Has Sex With the Giant Peach. This piece is making fun of how overblown the cries of censorship have become by casting them as being so die hard to the author's original words that they would have applied them to a hypothetical multi-chapter description of James fucking the peach. McSweeney's is taking a side here: while not being in favor of the edits (most leftists are either critical of the edits or think they are silly) but lampooning those who think this is something important enough to take a stand on.
So, just from the what kind of site the piece appears on, it'd be weird to take the view that McSweeney's true position on the Roald Dahl edits is virulently anti-censorship and strong condemenation. It's much more believable that it's making fun of that stance.
Let's look at what the piece is satirizing, and what words from the piece itself support the satire.
What the piece is satirizing is a writer character who hates editors and anything that implies his writing should change. As such, he takes on an edgy, free speech absolutist posture who idolizes George Carlin's "7 words you can not say" because you will not tell him what he can't say, i.e. he says "fuck" with absurd frequency. He believes he is above left-right politics but also anti-woke/politically incorrect in ways that always amplify conservative talking points. He confuses, or pretends to confuse, criticism for censorship. He is a writer who does not like editors changing his words because that implies his words aren't perfect, which is a form of criticism, which is a form of censorship. He views his passionate stream-of-conscious writing as more authentic, and authenticity as more important than clear writing. He is in favor of offending people, unless he is the one being offended. He is male.
He has taken offense to the Roald Dahl edits, and blows it out of proportion. This mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill is a stance that the right-wing encourages because it allows them broadly criticize anything they align with "wokeness". (If you ever wonder why this story became such a big story, it's important to keep this fact in mind. Whenever it comes to left-wing protests, police violence, trans-inclusivity, or Hillary's emails, corporate media has endless allowance for critics of the left no matter how absurd or extreme. For years they showered Trump with free publicity and refused to call him a racist and Twitter let him flagrantly violate their own terms, only banning his account after he lost the election.)
Keep in mind that when I say "writer character", I mean the satirical character writing the piece, not the literal writer of the piece, Peter Wisniewski.
The piece begins with an excerpt from the New York Times: "New editions of [Roald Dahl’s] children’s classics, including ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,’ have been altered to eliminate words deemed inappropriate. A backlash ensued." There is a sudden tonal shift from the dry reporting to outraged cussing in the next line: Dear Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers, Yes, this is indeed quite the backlash ensuing. (Take note of the use of "fat-headed" for later.)
It begins: You’re censors. You’re not editors, and you’re not readers. You’re censors. This is the first time we see bad, unedited writing. An editor would have cut the first "You're censors." for being repetitive. But the piece is satire and playing a character who is so wildly against censorship they are also against editing of any kind. (Which, remember, is what the Roald Dahl edits were: editing. Censorship is books being pulled out of libraries and schools, like what Republicans are doing across America right now. The existing original Dahl books have not been forcibly removed from shelves.)
"You are exactly what Orwell warned us about." At this point, an editor would ask the writer to elaborate on what exactly Orwell's warning was instead of leaving it vague. Instead, the writer never mentions Orwell, 1984, Animal Farm, or anything else ever again. This is a sign of a writer who is self-absorbed with the "greatness" of their own writing and not concerned with whether the actual reader understands it or not.
"So fuck you." This kind of punctuating statement would be better towards the end of the piece or after the writer has made some point. Laughably though, it comes so soon that the writer hasn't actually said anything at this point, so it's kind of an abrupt stop right after the piece began.
"That makes you a censor. An agent of censorship." Again, repetitive writing that an editor would have fixed. The second part isn't even a complete sentence. But because this writer character eschews editing, it ends up getting left in.
This writing is amateurish. You can say McSweeney's isn't that funny, but at least the writing isn't this low-quality. Just like how the I'm Comic Sans, Asshole article is itself written in the Comic Sans font, this low-quality writing is an intentional decision. It's not meant to be taken straight.
"Only fascists censor books." This part is developing the character being satirized. Generally, an accusation of fascism either comes from leftists accusing fascists of being fascists, from right-wingers accusing anyone to the left of them of being fascists (e.g. the same false exaggeration as "Biden is a communist!"), or from immature dudes accusing anyone cramping their style of being fascists. The writer character falls into the third group. More on this later.
"What you’re doing is crazy. See? We said it. Crazy. Crazy. Crazy." Again, an editor would point out that the reader doesn't necessarily know what the writer character is talking about (the Roald Dahl edits including replacing the word "crazy") and should elaborate. Well into this piece, the writer character has not actually said anything beyond vague, outraged accusations. He petulantly uses the word "crazy", meant to come off as a politically-incorrect "you can't tell me not to use a word" move. (Kind of like "stupid", "crazy" is a word that comes off as ableist when used as a generic insult since it's at the expense of people dealing with mental illness. Caring about ableism is a left-wing position, but the writer character eschews politically correctness and doesn't care about ableism, making him amplify a right-wing position.)
"You will not take words from the human race. You have no fucking right." gets repeated a few times in the piece. At this point, the writer character's writing has been so consistently bad that it's obviously an intentional choice by the literal writer. The Babylon Bee's articles are right-wing garbage, but at least they do a basic job of editing to make the writing coherent. If you think that this article is sincerely endorsed by McSweeney's, you also have to think that McSweeney's decided this hot mess of word salad was fit to publish as is.
Here's the kicker: "When you censor, you condescend. Fat people call themselves fat because they are not ashamed of themselves. But you are ashamed of us. You think being overweight is something to be ashamed of, so you erase this word, and you erase all fat people. Well, fuck you." So this seems to be a position against fatphobia. This is a left-wing position. However, the very title and first line of the piece makes use of fatphobia. It's like how the South Park creators don't want to be homophobic but still want to use the f-slur as a generic, neutral insult. But it's always going to have a homophobic connotation because it's a homophobic slur. Same thing here: the writer character wants to be seen as a #GoodAlly against fatphobia but doesn't want his privilege inconvenienced even in the slightest by not employing insults with fatphobic connotations. He defends fat people as part of attacking his opponents, much like how TERFs are nominally feminists who pretend to defend women, gays, and lesbians so they can attack trans people.
This is satire. It is presenting a caricature of an angry, nominally leftist but actually right-wing person who is a free speech absolutist because it deflects any criticism of his writing, which is bad. If you say this is indistinguishable from the thing it is satirizing, you're ignoring the deliberate choices and wording the piece uses.
"You have no right to diminish their occupation or any other." This is irony, because the writer character is defending cashiers while diminish the occupation of editors.
"You have no right to take words from Dahl or any author." This is comically overblowing the issue: Dahl himself is long dead, but even if he weren't, the publisher literally has the copyright to Dahl's books.
"Every book ever published has something in it to offend someone." This is ironic, because the wording changes obviously offend the writer character, who does not take this offensiveness so lightly. It's like racists who insist on their right to offend, but get offended when you call them racist.
"The problem with censorship is that it has no end. Think of it: you censored Dahl’s books in the United States. What if the Germans wanted to censor them to suit their needs? And then the Chinese to suit theirs?" Famously, Germany does have laws restricting the expression of pro-Nazi speech and imagery, and for damn good reasons considering their history. Also, this point is ridiculous: China and other countries do censor materials. They're not being held back by the United States' example.
And then later, he undoes his own logic by pointing out that the US is censoring books: "At the moment, the right wing of the US is censoring books. They are fighting to keep non-white and LGBTQ+ narratives from kids. They are pulling books from shelves. They are villainizing teachers and librarians. The literal writer of this piece has put this part in to show an example of actual censorship: books being pulled from shelves. But the writer character equates this censorship with the Dahl edits. I mean, let's take a second to look at that linked NYT article: Changes reported by The Telegraph include characters who are no longer described as “fat” and references to “mothers” and “fathers” that have been updated to “parents” or “family.”
You really want to equate that with censorship? I mean, I dislike George Lucas's silly edits to the original Star Wars trilogy and it's tricky to find the original theatrical cuts, but that isn't the same as removing Trotsky from photographs. This whole story has been overblown, and this piece is a satire of people blowing it out of proportion. That is specifically what is being satirized. I don't know why it's ambiguous to some people. It is falling out of the satire tree and consistently hitting every satire branch on the way down.
So, I'm kind of tired of writing this. I'm sorry this piece doesn't have a big neon sign that says, "THIS IS SATIRE" but I feel more sorry for people who need that sign. I'm going to cheer myself up by reading some Kelly comics on The Onion.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:30 PM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
First, let's do a proof by contradiction. Let's assume it's meant to be taken at face value, and then find out why that explanation doesn't work. This piece is on McSweeney's, a comedy website rather than a political pundit website. The title of this piece is "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" but lets look at other headlines on this site that could just have easily been written straight by a right-wing/moderate/"I'm above left-right politics"/well-meaning, let's-hear-the-fascists-out liberal person (we're just looking at headlines right now, but I provided links because they are a fun read if you're curious):
"It’s My Right As a Man to Yawn All Over Everyone"
"Macroeconomic Changes Have Made It Impossible for Me to Want to Pay You"
How to Age as a Woman
Honestly, We Just Hate Women
Why There Should Be A Starbucks In Every Local Library
And these classics which use obscenity for comic effect:
It’s Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers
I’m Comic Sans, Asshole
The satire aspect is of course a bit more obvious with these, but let me point out that after browsing through the archive one thing I didn't find: a straight-written op-ed that is earnestly speaking truth to power in a direct way with passionate rage. McSweeney's is not that kind of site.
McSweeney's is not a right-wing site, and it is also not a "moderate" site that is willing to platform right-wingers in order to appear "objective". It's not a political site, but it is associated with left-wing values. (One article is a comedy piece that is pro-bike lanes and riffs on the NYPD, another is about transphobic violence.)
It doesn't make sense for McSweeney's to have a free speech absolutist screed for the sake of having a free speech absolutist screed. If this piece were on some dude's Medium or Substack, you can be led to think that this is a free speech absolutist screed.
But, importantly, it is not.
But if it were on Medium or Substack, it would be hard to distinguish this as a satire.
But, again, it actually is not on Medium or Substack.
Let's look at the other McSweeney's comedy article about the Roald Dahl edits: Don’t Worry, We Didn’t Remove the Part Where James Has Sex With the Giant Peach. This piece is making fun of how overblown the cries of censorship have become by casting them as being so die hard to the author's original words that they would have applied them to a hypothetical multi-chapter description of James fucking the peach. McSweeney's is taking a side here: while not being in favor of the edits (most leftists are either critical of the edits or think they are silly) but lampooning those who think this is something important enough to take a stand on.
So, just from the what kind of site the piece appears on, it'd be weird to take the view that McSweeney's true position on the Roald Dahl edits is virulently anti-censorship and strong condemenation. It's much more believable that it's making fun of that stance.
Let's look at what the piece is satirizing, and what words from the piece itself support the satire.
What the piece is satirizing is a writer character who hates editors and anything that implies his writing should change. As such, he takes on an edgy, free speech absolutist posture who idolizes George Carlin's "7 words you can not say" because you will not tell him what he can't say, i.e. he says "fuck" with absurd frequency. He believes he is above left-right politics but also anti-woke/politically incorrect in ways that always amplify conservative talking points. He confuses, or pretends to confuse, criticism for censorship. He is a writer who does not like editors changing his words because that implies his words aren't perfect, which is a form of criticism, which is a form of censorship. He views his passionate stream-of-conscious writing as more authentic, and authenticity as more important than clear writing. He is in favor of offending people, unless he is the one being offended. He is male.
He has taken offense to the Roald Dahl edits, and blows it out of proportion. This mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill is a stance that the right-wing encourages because it allows them broadly criticize anything they align with "wokeness". (If you ever wonder why this story became such a big story, it's important to keep this fact in mind. Whenever it comes to left-wing protests, police violence, trans-inclusivity, or Hillary's emails, corporate media has endless allowance for critics of the left no matter how absurd or extreme. For years they showered Trump with free publicity and refused to call him a racist and Twitter let him flagrantly violate their own terms, only banning his account after he lost the election.)
Keep in mind that when I say "writer character", I mean the satirical character writing the piece, not the literal writer of the piece, Peter Wisniewski.
The piece begins with an excerpt from the New York Times: "New editions of [Roald Dahl’s] children’s classics, including ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,’ have been altered to eliminate words deemed inappropriate. A backlash ensued." There is a sudden tonal shift from the dry reporting to outraged cussing in the next line: Dear Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers, Yes, this is indeed quite the backlash ensuing. (Take note of the use of "fat-headed" for later.)
It begins: You’re censors. You’re not editors, and you’re not readers. You’re censors. This is the first time we see bad, unedited writing. An editor would have cut the first "You're censors." for being repetitive. But the piece is satire and playing a character who is so wildly against censorship they are also against editing of any kind. (Which, remember, is what the Roald Dahl edits were: editing. Censorship is books being pulled out of libraries and schools, like what Republicans are doing across America right now. The existing original Dahl books have not been forcibly removed from shelves.)
"You are exactly what Orwell warned us about." At this point, an editor would ask the writer to elaborate on what exactly Orwell's warning was instead of leaving it vague. Instead, the writer never mentions Orwell, 1984, Animal Farm, or anything else ever again. This is a sign of a writer who is self-absorbed with the "greatness" of their own writing and not concerned with whether the actual reader understands it or not.
"So fuck you." This kind of punctuating statement would be better towards the end of the piece or after the writer has made some point. Laughably though, it comes so soon that the writer hasn't actually said anything at this point, so it's kind of an abrupt stop right after the piece began.
"That makes you a censor. An agent of censorship." Again, repetitive writing that an editor would have fixed. The second part isn't even a complete sentence. But because this writer character eschews editing, it ends up getting left in.
This writing is amateurish. You can say McSweeney's isn't that funny, but at least the writing isn't this low-quality. Just like how the I'm Comic Sans, Asshole article is itself written in the Comic Sans font, this low-quality writing is an intentional decision. It's not meant to be taken straight.
"Only fascists censor books." This part is developing the character being satirized. Generally, an accusation of fascism either comes from leftists accusing fascists of being fascists, from right-wingers accusing anyone to the left of them of being fascists (e.g. the same false exaggeration as "Biden is a communist!"), or from immature dudes accusing anyone cramping their style of being fascists. The writer character falls into the third group. More on this later.
"What you’re doing is crazy. See? We said it. Crazy. Crazy. Crazy." Again, an editor would point out that the reader doesn't necessarily know what the writer character is talking about (the Roald Dahl edits including replacing the word "crazy") and should elaborate. Well into this piece, the writer character has not actually said anything beyond vague, outraged accusations. He petulantly uses the word "crazy", meant to come off as a politically-incorrect "you can't tell me not to use a word" move. (Kind of like "stupid", "crazy" is a word that comes off as ableist when used as a generic insult since it's at the expense of people dealing with mental illness. Caring about ableism is a left-wing position, but the writer character eschews politically correctness and doesn't care about ableism, making him amplify a right-wing position.)
"You will not take words from the human race. You have no fucking right." gets repeated a few times in the piece. At this point, the writer character's writing has been so consistently bad that it's obviously an intentional choice by the literal writer. The Babylon Bee's articles are right-wing garbage, but at least they do a basic job of editing to make the writing coherent. If you think that this article is sincerely endorsed by McSweeney's, you also have to think that McSweeney's decided this hot mess of word salad was fit to publish as is.
Here's the kicker: "When you censor, you condescend. Fat people call themselves fat because they are not ashamed of themselves. But you are ashamed of us. You think being overweight is something to be ashamed of, so you erase this word, and you erase all fat people. Well, fuck you." So this seems to be a position against fatphobia. This is a left-wing position. However, the very title and first line of the piece makes use of fatphobia. It's like how the South Park creators don't want to be homophobic but still want to use the f-slur as a generic, neutral insult. But it's always going to have a homophobic connotation because it's a homophobic slur. Same thing here: the writer character wants to be seen as a #GoodAlly against fatphobia but doesn't want his privilege inconvenienced even in the slightest by not employing insults with fatphobic connotations. He defends fat people as part of attacking his opponents, much like how TERFs are nominally feminists who pretend to defend women, gays, and lesbians so they can attack trans people.
This is satire. It is presenting a caricature of an angry, nominally leftist but actually right-wing person who is a free speech absolutist because it deflects any criticism of his writing, which is bad. If you say this is indistinguishable from the thing it is satirizing, you're ignoring the deliberate choices and wording the piece uses.
"You have no right to diminish their occupation or any other." This is irony, because the writer character is defending cashiers while diminish the occupation of editors.
"You have no right to take words from Dahl or any author." This is comically overblowing the issue: Dahl himself is long dead, but even if he weren't, the publisher literally has the copyright to Dahl's books.
"Every book ever published has something in it to offend someone." This is ironic, because the wording changes obviously offend the writer character, who does not take this offensiveness so lightly. It's like racists who insist on their right to offend, but get offended when you call them racist.
"The problem with censorship is that it has no end. Think of it: you censored Dahl’s books in the United States. What if the Germans wanted to censor them to suit their needs? And then the Chinese to suit theirs?" Famously, Germany does have laws restricting the expression of pro-Nazi speech and imagery, and for damn good reasons considering their history. Also, this point is ridiculous: China and other countries do censor materials. They're not being held back by the United States' example.
And then later, he undoes his own logic by pointing out that the US is censoring books: "At the moment, the right wing of the US is censoring books. They are fighting to keep non-white and LGBTQ+ narratives from kids. They are pulling books from shelves. They are villainizing teachers and librarians. The literal writer of this piece has put this part in to show an example of actual censorship: books being pulled from shelves. But the writer character equates this censorship with the Dahl edits. I mean, let's take a second to look at that linked NYT article: Changes reported by The Telegraph include characters who are no longer described as “fat” and references to “mothers” and “fathers” that have been updated to “parents” or “family.”
You really want to equate that with censorship? I mean, I dislike George Lucas's silly edits to the original Star Wars trilogy and it's tricky to find the original theatrical cuts, but that isn't the same as removing Trotsky from photographs. This whole story has been overblown, and this piece is a satire of people blowing it out of proportion. That is specifically what is being satirized. I don't know why it's ambiguous to some people. It is falling out of the satire tree and consistently hitting every satire branch on the way down.
So, I'm kind of tired of writing this. I'm sorry this piece doesn't have a big neon sign that says, "THIS IS SATIRE" but I feel more sorry for people who need that sign. I'm going to cheer myself up by reading some Kelly comics on The Onion.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:30 PM on March 12, 2023 [14 favorites]
(I'm going to explain that Kelly is a comic that doesn't make any sense when you read one at first, but after reading several you pick up on the patterns and realize it is a brilliant and keen satire of right-wing Americans.)
posted by AlSweigart at 11:56 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by AlSweigart at 11:56 PM on March 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Being badly written isn't satire, it's just bad writing. Nothing in the drummed up Dahl controversy is about editors of articles being in the wrong or overstepping their duty. It wouldn't make any sense to use this subject to satirize someone's writing not being edited.
Furthermore, this is only the second thing this author has published. He does not appear to be doing a character, but merely reaching the limits of his talent. Being opposed to censorship is not a right-wing position nor is opposition to transphobia.
posted by Random_Tangent at 12:04 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
Furthermore, this is only the second thing this author has published. He does not appear to be doing a character, but merely reaching the limits of his talent. Being opposed to censorship is not a right-wing position nor is opposition to transphobia.
posted by Random_Tangent at 12:04 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
Several folks here have characterized Dahl as a terrible person, based on some aspects of his writing, which is understandable, at least in terms of today's culture.
On the other hand, he was an extrordinary man who lived a truly amazing life, far beyond his huge successes as a writer... Go read the entry on him at wikipedia -- it's like Forrest Gump / Zelig level stuff. Among other things, he was an Ace fighter pilot, diplomat, intelligence officer, atheist, and inventor. He was friends with Ian Fleming, C.S. Forrestor, and Winston Churchill, and was married to Patricia Neal!
I love that he was offered an OBE, but turned it down, saying he would have preferred a knighthood so that Neal could be known as Lady Dahl!
posted by TwoToneRow at 12:22 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, he was an extrordinary man who lived a truly amazing life, far beyond his huge successes as a writer... Go read the entry on him at wikipedia -- it's like Forrest Gump / Zelig level stuff. Among other things, he was an Ace fighter pilot, diplomat, intelligence officer, atheist, and inventor. He was friends with Ian Fleming, C.S. Forrestor, and Winston Churchill, and was married to Patricia Neal!
I love that he was offered an OBE, but turned it down, saying he would have preferred a knighthood so that Neal could be known as Lady Dahl!
posted by TwoToneRow at 12:22 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
This is good satire. It's hilariously accurate, just a couple of subtle shades more pompous and self-righteous than the writing it satirizes.
That's why the people it's satirizing don't get it. "How can this be satire? It's almost exactly the kind of thing I write!"
When your Facebook uncle refuses to believe Kelly is satire, it's not because Kelly is bad satire, it's because it's good satire.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:27 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
That's why the people it's satirizing don't get it. "How can this be satire? It's almost exactly the kind of thing I write!"
When your Facebook uncle refuses to believe Kelly is satire, it's not because Kelly is bad satire, it's because it's good satire.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:27 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
Several folks here have characterized Dahl as a terrible person, based on some aspects of his writing, which is understandable, at least in terms of today's culture.
On the other hand, he was an extrordinary man who lived a truly amazing life
Well, he can be a terrible person, and also an extraordinary person, and even, for many, an engaging writer.
I also think it is fair to judge him in terms of today's culture, because some of his racism was an issue even in the era that he wrote. His editor insisted he take out some more troubling elements of his stories and the Oompa Lumpas were changed after-the fact by Roald himself.
I do find it interesting, though, that Charlie, in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was originally black (according to his widow), but this time Roald Dahl was better than his editor, who wouldn't accept it because he insisted readers weren't ready for a black hero.
posted by eye of newt at 1:03 AM on March 13, 2023
On the other hand, he was an extrordinary man who lived a truly amazing life
Well, he can be a terrible person, and also an extraordinary person, and even, for many, an engaging writer.
I also think it is fair to judge him in terms of today's culture, because some of his racism was an issue even in the era that he wrote. His editor insisted he take out some more troubling elements of his stories and the Oompa Lumpas were changed after-the fact by Roald himself.
I do find it interesting, though, that Charlie, in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was originally black (according to his widow), but this time Roald Dahl was better than his editor, who wouldn't accept it because he insisted readers weren't ready for a black hero.
posted by eye of newt at 1:03 AM on March 13, 2023
I'm sorry this piece doesn't have a big neon sign that says, "THIS IS SATIRE"
Yes, actually it does. As you yourself pointed out, it's published on McSweeney's, which is a place where they do satire and nothing else.
But despite that neon sign the satire was written so badly that many of us wondered whether it was satire at all.
I fully understand that there's a 98% chance this was intended as satire. I just don't think it did its job very well.
posted by mmoncur at 1:54 AM on March 13, 2023 [8 favorites]
Yes, actually it does. As you yourself pointed out, it's published on McSweeney's, which is a place where they do satire and nothing else.
But despite that neon sign the satire was written so badly that many of us wondered whether it was satire at all.
I fully understand that there's a 98% chance this was intended as satire. I just don't think it did its job very well.
posted by mmoncur at 1:54 AM on March 13, 2023 [8 favorites]
My point being -- I'm editing/paraphrasing you here, changing you word selection and to some degree your emphasis, perhaps even your meaning. But I'm leaving your signature on the comment. And (to carry the point through) you're dead so there's nothing you can do to address the issue.
...and just like in my example, the original still exists and it is trivial for anyone who cares to see what exactly I originally wrote.
But if I'm dead, I really don't care. Say or do whatever, claim I gave Pol Pot a blowjob, whatever, I'm dead, pretty sure I won't even be able to care at that point.
posted by Dysk at 2:08 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
...and just like in my example, the original still exists and it is trivial for anyone who cares to see what exactly I originally wrote.
But if I'm dead, I really don't care. Say or do whatever, claim I gave Pol Pot a blowjob, whatever, I'm dead, pretty sure I won't even be able to care at that point.
posted by Dysk at 2:08 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
AlSweigart, I find your explanation baffling, unsupported by the text, and completely undercut by the piece's conclusions. But *shrug* I've said my bit on this, and debating it further is less than pointless, so I'll leave it at that.
posted by kyrademon at 2:43 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 2:43 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
Thanks, AlSweigart! I can see the satire angle now, though I don’t necessarily agree with all the ways you interpret the text.
Taken as satire, it is clearly mocking someone who identifies as progressive. There’s not any ambiguity or inconsistency about how they talk about conservatives. So the repeated use of the word crazy can’t be explained by the persona also being an anti-PC conservative. My reading would be that the piece is trying to show that they are not as progressive as they think they are and it is coming out in their unhinged rant about the Dahl edits as censorship. They have an underlying conservatism (small c, wanting to preserve the past) that is only safe to express in very specific situations that end up having to vent all the built up pressure. I guess part of why the arguments in the piece are so tortured is because the persona is trying to make a progressive case while actually being motivated by a desire to hang on to the past.
I don’t personally find the piece funny, but humor is subjective. I’m not sure I get the deliberately bad writing because they eschew all forms of editing as censorship angle. If that was the attempt here, maybe one issue with the piece is trying to satirize two different things at the same time and ending up with a mess.
posted by snofoam at 3:27 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
Taken as satire, it is clearly mocking someone who identifies as progressive. There’s not any ambiguity or inconsistency about how they talk about conservatives. So the repeated use of the word crazy can’t be explained by the persona also being an anti-PC conservative. My reading would be that the piece is trying to show that they are not as progressive as they think they are and it is coming out in their unhinged rant about the Dahl edits as censorship. They have an underlying conservatism (small c, wanting to preserve the past) that is only safe to express in very specific situations that end up having to vent all the built up pressure. I guess part of why the arguments in the piece are so tortured is because the persona is trying to make a progressive case while actually being motivated by a desire to hang on to the past.
I don’t personally find the piece funny, but humor is subjective. I’m not sure I get the deliberately bad writing because they eschew all forms of editing as censorship angle. If that was the attempt here, maybe one issue with the piece is trying to satirize two different things at the same time and ending up with a mess.
posted by snofoam at 3:27 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
This is sort of killing the joke, but I guess that's already been done after 200 comments.
For me the immediate appeal, is that this is a piece of writing that seems like it is trying to get itself censored by calling the censors (and possible editors) "fat-headed fuckers", thus for the censor not to appear like a a censor, they'll have to run the piece as it is. I.e. You'll have to agree or else... you're a "fat-headed fucker".
This is posted on McSweeney's, a site that has the tag line "Daily humor almost every day since 1998".
If you find it to be satire, dumb, funny or not, you'll just have to trust your gut.
posted by beesbees at 4:03 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
For me the immediate appeal, is that this is a piece of writing that seems like it is trying to get itself censored by calling the censors (and possible editors) "fat-headed fuckers", thus for the censor not to appear like a a censor, they'll have to run the piece as it is. I.e. You'll have to agree or else... you're a "fat-headed fucker".
This is posted on McSweeney's, a site that has the tag line "Daily humor almost every day since 1998".
If you find it to be satire, dumb, funny or not, you'll just have to trust your gut.
posted by beesbees at 4:03 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
I love that he was offered an OBE, but turned it down, saying he would have preferred a knighthood so that Neal could be known as Lady Dahl!
Pretty sure it wasn’t Patricia Neal he was married to at that point, but his second wife, Felicity Crosland… his first wife’s nurse, that he left her for.
I’m not saying he’s a terrible person because of the books. I’m saying it because I’ve read multiple biographies of the man. Yes, terrible things happened to him. He was beaten and bullied at a British boarding school. He was horribly injured in the war (though accounts of exactly how his crash happened differ). His eldest daughter died of measles encephalitis, his baby son suffered life-long injuries from a car accident, and his wife nearly died from a series of debilitating strokes. But he was still a racist and misogynist and anti-Semite. He contained multitudes. I still think most of the edits were ham-handed and clumsy.
(I met Felicity Dahl at Gipsy House in 2000. She was lovely, and she even took me inside his writing shed. It was full of fan letters from kids. I’m still conflicted about the man.)
posted by web-goddess at 4:14 AM on March 13, 2023 [19 favorites]
Pretty sure it wasn’t Patricia Neal he was married to at that point, but his second wife, Felicity Crosland… his first wife’s nurse, that he left her for.
I’m not saying he’s a terrible person because of the books. I’m saying it because I’ve read multiple biographies of the man. Yes, terrible things happened to him. He was beaten and bullied at a British boarding school. He was horribly injured in the war (though accounts of exactly how his crash happened differ). His eldest daughter died of measles encephalitis, his baby son suffered life-long injuries from a car accident, and his wife nearly died from a series of debilitating strokes. But he was still a racist and misogynist and anti-Semite. He contained multitudes. I still think most of the edits were ham-handed and clumsy.
(I met Felicity Dahl at Gipsy House in 2000. She was lovely, and she even took me inside his writing shed. It was full of fan letters from kids. I’m still conflicted about the man.)
posted by web-goddess at 4:14 AM on March 13, 2023 [19 favorites]
Thanks for the personal info, web-goddess, you do live up to the title of local expert! I missed out on that bit about wife #2, but to his credit, he was married to Neal for thirty years or so. Apparently the man was an asshole in a lot of ways, but an interesting one nonetheless.
posted by TwoToneRow at 6:57 AM on March 13, 2023
posted by TwoToneRow at 6:57 AM on March 13, 2023
Taken as satire, it is clearly mocking someone who identifies as progressive.
Well, no. They identify as progressive in the same way that TERFs identify as feminist, or the NYT identifies as objective, but then espouse far-right rhetoric. The satirized character does the same, and the text supports this by... well, it's in the explanation.
It's my kind of humor, I guess. I like purposefully bad writing, and realize how much skill it takes to do it. (Even when it confuses the reader at first, as this piece did to me). Stuff like Daniel Lavery's earlier linked "1985, 4000" piece (which Mefites also had trouble parsing), or Garth Merengi's Dark Place, or Kelly editorial cartoons, etc. It calls out that the emperor wears no clothes in such an undercutting way, while many liberals try to earnestly engage with (and end up platforming) the emperor. Reporting on what fascists say at face value is repeating fascist propaganda.
It's one thing to not care for the humor, but to not understand that it's satire (or not understand that the Starship Troopers movie is satire, which really stuck in my craw) gives one an excuse to give up on it and not try to understand it, and then you miss out on a really smart satire.
Here's the big reveal about what this piece is satirizing: mean-spirited writers like Roald Dahl, who if it weren't for editors, would produce fuck-filled work like this. If you think this piece's writing is bad: that's the point. It's not charming or smart or biting, because that only comes after heavy involvement of editors. As web-goddess put it, "Towards the end of his life his editors had a hell of a time toning down the overt racism in some of his most beloved stories."
Authors are not the lone genius because for the most part that doesn't exist.
And it's been done before: Anne Rice famously fired her editor so no one would mangle her words, and never wrote another hit. Previously on the blue. It isn't censorship, it's an immature refusal to accept criticism.
And blowing the Roald Dalh edits out of proportion with cries of "this is left-wing censorship, has wokeness gone too far?!" is the right-wing getting useful liberals to do their work for them at a time when they're pulling LGBT books off shelves and trying to dismantle the institution of public libraries.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:12 AM on March 13, 2023 [12 favorites]
Well, no. They identify as progressive in the same way that TERFs identify as feminist, or the NYT identifies as objective, but then espouse far-right rhetoric. The satirized character does the same, and the text supports this by... well, it's in the explanation.
It's my kind of humor, I guess. I like purposefully bad writing, and realize how much skill it takes to do it. (Even when it confuses the reader at first, as this piece did to me). Stuff like Daniel Lavery's earlier linked "1985, 4000" piece (which Mefites also had trouble parsing), or Garth Merengi's Dark Place, or Kelly editorial cartoons, etc. It calls out that the emperor wears no clothes in such an undercutting way, while many liberals try to earnestly engage with (and end up platforming) the emperor. Reporting on what fascists say at face value is repeating fascist propaganda.
It's one thing to not care for the humor, but to not understand that it's satire (or not understand that the Starship Troopers movie is satire, which really stuck in my craw) gives one an excuse to give up on it and not try to understand it, and then you miss out on a really smart satire.
Here's the big reveal about what this piece is satirizing: mean-spirited writers like Roald Dahl, who if it weren't for editors, would produce fuck-filled work like this. If you think this piece's writing is bad: that's the point. It's not charming or smart or biting, because that only comes after heavy involvement of editors. As web-goddess put it, "Towards the end of his life his editors had a hell of a time toning down the overt racism in some of his most beloved stories."
Authors are not the lone genius because for the most part that doesn't exist.
And it's been done before: Anne Rice famously fired her editor so no one would mangle her words, and never wrote another hit. Previously on the blue. It isn't censorship, it's an immature refusal to accept criticism.
And blowing the Roald Dalh edits out of proportion with cries of "this is left-wing censorship, has wokeness gone too far?!" is the right-wing getting useful liberals to do their work for them at a time when they're pulling LGBT books off shelves and trying to dismantle the institution of public libraries.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:12 AM on March 13, 2023 [12 favorites]
Satire
Humor is not successful if it requires multi-thousand word analyses to show that it is, in fact, humor.
And blowing the Roald Dalh edits out of proportion with cries of "this is left-wing censorship, has wokeness gone too far?!" is the right-wing getting useful liberals to do their work for them at a time when they're pulling LGBT books off shelves and trying to dismantle the institution of public libraries.
It's perfectly possible -- and much more consistent I would say -- to be critical of both.
posted by Galvanic at 7:30 AM on March 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
Humor is not successful if it requires multi-thousand word analyses to show that it is, in fact, humor.
And blowing the Roald Dalh edits out of proportion with cries of "this is left-wing censorship, has wokeness gone too far?!" is the right-wing getting useful liberals to do their work for them at a time when they're pulling LGBT books off shelves and trying to dismantle the institution of public libraries.
It's perfectly possible -- and much more consistent I would say -- to be critical of both.
posted by Galvanic at 7:30 AM on March 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
MetaFilter: I'm still conflicted about the man
posted by elkevelvet at 7:33 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 7:33 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
It is presenting a caricature of an angry, nominally leftist but actually right-wing person who is a free speech absolutist because it deflects any criticism of his writing, which is bad.
If that’s the case, it feels perilously close to “inventing a new type of person to get mad at on here.”
posted by staggernation at 7:36 AM on March 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
If that’s the case, it feels perilously close to “inventing a new type of person to get mad at on here.”
posted by staggernation at 7:36 AM on March 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
snofoam, your take makes the most sense to me
truly this an attempt at satire
I'm with you though: I don't think the author quite pulls the landing. Equally possible: my wit is too dull to appreciate the piece fully
posted by elkevelvet at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
truly this an attempt at satire
I'm with you though: I don't think the author quite pulls the landing. Equally possible: my wit is too dull to appreciate the piece fully
posted by elkevelvet at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's perfectly possible [...] to be critical of both.
Yes in general, but not so much in this case. I, too, am critical of the edits because they are silly and ham handed, but when people go further and call it censorship, that is creating controversy out of nothing. And having people ask, "Is this an example of left-wing censorship?" is not a neutral question any more than "Did Bob Sagat rape and kill a young girl in 1990?" It very much helps the right-wing distract public discourse at a time when they are already engaging in real, laws-passed, books-pulled censorship.
[...] it feels perilously close to “inventing a new type of person to get mad at on here.
J.K. Rowling is an author who identifies as a pro-woman feminist but pals around with far-right figures because they agree on her transphobic views. It's not an invention: she immediately jumped to mind as an example. Heck if you have 30 minutes, Sean's video JK Rowling's New Friends is worth a watch.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:53 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yes in general, but not so much in this case. I, too, am critical of the edits because they are silly and ham handed, but when people go further and call it censorship, that is creating controversy out of nothing. And having people ask, "Is this an example of left-wing censorship?" is not a neutral question any more than "Did Bob Sagat rape and kill a young girl in 1990?" It very much helps the right-wing distract public discourse at a time when they are already engaging in real, laws-passed, books-pulled censorship.
[...] it feels perilously close to “inventing a new type of person to get mad at on here.
J.K. Rowling is an author who identifies as a pro-woman feminist but pals around with far-right figures because they agree on her transphobic views. It's not an invention: she immediately jumped to mind as an example. Heck if you have 30 minutes, Sean's video JK Rowling's New Friends is worth a watch.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:53 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's perfectly possible -- and much more consistent I would say -- to be critical of both.
Thank you. A big argument on this thread for why we shouldn't worry about the bowlderization of Dahl's work is that the originals don't cease to exist. Well, if you pull books from a school or library, they don't cease to exist either. Censorship exists on a spectrum. Just because someone's not rounding up every copy of a book and burning it doesn't mean it's not something to be deeply concerned about, regardless of whether the left or right is doing it.
AlSweigart, I think you're reading into the piece what you want it to be politically. I think snofoam or beesbees have the more likely explanations.
posted by Jess the Mess at 7:59 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Thank you. A big argument on this thread for why we shouldn't worry about the bowlderization of Dahl's work is that the originals don't cease to exist. Well, if you pull books from a school or library, they don't cease to exist either. Censorship exists on a spectrum. Just because someone's not rounding up every copy of a book and burning it doesn't mean it's not something to be deeply concerned about, regardless of whether the left or right is doing it.
AlSweigart, I think you're reading into the piece what you want it to be politically. I think snofoam or beesbees have the more likely explanations.
posted by Jess the Mess at 7:59 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
AlSweigart, I think you're reading into the piece what you want it to be politically.
Oh, for sure I'm digging deep into the piece titled "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" But the people who aren't digging deep come away from it saying, "I don't even know if this is supposed to be satire."
McSweeney's, like The Onion, isn't a political site. But they both clearly have left-wing politics. I'm not imagining that. (I point this out in my overly long explanation, which I don't fault anyone for skipping.)
posted by AlSweigart at 8:07 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Oh, for sure I'm digging deep into the piece titled "Fuck You, You Fat-Headed Roald Dahl-Censoring Fuckers" But the people who aren't digging deep come away from it saying, "I don't even know if this is supposed to be satire."
McSweeney's, like The Onion, isn't a political site. But they both clearly have left-wing politics. I'm not imagining that. (I point this out in my overly long explanation, which I don't fault anyone for skipping.)
posted by AlSweigart at 8:07 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
I met Felicity Dahl at Gipsy House in 2000. She was lovely, and she even took me inside his writing shed. It was full of fan letters from kids. .
Kids, unlike adults, aren't usually full of opinions and blinding biases. So yeah, they can enjoy his books because they're enjoyable. ( And so can you if you want to ).
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:10 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Kids, unlike adults, aren't usually full of opinions and blinding biases. So yeah, they can enjoy his books because they're enjoyable. ( And so can you if you want to ).
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:10 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes in general, but not so much in this case. I, too, am critical of the edits because they are silly and ham handed, but when people go further and call it censorship, that is creating controversy out of nothing. And having people ask, "Is this an example of left-wing censorship?" is not a neutral question any more than "Did Bob Sagat rape and kill a young girl in 1990?" It very much helps the right-wing distract public discourse at a time when they are already engaging in real, laws-passed, books-pulled censorship.
This is getting close to tone policing -- telling people that they can have the opinion but that they're expressing it the wrong way.
It's also wildly optimistic to think that not calling this censorship would stop the right wing from making a big issue of it and calling it censorship. The right is going to do what the right is going to do and preemptively self-censoring ourselves for fear that this will somehow support them just does their work for them.
posted by Galvanic at 8:19 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is getting close to tone policing -- telling people that they can have the opinion but that they're expressing it the wrong way.
It's also wildly optimistic to think that not calling this censorship would stop the right wing from making a big issue of it and calling it censorship. The right is going to do what the right is going to do and preemptively self-censoring ourselves for fear that this will somehow support them just does their work for them.
posted by Galvanic at 8:19 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Anyway, Han shot first, and we have the Despecialized Editions to prove it.
You don't need the despecialized editions when you have rips of VHS tapes from the theatrical releases.
Or you could just go to The Internet Archive and watch the DVD rips of the theatrical releases (the last time they were released) if you can't find them elsewhere.
posted by mikelieman at 8:26 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
You don't need the despecialized editions when you have rips of VHS tapes from the theatrical releases.
Or you could just go to The Internet Archive and watch the DVD rips of the theatrical releases (the last time they were released) if you can't find them elsewhere.
posted by mikelieman at 8:26 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Those who suggest editing one's arguments to avoid feeding into right-wing framing of issues rarely come across as "wildly optimistic" in my experience.
posted by otsebyatina at 8:28 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by otsebyatina at 8:28 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
I fully understand that there's a 98% chance this was intended as satire. I just don't think it did its job very well.
Yeah, it didn't hit the way the author and editors hoped it would. And I hope they have a chance to consider the arguments made here.
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on March 13, 2023
Yeah, it didn't hit the way the author and editors hoped it would. And I hope they have a chance to consider the arguments made here.
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on March 13, 2023
McSweeney's, like The Onion, isn't a political site. But they both clearly have left-wing politics.
Definitely, but I don't think they have left-wing politics to the extreme you have them. They're both still pretty normie sites. I can see them taking the view that people getting het up about the Roald Dahl are fools but I don't see actually believing that those people are Nazis or even right-wingers. That's reading way too much into it and it also doesn't make any sense given that speaker sincerely expresses very liberal viewpoints throughout.
posted by Jess the Mess at 8:37 AM on March 13, 2023
Definitely, but I don't think they have left-wing politics to the extreme you have them. They're both still pretty normie sites. I can see them taking the view that people getting het up about the Roald Dahl are fools but I don't see actually believing that those people are Nazis or even right-wingers. That's reading way too much into it and it also doesn't make any sense given that speaker sincerely expresses very liberal viewpoints throughout.
posted by Jess the Mess at 8:37 AM on March 13, 2023
Humor is not successful if it requires multi-thousand word analyses to show that it is, in fact, humor.
A joke isn't necessarily bad because I don't get it.
Equally possible: my wit is too dull to appreciate the piece fully
Some humour just lands in my particular blind spot. This is one of those life lessons I've had to learn more than once. To my humiliation.
posted by philip-random at 8:52 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
A joke isn't necessarily bad because I don't get it.
Equally possible: my wit is too dull to appreciate the piece fully
Some humour just lands in my particular blind spot. This is one of those life lessons I've had to learn more than once. To my humiliation.
posted by philip-random at 8:52 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm still not over the fact that someone compared "preferring Roald Dahl's books not be bowdlerized" to The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas with a straight face.
Reading this and previous threads about this, I feel... defective, maybe? Because I just don't have a strong opinion about this subject. I generally think that it's good to eliminate gross shit from culture, and I also think that sometimes gross shit in literature is what defines the literature in question, and... shrug!! I'm far more concerned by the right-wing propaganda machine using this as fuel for its propaganda than I am by the actual choice being made here, since it will not be hard to find the original versions of the books after this and people who want the originals can still find them.
What I liked about Dahl, as a kid, was the nastiness. It felt like he wrote distorted, vicious caricatures of the world that, even as a kid, I recognized as caricatures. Those caricatures are often problematic, but the problematic-ness was connected with why the books were so appealing. And I don't mean that in some "validating social sadism" way or some "thrill of transgression" sense. It's more that, as a kid, my experience of other kids was that they were mean and awful and terrible, and that adults were a different kind of awful, in that they were unimpeachable authority figures who'd like us all to calmly accept their mature interpretation of events and they were always wrong about everything, and smugly so to boot. Roald Dahl books were books in which everyone was mean, authority was a cozy boot stamping out children's faces, and it just felt an awful lot closer to my lived experience than a bunch of other things.
It felt like the children-safe version of Bret Easton Ellis books. And BEE has the same issues as Dahl, in that he's kind of a shit. But I read BEE novels when "mean and nasty" is the balm my soul needs.
I dunno, I think Dahl will recede gradually into the past. I think it's important that we don't create new Dahls, but Dahl himself has been dead since a month after I was born, his works have some staying power but aren't a total phenomenon, and I generally think that kids are both (a) smarter than we give them credit for and (b) waaaay better at picking up toxic radiation than we want to think. A kid's not gonna need Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to turn fatphobic, when she has: the rest of society to help her with that. At the same time, will a few well-intentioned-but-mediocre edits fundamentally ruin a kid's reading experience of Roald Dahl? Nah. So, in short, my take is basically: whatever!
On the other hand, I reread Orson Scott Card's entire Ender series last year, and somehow wound up with a first-edition copy of Ender's Game, which—shockingly, as a reader of Ender's Game for twenty years—flat-out has a passage in which the N-word gets dropped and then things get even more racist. I found it genuinely jarring, to find something that intense amidst what has more-or-less become a nostalgia read for me. So maybe these edited books will give some other person a similarly nasty shock one day, and that's fun. Roald Dahl would even probably approve.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 8:54 AM on March 13, 2023 [18 favorites]
Reading this and previous threads about this, I feel... defective, maybe? Because I just don't have a strong opinion about this subject. I generally think that it's good to eliminate gross shit from culture, and I also think that sometimes gross shit in literature is what defines the literature in question, and... shrug!! I'm far more concerned by the right-wing propaganda machine using this as fuel for its propaganda than I am by the actual choice being made here, since it will not be hard to find the original versions of the books after this and people who want the originals can still find them.
What I liked about Dahl, as a kid, was the nastiness. It felt like he wrote distorted, vicious caricatures of the world that, even as a kid, I recognized as caricatures. Those caricatures are often problematic, but the problematic-ness was connected with why the books were so appealing. And I don't mean that in some "validating social sadism" way or some "thrill of transgression" sense. It's more that, as a kid, my experience of other kids was that they were mean and awful and terrible, and that adults were a different kind of awful, in that they were unimpeachable authority figures who'd like us all to calmly accept their mature interpretation of events and they were always wrong about everything, and smugly so to boot. Roald Dahl books were books in which everyone was mean, authority was a cozy boot stamping out children's faces, and it just felt an awful lot closer to my lived experience than a bunch of other things.
It felt like the children-safe version of Bret Easton Ellis books. And BEE has the same issues as Dahl, in that he's kind of a shit. But I read BEE novels when "mean and nasty" is the balm my soul needs.
I dunno, I think Dahl will recede gradually into the past. I think it's important that we don't create new Dahls, but Dahl himself has been dead since a month after I was born, his works have some staying power but aren't a total phenomenon, and I generally think that kids are both (a) smarter than we give them credit for and (b) waaaay better at picking up toxic radiation than we want to think. A kid's not gonna need Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to turn fatphobic, when she has: the rest of society to help her with that. At the same time, will a few well-intentioned-but-mediocre edits fundamentally ruin a kid's reading experience of Roald Dahl? Nah. So, in short, my take is basically: whatever!
On the other hand, I reread Orson Scott Card's entire Ender series last year, and somehow wound up with a first-edition copy of Ender's Game, which—shockingly, as a reader of Ender's Game for twenty years—flat-out has a passage in which the N-word gets dropped and then things get even more racist. I found it genuinely jarring, to find something that intense amidst what has more-or-less become a nostalgia read for me. So maybe these edited books will give some other person a similarly nasty shock one day, and that's fun. Roald Dahl would even probably approve.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 8:54 AM on March 13, 2023 [18 favorites]
The problem with this piece isn't that it's ambiguously satirical. It's clearly meant to be satire. It's just not good satire. Good satire should be able to make a thoughtful person who is being satirized actually reconsider their point of view. "After reading this McSweeney's piece, I feel rightly skewered. I guess maybe my position is a little over-the-top after all," is the type of reaction that thoughtful people might express if the satire were effective.
It's my kind of humor, I guess. I like purposefully bad writing, and realize how much skill it takes to do it.
Frankly I think you're giving the author way too much credit. Perhaps you're putting yourself in their position and imagining that for you to write that badly you'd really have to struggle at it. But I think this author just lacks skill. Either that or they must have Andy Kaufman grade steel balls. It would take supreme confidence to painstakingly pretend to be a bad writer before you ever establish your reputation for being a good one.
posted by xigxag at 9:07 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's my kind of humor, I guess. I like purposefully bad writing, and realize how much skill it takes to do it.
Frankly I think you're giving the author way too much credit. Perhaps you're putting yourself in their position and imagining that for you to write that badly you'd really have to struggle at it. But I think this author just lacks skill. Either that or they must have Andy Kaufman grade steel balls. It would take supreme confidence to painstakingly pretend to be a bad writer before you ever establish your reputation for being a good one.
posted by xigxag at 9:07 AM on March 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
But they both clearly have left-wing politics.
Or is it just that reality has a liberal bias?
Well, if you pull books from a school or library, they don't cease to exist either.
Librarians pull books from the shelves all the time. That doesn't make them censors. And copyright holders, non even the original creator in this case, modifying there own works, even because of push back from the public is far from censorship either. Ironically this would be a non issue if copyright terms weren't so rediculously long. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was published 59 years ago. Dahl's been dead for 33. In a sane system anyone could publish any version they wanted and this would be a non issue.
posted by Mitheral at 9:09 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Or is it just that reality has a liberal bias?
Well, if you pull books from a school or library, they don't cease to exist either.
Librarians pull books from the shelves all the time. That doesn't make them censors. And copyright holders, non even the original creator in this case, modifying there own works, even because of push back from the public is far from censorship either. Ironically this would be a non issue if copyright terms weren't so rediculously long. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was published 59 years ago. Dahl's been dead for 33. In a sane system anyone could publish any version they wanted and this would be a non issue.
posted by Mitheral at 9:09 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
regardless of whether the left or right is doing it
That's the problem with the framing, though, as well as the accusations of tone-policing, since there was no nebulous and nefarious leftist plot. Both examples of alleged left-wing censorship I've seen offered here are actually publishers and/or estates making the changes. And yes, the "neutrality" of those who insist on reusing these allegations to demonstrate that the woke mind virus is real and out to get you absolutely should be questioned.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:11 AM on March 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
That's the problem with the framing, though, as well as the accusations of tone-policing, since there was no nebulous and nefarious leftist plot. Both examples of alleged left-wing censorship I've seen offered here are actually publishers and/or estates making the changes. And yes, the "neutrality" of those who insist on reusing these allegations to demonstrate that the woke mind virus is real and out to get you absolutely should be questioned.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:11 AM on March 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
Definitely, but I don't think they have left-wing politics to the extreme you have them.
They don't use the blunt explanatory tone that I'm using in this thread, but the politics are the same. They use humor and satire to take the edge off. Here's The Onion implying that DeSantis wants to ban a Dr. Seuss book for "the Grinch not being overtly Jewish enough". Here's The Onion portraying a YouTuber posting videos "with titles like “The Truth About Grooming,” “Why The Aryan Bloodline Matters,” and “The Dangers Of Female Consent.”". They make jokes (funny) while I've been explaining the joke (oh god, not funny at all), but our stances are the same: fascism and hoods-off bigotry are quite real and mainstream in modern America.
The subtext of McSweeney's other piece, Don’t Worry, We Didn’t Remove the Part Where James Has Sex With the Giant Peach, is also stating that the controversy is overblown to a level of importance it shouldn't have. And that is my view too.
Whether you want to call it extreme or not is up to you, but the politics of me, The Onion, and McSweeney's are pretty much on par in this area. But I would say it's the times we live in that are extreme. ("Or is it just that reality has a liberal bias?" as Mitheral put it.) Which is why it's so disappointing that people want to fall for and normalize right-wing framing of issues like this and, even in 2022, Biden himself could only muster calling MAGA culture "semi-fascist."
posted by AlSweigart at 9:35 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
They don't use the blunt explanatory tone that I'm using in this thread, but the politics are the same. They use humor and satire to take the edge off. Here's The Onion implying that DeSantis wants to ban a Dr. Seuss book for "the Grinch not being overtly Jewish enough". Here's The Onion portraying a YouTuber posting videos "with titles like “The Truth About Grooming,” “Why The Aryan Bloodline Matters,” and “The Dangers Of Female Consent.”". They make jokes (funny) while I've been explaining the joke (oh god, not funny at all), but our stances are the same: fascism and hoods-off bigotry are quite real and mainstream in modern America.
The subtext of McSweeney's other piece, Don’t Worry, We Didn’t Remove the Part Where James Has Sex With the Giant Peach, is also stating that the controversy is overblown to a level of importance it shouldn't have. And that is my view too.
Whether you want to call it extreme or not is up to you, but the politics of me, The Onion, and McSweeney's are pretty much on par in this area. But I would say it's the times we live in that are extreme. ("Or is it just that reality has a liberal bias?" as Mitheral put it.) Which is why it's so disappointing that people want to fall for and normalize right-wing framing of issues like this and, even in 2022, Biden himself could only muster calling MAGA culture "semi-fascist."
posted by AlSweigart at 9:35 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
AlSweigart, I like to talk about what makes things funny
I think satire should be funny in addition to all the other things: provocative, challenging, etc.
I appreciate that you are spending the time to discuss this. I keep re-reading the piece and I think the voice is not just inconsistent, it's at odds with itself at times.
So I'm open to the fact I'm missing something, but I don't think this is as good as it wants to be
posted by elkevelvet at 9:45 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
I think satire should be funny in addition to all the other things: provocative, challenging, etc.
I appreciate that you are spending the time to discuss this. I keep re-reading the piece and I think the voice is not just inconsistent, it's at odds with itself at times.
So I'm open to the fact I'm missing something, but I don't think this is as good as it wants to be
posted by elkevelvet at 9:45 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
Not having quite lol'd at the piece, I'm thinking this satire was more funny hmm-hmm than funny ha-ha.
posted by otsebyatina at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by otsebyatina at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
it's not that good satire has to be laugh-out-loud funny
but surely it needs to be deliberate and tight. this piece, imo, is not tight
posted by elkevelvet at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
but surely it needs to be deliberate and tight. this piece, imo, is not tight
posted by elkevelvet at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Librarians pull books from the shelves all the time. That doesn't make them censors.
Normal weeding by librarians is a very different thing than a book being pulled off a shelf because it was successfully challenged, though traditionally librarians are taught to always be on guard that they are aren't inadvertently committing censorship themselves via their collection decisions.
posted by Jess the Mess at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Normal weeding by librarians is a very different thing than a book being pulled off a shelf because it was successfully challenged, though traditionally librarians are taught to always be on guard that they are aren't inadvertently committing censorship themselves via their collection decisions.
posted by Jess the Mess at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it didn't hit the way the author and editors hoped it would. And I hope they have a chance to consider the arguments made here.
I hope not! We've created a nearly 30,000 word thread on a 700 word throwaway piece, and it's clear that for most of us (me included) it's just not our type of joke.
If it's their type of joke and they enjoyed it I hope they keep doing it.
posted by mark k at 10:39 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
I hope not! We've created a nearly 30,000 word thread on a 700 word throwaway piece, and it's clear that for most of us (me included) it's just not our type of joke.
If it's their type of joke and they enjoyed it I hope they keep doing it.
posted by mark k at 10:39 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
If it's their type of joke and they enjoyed it I hope they keep doing it.
sir, we live in a society
posted by elkevelvet at 10:48 AM on March 13, 2023 [6 favorites]
sir, we live in a society
posted by elkevelvet at 10:48 AM on March 13, 2023 [6 favorites]
Relax, it’s ok if you “don’t get it”, find it funny, is for or against it - but please stop telling other people what it’s all about or what good writing is.
If we go over everything with a big vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything that is bad, sounds bad or is ambiguous, there’ll be nothing interesting, or funny, left.
You made this spiral out or proportion, you fat-headed fuckers.
posted by beesbees at 11:13 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
If we go over everything with a big vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything that is bad, sounds bad or is ambiguous, there’ll be nothing interesting, or funny, left.
You made this spiral out or proportion, you fat-headed fuckers.
posted by beesbees at 11:13 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
by the same token, people sharing what they think is good or bad art is a good chunk of conversation where I'm from
I don't think that's a problem, is it?
if we can't all be fat-headed fuckers, what the fuck is the world coming to
posted by elkevelvet at 11:16 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't think that's a problem, is it?
if we can't all be fat-headed fuckers, what the fuck is the world coming to
posted by elkevelvet at 11:16 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
One thing that I find odd about this piece is that there are so many possible satires to do of the situation:
The “we left the part about James fucking the giant peach” piece that they also published.
A “There’s no way in hell they’ll posthumously edit my work” piece, which AlSweigart thinks this piece partially is, but I don’t think is actually being done, where the piece is about the author’s word choice as sacrosanct, but full of errors.
The classic nightmare client/make the logo bigger piece that is an email exchange between the lowly person doing rewrites and actually starts off with some really good ones, and their dumb boss who keeps asking for changes that make the edits increasingly clunky.
A piece that I don’t think actually should be written, but would be satire, where someone starts making an ostensibly reasonable argument against editing Dahl, but as it goes on it progresses to increasingly obvious anti-Semitic caricatures of the people doing the editing.
A piece where Tucker Carlson explains how he is against the edits, not because it is an issue he can use to rile up Fox News viewers, but because he has a deep and sincere connection with these books since reading them as a child.
Etc. The possibilities are almost endless.
posted by snofoam at 11:37 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
The “we left the part about James fucking the giant peach” piece that they also published.
A “There’s no way in hell they’ll posthumously edit my work” piece, which AlSweigart thinks this piece partially is, but I don’t think is actually being done, where the piece is about the author’s word choice as sacrosanct, but full of errors.
The classic nightmare client/make the logo bigger piece that is an email exchange between the lowly person doing rewrites and actually starts off with some really good ones, and their dumb boss who keeps asking for changes that make the edits increasingly clunky.
A piece that I don’t think actually should be written, but would be satire, where someone starts making an ostensibly reasonable argument against editing Dahl, but as it goes on it progresses to increasingly obvious anti-Semitic caricatures of the people doing the editing.
A piece where Tucker Carlson explains how he is against the edits, not because it is an issue he can use to rile up Fox News viewers, but because he has a deep and sincere connection with these books since reading them as a child.
Etc. The possibilities are almost endless.
posted by snofoam at 11:37 AM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
There is a tradition / shitpost / form of trolling on some internet forums where you take someone else's bad opinion you've found and post it under your name with no indication that it's a quote. The idea is, I guess, that other regulars should see the incongruity between the choice of venue, your reputation, and how bad the the post is and realize that you're not earnestly posting your own opinion, and get a little chuckle out of it, or if you're lucky actually start responding to the post and then you get the amusement of a derail. This article feels more like that, stylistically, than conventional satire.
posted by Pyry at 11:54 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Pyry at 11:54 AM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Personally, I agree with AlSweigart: the piece is conspicuously satire, specifically of the "self-righteous stand against something nobody actually supports done in the middle of a crowd of people who already agree" variety.
And while I think it's a mistake to equate right-wing censorship with left-wing "censorship," since the former is an institutionally-enforced attempt to literally criminalize personal expression and the latter generally consists of people trying to make more tolerant environments for others (with an admittedly varying degree of success), I think that this particular flavor of "taking a stand" does happen equally on both sides, and is exhausting on both ends. I'm active in a fairly progressive community that's light on genuine activism, big on outrage, and spends virtually all its time getting pissed off at things it's miserable about without taking much time to even appreciate the things that bring them joy, and an awful lot of their posts look exactly like this one: lots of venting, lots of self-righteous insistence that theirs alone is the voice standing at a pivotal crux in history demanding justice, and it's always for an audience that already completely agrees with them. It's exhausting and unpleasant and I'm glad that better communities exist.
Of course, it is hard to tell that this is a satire of self-satisfied "angry activist" posturing, since McSweeney's entire brand is self-satisfied humor targeted at an audience that already completely agrees with them. So frankly, the fact that so many people struggle to see this as parody rather than as a sincere McSweeney's piece is probably funnier than the actual piece itself.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 12:36 PM on March 13, 2023 [6 favorites]
And while I think it's a mistake to equate right-wing censorship with left-wing "censorship," since the former is an institutionally-enforced attempt to literally criminalize personal expression and the latter generally consists of people trying to make more tolerant environments for others (with an admittedly varying degree of success), I think that this particular flavor of "taking a stand" does happen equally on both sides, and is exhausting on both ends. I'm active in a fairly progressive community that's light on genuine activism, big on outrage, and spends virtually all its time getting pissed off at things it's miserable about without taking much time to even appreciate the things that bring them joy, and an awful lot of their posts look exactly like this one: lots of venting, lots of self-righteous insistence that theirs alone is the voice standing at a pivotal crux in history demanding justice, and it's always for an audience that already completely agrees with them. It's exhausting and unpleasant and I'm glad that better communities exist.
Of course, it is hard to tell that this is a satire of self-satisfied "angry activist" posturing, since McSweeney's entire brand is self-satisfied humor targeted at an audience that already completely agrees with them. So frankly, the fact that so many people struggle to see this as parody rather than as a sincere McSweeney's piece is probably funnier than the actual piece itself.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 12:36 PM on March 13, 2023 [6 favorites]
Metafilter: a fairly progressive community that's light on genuine activism, big on outrage, and spends virtually all its time getting pissed off at things it's miserable about without taking much time to even appreciate the things that bring them joy
posted by snofoam at 12:45 PM on March 13, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 12:45 PM on March 13, 2023 [8 favorites]
speaking of satire
(thanks, Wordshore)
posted by elkevelvet at 1:37 PM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
(thanks, Wordshore)
posted by elkevelvet at 1:37 PM on March 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes, it is probably satire, and yes, it is an objectively terrible bit of satire, particularly coming from McSweeney's, which as a publication should know better than to leave people wondering whether or not something is satire due to the lack of a punchline and a cringeworthily earnest tone. The piece itself is not worth defending - it really is that bad.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:39 PM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:39 PM on March 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
Off-topic of Roald Dahl, I just want to say that "Honestly, We Just Hate Women" is the truest thing of all time. It's satire, but also, well, you know.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:56 PM on March 13, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:56 PM on March 13, 2023 [6 favorites]
If the price of Omelas was reading the children's books of Roald Dahl with the insulting parts about fat people and women in wigs still in instead of keeping a child in a cage, then yes, I think I would have to be for Omelas.
But what if you were a fat woman wearing a wig in a cage? That's the point of LeGuin's story-- What if Omelas was you? It's easy to walk away from Onmelas when you can't/won't see yourself in her. Kind of hard to walk away when you're IN the cage, though.
posted by KingEdRa at 3:25 PM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
But what if you were a fat woman wearing a wig in a cage? That's the point of LeGuin's story-- What if Omelas was you? It's easy to walk away from Onmelas when you can't/won't see yourself in her. Kind of hard to walk away when you're IN the cage, though.
posted by KingEdRa at 3:25 PM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Also off-topic of Roald Dahl, I just want to say I really like that one scene in the Starship Troopers movie where Rico tells the military recruiter he's joined the mobile infantry, and the recruiter says, "Good for you, son. Mobile infantry is what made me the man I am today." and he pushes back his chair to grab a paper and you see that his legs are missing.
It's bits like this, and several others, that subtly tell the audience it's not a fascist movie but a satire against fascism.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:26 PM on March 13, 2023
It's bits like this, and several others, that subtly tell the audience it's not a fascist movie but a satire against fascism.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:26 PM on March 13, 2023
glad you posted that, jenfullmoon
compare the anger between the two McSweeney's pieces
if there is one thing the two pieces could be compared by, it's the anger.. the anger coming off "Honestly We Just Hate Women" is devastating and needs no footnotes, whereas these 200+ comments feel like a confused mass of footnotes to the confused satire/anger expressed in "FUCK YOU, (etc)"
posted by elkevelvet at 3:57 PM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
compare the anger between the two McSweeney's pieces
if there is one thing the two pieces could be compared by, it's the anger.. the anger coming off "Honestly We Just Hate Women" is devastating and needs no footnotes, whereas these 200+ comments feel like a confused mass of footnotes to the confused satire/anger expressed in "FUCK YOU, (etc)"
posted by elkevelvet at 3:57 PM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
he pushes back his chair to grab a paper and you see that his legs are missing.
Which is straight from the book. In the book, Heinlein puts a legless (and missing an arm as well) recruiting sergeant out front as the first person to greet his hero. Verhoeven cribbed it from him.
posted by Galvanic at 4:15 PM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Which is straight from the book. In the book, Heinlein puts a legless (and missing an arm as well) recruiting sergeant out front as the first person to greet his hero. Verhoeven cribbed it from him.
posted by Galvanic at 4:15 PM on March 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
It calls out that the emperor wears no clothes in such an undercutting way, while many liberals try to earnestly engage with (and end up platforming) the emperor. Reporting on what fascists say at face value is repeating fascist propaganda.
quite.
Apocolocyntosis
posted by clavdivs at 6:51 PM on March 13, 2023
quite.
Apocolocyntosis
posted by clavdivs at 6:51 PM on March 13, 2023
Now my head hurts.
Very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad.
posted by flabdablet at 9:38 PM on March 13, 2023
Very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad.
posted by flabdablet at 9:38 PM on March 13, 2023
This style of writing was all over the blogosphere in the mid-2000s., you all should be better at spotting when you're the one being baited. This is if Guy In Your MFA defending his favourite Childrens' author.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:38 AM on March 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Space Coyote at 5:38 AM on March 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
a percentage of people here aren't having trouble with classification
we just don't think it's very good satire, and that's okay
posted by elkevelvet at 9:34 AM on March 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
we just don't think it's very good satire, and that's okay
posted by elkevelvet at 9:34 AM on March 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
We’ll file it under “probably satire”, but as all good satire there’s some truth it it.
"Matilda took the knife she had been eating with" was entirely deleted from Dahl’s book Matild….?
I fear the censors. I want my stories and art to be honest, dangerous and too much.
posted by beesbees at 9:46 AM on March 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
"Matilda took the knife she had been eating with" was entirely deleted from Dahl’s book Matild….?
I fear the censors. I want my stories and art to be honest, dangerous and too much.
posted by beesbees at 9:46 AM on March 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
Since Le Guin was invoked in this thread, this was interesting to see today:
Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books by her son, Theo Downes-Le Guin
"...I genuinely didn’t know what my mother would have decided. But she left me a clue: a note over her desk asking, 'Is it true? Is it necessary or at least useful? Is it compassionate or at least unharmful?'
"I like to think that truth and compassion are immutable even as the language we use to express them changes. But cultural constructs of harm are mutable; we frequently revise our definition of what’s harmful to whom, how it is spoken of, and who gets to do the speaking. My mother’s note tipped me toward changing her words. I found substitutes that would retain the original meaning and cadence, and stipulated to the publisher that the new editions would note that the text had been revised...."
posted by oakroom at 2:46 PM on March 14, 2023 [12 favorites]
Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books by her son, Theo Downes-Le Guin
"...I genuinely didn’t know what my mother would have decided. But she left me a clue: a note over her desk asking, 'Is it true? Is it necessary or at least useful? Is it compassionate or at least unharmful?'
"I like to think that truth and compassion are immutable even as the language we use to express them changes. But cultural constructs of harm are mutable; we frequently revise our definition of what’s harmful to whom, how it is spoken of, and who gets to do the speaking. My mother’s note tipped me toward changing her words. I found substitutes that would retain the original meaning and cadence, and stipulated to the publisher that the new editions would note that the text had been revised...."
posted by oakroom at 2:46 PM on March 14, 2023 [12 favorites]
Remember that fascinating and somewhat startling Ask a while back?:
Ranting, highly emotional, and not filtered through the usual rules of grammar and rational discourse, but sincere and not a parody or a satire.
Really almost a sermon, except for the profanity.
posted by jamjam at 4:31 PM on March 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
Why do hot-button topics make some people deliberately terrible writers?I think the McSweeney's piece is a version of that secondary voice.
I occasionally receive emails from acquaintances who, when engaged in written correspondence about controversial political topics, seem to disregard every grammatical rule of writing they ever learned. Is this a known phenomenon? Why don't people espousing conspiracy theories adhere to English-language grammar norms when promoting said theories?
I'm struck by these emails because of how Jekyll-and-Hyde they feel.
These same acquaintances, when corresponding about topics NOT related to anything controversial, more-or-less adhere to informal English-language grammar norms and don't use any special formatting. The writing style of these emails is unremarkable.
But when writing about, say, a political stance they hold? Bring on the highly irregular use of punctuation. Bring on the seemingly arbitrary capitalization, emphasis, and italicization of words and phrases. Bring on use of random colors. Bring on mid-sentence font size changes. It feels like reading an old-timey ransom note made from letters clipped from a newspaper.
My question is, approximately: What is up with this? Is this a Known Thing? If it is, are there academics studying the language and metalanguage used by, e.g. conspiracy theorists?
Ranting, highly emotional, and not filtered through the usual rules of grammar and rational discourse, but sincere and not a parody or a satire.
Really almost a sermon, except for the profanity.
posted by jamjam at 4:31 PM on March 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
That was an insightful read, oakroom - Le Guin always struck me as a compassionate person, and The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas being a parable about how you cannot build a just society on injustice. This one line caught my eye:
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:26 PM on March 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
Closest to my anxiety is the reaction of Susanne Nossel, of PEN America, who counsels us to “consider how the power to rewrite books might be used in the hands of those who do not share their values and sensibilities.”My answer to this is simple - binding our hands will never bind theirs. All it does is stop us from combatting harm, holding back in the name of the "greater good" while people suffer. We've reached a point where conservatives facing the consequences of their views is called an "attack on free speech" because somehow we're obliged to let them spew their hate unchallenged, while ignoring how the speech of their victims are routinely chilled through hate.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:26 PM on March 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
(I'd also argue that PEN America let their asses hang out with the Roth biography fiasco and their argument that it was somehow censorship for a publisher to stop doing business with the estate of a misogynistic artist when it came out that their handpicked biographer was a predatory rapist - an argument that dilutes the definition of censorship to meaninglessness.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2023
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2023
Give your loved ones a hug and a shout out to tell them how wonderful they are and how much you treasure them. The time we get to spend with them is dwindling every day, for political reasons (I'm thinking particularly of the anti-LGBT cruelty that has surfaced in the past few years) but also for just the fact that time marches on. Sending hugs for anyone who wants them
posted by treepour at 8:26 PM on March 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by treepour at 8:26 PM on March 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
My answer to this is simple - binding our hands will never bind theirs
But being them is not an answer either -- "we have to steal elections because they steal elections" is not somewhere I want to end up.
posted by Galvanic at 7:07 AM on March 15, 2023 [2 favorites]
But being them is not an answer either -- "we have to steal elections because they steal elections" is not somewhere I want to end up.
posted by Galvanic at 7:07 AM on March 15, 2023 [2 favorites]
yeah, I've encountered empowered bureaucrats in my time who, though working from regulations and intentions one might call progressive, only uglified things. And at least one of them was smug about it. Using their authority to be an asshole for reasons I can only think were professional jealousy.
I am not an absolutist on any of this. I doubt I'd take much issue with any changes Theo Downes-Le Guin might have made to his mother's work in the interests of compassion and harm reduction. But I do take serious issue with the example already posted in this thread of one of the changes made to Dahl's work. Which rather boggles the mind. It actually ups the word count (33 to 54). It doesn't even feel like what I'd call censorship. It's more like (as I suggested earlier) calling in a studio musician to "improve" on a Jimi Hendrix solo for some absurd reason (maybe he hit a bum note), but the guy ends up getting carried away, riffing off in a direction all his own. No doubt inspired by the Hendrix genius ... but seriously, what the hell?!? It's the musical equivalent of fan fiction. Which I have no issue with as long as it's labelled as such.
At the very least, if we're going to continue making such changes to "problematic" works, let's make disclaimers an absolute MUST.
Something along the lines of:
"This version of [book in question] has been altered in various ways for reasons of [be honest about it -- what exactly are you seeking to accomplish here?]. Some words have been replaced. Some overall meanings may well have changed. Some passages have actually expanded because the editor [name them] felt inspired to do so. If you would prefer to read [author's name] original text, it is available online at [relevant URL]." et cetera.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 AM on March 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
I am not an absolutist on any of this. I doubt I'd take much issue with any changes Theo Downes-Le Guin might have made to his mother's work in the interests of compassion and harm reduction. But I do take serious issue with the example already posted in this thread of one of the changes made to Dahl's work. Which rather boggles the mind. It actually ups the word count (33 to 54). It doesn't even feel like what I'd call censorship. It's more like (as I suggested earlier) calling in a studio musician to "improve" on a Jimi Hendrix solo for some absurd reason (maybe he hit a bum note), but the guy ends up getting carried away, riffing off in a direction all his own. No doubt inspired by the Hendrix genius ... but seriously, what the hell?!? It's the musical equivalent of fan fiction. Which I have no issue with as long as it's labelled as such.
At the very least, if we're going to continue making such changes to "problematic" works, let's make disclaimers an absolute MUST.
Something along the lines of:
"This version of [book in question] has been altered in various ways for reasons of [be honest about it -- what exactly are you seeking to accomplish here?]. Some words have been replaced. Some overall meanings may well have changed. Some passages have actually expanded because the editor [name them] felt inspired to do so. If you would prefer to read [author's name] original text, it is available online at [relevant URL]." et cetera.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 AM on March 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
Really, then, objections to of the sensitivity-edited works are not objections to "censorship" or anything even vaguely resembling it. The problem is just run-of-the-mill shitty translation.
I can't see how anybody could raise any reasonable objection to an edition of Dahl translated into 2023 English by somebody of the calibre of William Weaver or Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge.
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 AM on March 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
I can't see how anybody could raise any reasonable objection to an edition of Dahl translated into 2023 English by somebody of the calibre of William Weaver or Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge.
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 AM on March 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
Really, then, objections to of the sensitivity-edited works are not objections to "censorship" or anything even vaguely resembling it. The problem is just run-of-the-mill shitty translation.
That is an excellent way of framing it and really clarified for me why I am not up in arms about it. Thank you.
Someone has the rights to change the words. They could do it really well or really poorly. The original text is still available should one want to read it.
In college, we were assigned to read Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev. It was awful. Just everything I was biased to think Russian literature was. Gloomy. Overcast skies. The whole nine. Then, one day I was in a used book store and found a different translation. The words sprang from the page and I could barely stop reading it. It was like reading a completely different book.
The examples I have seen of the "translation" of Dahl's work have been abysmal and for that, they should be shunned. *A* translation where the racist, fatphobic and other bits could be... not necessarily eliminated, but toned down isn't a bad idea per se.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 11:03 AM on March 15, 2023 [4 favorites]
That is an excellent way of framing it and really clarified for me why I am not up in arms about it. Thank you.
Someone has the rights to change the words. They could do it really well or really poorly. The original text is still available should one want to read it.
In college, we were assigned to read Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev. It was awful. Just everything I was biased to think Russian literature was. Gloomy. Overcast skies. The whole nine. Then, one day I was in a used book store and found a different translation. The words sprang from the page and I could barely stop reading it. It was like reading a completely different book.
The examples I have seen of the "translation" of Dahl's work have been abysmal and for that, they should be shunned. *A* translation where the racist, fatphobic and other bits could be... not necessarily eliminated, but toned down isn't a bad idea per se.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 11:03 AM on March 15, 2023 [4 favorites]
I don't think the translation comparison quite works. Translators aim to reproduce the meaning of the translated work as faithfully as they can. This is deliberately changing the meaning of the work -- perhaps for good reasons, but still a change.
posted by Galvanic at 1:40 PM on March 15, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Galvanic at 1:40 PM on March 15, 2023 [4 favorites]
Translation is not a simple process, and the meaning that translating a work is intended to preserve - especially when it's a work of fiction - is always going to be a slippery thing. Douglas Hofstadter has an excellent book exploring these ideas that I can thoroughly recommend as a good read.
I think it's completely arguable that the meaning of a work includes the amount and character of discomfort caused by the ways in which it challenges community norms.
And those norms change over time. When Charlie and the Chocolate Factory first came out, for example, far fewer people than now would have thought of the assumed-obvious connection between Augustus Gloop being fat and being disgusting as in any way remarkable; it just blended completely into the scenery behind the plot. I am sure of this because I was fat when it came out, I'm still fat now, I'm keenly aware of the degree to which my own worldview has been affected by being marinated in that connection for all those years, and if anybody was going to have a strong reaction to that language it would have been me. I didn't.
But the world has moved on, and body shaming is less widely accepted now than it was then (which, hooray, about fucking time) and to the extent that C&CF uses language that explicitly takes fatness to be disgusting, that language is going to jar today's new readers much more than it did those of 1964. The text has not changed, but English as she is spoke has changed underneath it, and that makes the meaning of the original text as read by modern audiences different from what it was on first release.
A good translation of C&CF into 2023 English, to my way of thinking, would be one that preserves the frisson of schadenfreude we feel as Dahl feeds assorted intolerable characters one by one into his exploitative industrial food grinder without pulling us out of his narrative flow with pepperings of what now read as gratuitous slurs.
The only objection I have to the edits that have been causing all this foofaraw is that many of them are hamfisted enough in and of themselves to pull us out of flow with their sheer ugliness, thereby defeating their own purpose. They're not quite Monkey Christ bad but they're pretty bad.
So I still think that if Puffin actually wanted to achieve the stated aims of its editing exercise, as opposed to ginning up a spurious controversy for pure publicity's sake, then it would have employed better translators.
posted by flabdablet at 11:23 PM on March 15, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think it's completely arguable that the meaning of a work includes the amount and character of discomfort caused by the ways in which it challenges community norms.
And those norms change over time. When Charlie and the Chocolate Factory first came out, for example, far fewer people than now would have thought of the assumed-obvious connection between Augustus Gloop being fat and being disgusting as in any way remarkable; it just blended completely into the scenery behind the plot. I am sure of this because I was fat when it came out, I'm still fat now, I'm keenly aware of the degree to which my own worldview has been affected by being marinated in that connection for all those years, and if anybody was going to have a strong reaction to that language it would have been me. I didn't.
But the world has moved on, and body shaming is less widely accepted now than it was then (which, hooray, about fucking time) and to the extent that C&CF uses language that explicitly takes fatness to be disgusting, that language is going to jar today's new readers much more than it did those of 1964. The text has not changed, but English as she is spoke has changed underneath it, and that makes the meaning of the original text as read by modern audiences different from what it was on first release.
A good translation of C&CF into 2023 English, to my way of thinking, would be one that preserves the frisson of schadenfreude we feel as Dahl feeds assorted intolerable characters one by one into his exploitative industrial food grinder without pulling us out of his narrative flow with pepperings of what now read as gratuitous slurs.
The only objection I have to the edits that have been causing all this foofaraw is that many of them are hamfisted enough in and of themselves to pull us out of flow with their sheer ugliness, thereby defeating their own purpose. They're not quite Monkey Christ bad but they're pretty bad.
So I still think that if Puffin actually wanted to achieve the stated aims of its editing exercise, as opposed to ginning up a spurious controversy for pure publicity's sake, then it would have employed better translators.
posted by flabdablet at 11:23 PM on March 15, 2023 [7 favorites]
Translators aim to reproduce the meaning of the translated work as faithfully as they can.
Having done a load of translation work, while that is true on a surface level, in practice it is much closer to the kind of editing this thread is about. Translation often involves preserving meaning by changing the more literal text. This can be as conceptually simple as translating cultural references by changing the reference altogether, in order that the closest approximation of the author's intended point will actually land with the reader. It can be more involved, particularly when you're looking at translating from older texts to modern contexts. In practice, it is impossible not to change the meaning of the text. Even if you don't change the text itself! The context around the work changes, and you might sometimes need to change the language to preserve the meaning as best you can. (It should be noted that all of the above is for for popular iction, not academic work, but that's exactly what Dahl is).
posted by Dysk at 12:20 AM on March 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
Having done a load of translation work, while that is true on a surface level, in practice it is much closer to the kind of editing this thread is about. Translation often involves preserving meaning by changing the more literal text. This can be as conceptually simple as translating cultural references by changing the reference altogether, in order that the closest approximation of the author's intended point will actually land with the reader. It can be more involved, particularly when you're looking at translating from older texts to modern contexts. In practice, it is impossible not to change the meaning of the text. Even if you don't change the text itself! The context around the work changes, and you might sometimes need to change the language to preserve the meaning as best you can. (It should be noted that all of the above is for for popular iction, not academic work, but that's exactly what Dahl is).
posted by Dysk at 12:20 AM on March 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
In practice, it is impossible not to change the meaning of the text. Even if you don't change the text itself!
See also: free speech.
posted by flabdablet at 1:16 AM on March 16, 2023
See also: free speech.
posted by flabdablet at 1:16 AM on March 16, 2023
One final thought before I let this rest, hopefully for good: there's been a lot of chatter about how people are perfectly capable of making allowances for text from 1964 and don't need help from a freaking "sensitivity editor" to do that, keep your rick and franny to yourselves tyvm kthxbi.
Having talked myself into seeing this as something more akin to translation than censorship, I'm now understanding those people as the kind who would prefer to absorb their e.g. Nietzsche in the original German. And there is nothing wrong with that preference! But the fact remains that translating Nietzsche for an audience that cannot read the original German has made him far more widely accessible.
Likewise, I think it's quite reasonable to observe that there's a large potential audience for Dahl that hasn't done the preparation required to avoid interpreting 1964 middle class English as if it were 2023 middle class English, and that from a publisher's point of view, publishing a version that's accessible to that audience makes perfect commercial sense and really needn't be cause for controversy.
Plus, 1964 middle class English is nowhere near as far removed from 2023 middle class English as e.g. 1880 German is. So the translation should be much less difficult than thousands of others routinely done, which makes the appalling dog's breakfast they've made of it so far even less worthy of respectful discussion.
posted by flabdablet at 2:15 AM on March 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
Having talked myself into seeing this as something more akin to translation than censorship, I'm now understanding those people as the kind who would prefer to absorb their e.g. Nietzsche in the original German. And there is nothing wrong with that preference! But the fact remains that translating Nietzsche for an audience that cannot read the original German has made him far more widely accessible.
Likewise, I think it's quite reasonable to observe that there's a large potential audience for Dahl that hasn't done the preparation required to avoid interpreting 1964 middle class English as if it were 2023 middle class English, and that from a publisher's point of view, publishing a version that's accessible to that audience makes perfect commercial sense and really needn't be cause for controversy.
Plus, 1964 middle class English is nowhere near as far removed from 2023 middle class English as e.g. 1880 German is. So the translation should be much less difficult than thousands of others routinely done, which makes the appalling dog's breakfast they've made of it so far even less worthy of respectful discussion.
posted by flabdablet at 2:15 AM on March 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
The thing is that in the e-book age, it should be incredibly easy to have both a "modern edition" and an "original edition" available at least for e-books. Most old children's books seem to be edited now: we've mentioned Roald Dahl, C.S. Lewis, Richard Scarry, Enid Blyton, Ursula Le Guin in these threads. I wish they'd just put the originals up, clearly labelled, for people who want them.
E.g. it's not a children's book, but David Goggins' autobiography "Can't Hurt Me" has a "Clean Edition" without the swearing. Readers seem to be able to deal with have two editions available.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:02 AM on March 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
E.g. it's not a children's book, but David Goggins' autobiography "Can't Hurt Me" has a "Clean Edition" without the swearing. Readers seem to be able to deal with have two editions available.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:02 AM on March 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
There's been some talk about translations and I wanted to add something as an on-again off again translator, but it'd be a bit too off-topic so I'll just mention that in a translation made in the 1960s of John Steinbeck's The Winter of our Discontent there was a helpful footnote explaining that this novel word, "ketshup", refers to a tomato-based sauce popular in America.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 5:56 AM on March 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 5:56 AM on March 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
The "translating" metaphor seems very misplaced to me. Translating Dahl's books would mean taking words or concepts that have fallen out of use and replacing them with modern usages. But that's not what is happening, because there's no need to "translate" his descriptions of fat people, for example -- that wording and those allusions (e.g., fat = disgusting, say) are still (unfortunately) completely relevant and understandable to the modern reader.
What has changed (by at least some people) are attitudes towards things like body shaming, so the clumsy rewrites are trying to remove these now-troubling aspects. That's not translation, it's rewriting. You can call it either Bowdlerization (if you are opposed) or making the works more accessible (if you are in favor), but either way it isn't in any way comparable to translating a work between languages. (It is, however, something that translators must also have to confront: how do you handle translation of a book with outdated racist language, for example.)
posted by Dip Flash at 8:03 AM on March 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
What has changed (by at least some people) are attitudes towards things like body shaming, so the clumsy rewrites are trying to remove these now-troubling aspects. That's not translation, it's rewriting. You can call it either Bowdlerization (if you are opposed) or making the works more accessible (if you are in favor), but either way it isn't in any way comparable to translating a work between languages. (It is, however, something that translators must also have to confront: how do you handle translation of a book with outdated racist language, for example.)
posted by Dip Flash at 8:03 AM on March 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
I see it as just the final round of editing that would have taken place if the books were written today. Since they're being freshly published for today's audiences, that doesn't make me uncomfortable. If some people prefer to see them as historical documents that preserve the culture of the time of their original publication, the older editions are still there for them to seek out.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:39 AM on March 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:39 AM on March 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older Access to a certain inner experience of love | “We wanted to build Her.” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rikschell at 4:26 AM on March 12, 2023 [31 favorites]