The Off Topic Topic

[garbon]

Ok, pick another famous portrait. Girl with a Pearl Earring.

And it's not like Dahl isn't a famous writer with well known works.

I didn't take issue on the grounds that he isn't notable enough (let alone grounds that Mona Lisa's status, however deserved or underserved, in Western art is much higher than his work in literature).

But rather that they have very different realities. The Mona Lisa is a singular work whereas with Dahl's works exist and are valued in their reproduced formats (people value their own copies of his work they've read - not a singular, original manuscript). Changing the colour of Mona Lisa's eyes would do real damage to the singular object that is valued. Printing edited version of Dahl's books does no equivalent damage as earlier 'originals' still exist and people will still have access to them.

If you wanted to make a comparison between the two then I think it'd only be fair to look at reproductions of the Mona Lisa. If you do a quick google image search on "Mona Lisa reproductions" you can see a wide variety of 'edited' versions of the image that exist. I think you would be hard pressed to say that any of those edited images causes damage to the experience of originating Mona Lisa image though perhaps you may feel aesthetic discomfort looking at some of them.

[Jacob]

That's a well made point garbon

[Admiral Yi]

It is a good point.

However....if the bowdlerized version is the only one being printed, doesn't that in effect limit access to the original?

[garbon]

Those are very weird changes. I thought we were talking like removing all the N-words from Tom Sawyer or something, not doing strange things like editing out the word 'Bedouin'. I mean even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin says "The Bedouin, Beduin, or Bedu are nomadic Arab tribes who have historically inhabited the desert regions in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, the Levant, and Mesopotamia."

Granted I am not an Arab so I don't know if saying somebody is a member of a Bedouin Tribe is somehow insensitive. That seems kind of odd.

The only thing I can think of is moving away from territory of wisdom received from such cliches as the 'gypsy woman' or 'wise negro.'

[garbon]

It is a good point.

However....if the bowdlerized version is the only one being printed, doesn't that in effect limit access to the original?

Are all the old books going in the bin? Just saw this on quick search on printing:

As at 2019, Dahl's works have been translated into 63 languages and have sold more than 200 million books worldwide.

[Admiral Yi]

Are all the old books going in the bin? Just saw this on quick search on printing:

I did say limit, not eliminate.

There's a difference between picking up a book through ebay or a yard sale and going to the book store.

[Jacob]

However....if the bowdlerized version is the only one being printed, doesn't that in effect limit access to the original?

Yes... ish.

But... there are I don't know how many thousands of copies of old versions still in circulation. You'd need a pretty concerted effort to withdraw them from circulation. Not to mention the potential of obtaining the desired version of the text online. So if anyone really wants to see the original text they shouldn't have any difficulty (and you know in these culture war days, someone's going to put effort into keeping it alive).

In the world of writing and publishing, there's a lot of content that's limited access simply because it's out of print.

[HVC]

I told you I was bad at making comparisons lol. You make a very good point about singular nature of a painting versus books.

Although I'm not 100% sure if you're trying to be insulting with the last sentence.

[garbon]

Are all the old books going in the bin? Just saw this on quick search on printing:

I did say limit, not eliminate.

There's a difference between picking up a book through ebay or a yard sale and going to the book store.

Or say a second hand book store? Or as often consulted by families - a library?

Also in this increasingly digital world, would be easy enough to track down the 'original' versions online.

But yes, of course you are right that by not printing the originals, there will not be as many and therefore access is more limited. I guess it depends on how much value you place on the originals and how cumbersome you find the change in access.

[garbon]

I told you I was bad at making comparisons lol. You make a very good point about singular nature of a painting versus books.

Although I'm not 100% sure if you're trying to be insulting with the last sentence.

I meant to be insulting to some of the interpretations of Mona Lisa that I saw.

[garbon]

In the world of writing and publishing, there's a lot of content that's limited access simply because it's out of print.

True. Like until recently all off the terrible Magic the Gathering tie in novels were unavailable or only available at ridiculous prices online. Now most are available again as kindle downloads.

[Jacob]

I did say limit, not eliminate.

There's a difference between picking up a book through ebay or a yard sale and going to the book store.

Yeah for sure, limited. Not sure it's a big problem though. Isn't it more of a thing about what the market wants and how the owners of the IP want to manage it? I mean... I'm not the biggest pro-capitalist ownership rights advocate on these boards (and I'm not particularly convinced of the long IP ownership laws underpinning our current approach), but isn't that the argument? If they own it and want it to say "weird" instead of "queer" or whatever, is "you're limiting access to the original" a convincing argument to stop them?

(to be honest, I'm not 100% convinced by that argument but I'm trying it out...)

[Jacob]

Those are very weird changes. I thought we were talking like removing all the N-words from Tom Sawyer or something, not doing strange things like editing out the word 'Bedouin'. I mean even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin says "The Bedouin, Beduin, or Bedu are nomadic Arab tribes who have historically inhabited the desert regions in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, the Levant, and Mesopotamia."

Granted I am not an Arab so I don't know if saying somebody is a member of a Bedouin Tribe is somehow insensitive. That seems kind of odd.

The only thing I can think of is moving away from territory of wisdom received from such cliches as the 'gypsy woman' or 'wise negro.'

Yeah I think that's it. I'd expect there's nothing bedouin specific about that character and "bedouin" is used solely to mean "exotic and mysterious foreigner nothing like you and me."

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah for sure, limited. Not sure it's a big problem though. Isn't it more of a thing about what the market wants and how the owners of the IP want to manage it? I mean... I'm not the biggest pro-capitalist ownership rights advocate on these boards (and I'm not particularly convinced of the long IP ownership laws underpinning our current approach), but isn't that the argument? If they own it and want it to say "weird" instead of "queer" or whatever, is "you're limiting access to the original" a convincing argument to stop them?

(to be honest, I'm not 100% convinced by that argument but I'm trying it out...)

The owners of the IP can do anything they want with it.

This subthread has been about whether the owners are overly sensitive knuckleheads, not if they are breaking the law.

[garbon]

Yeah for sure, limited. Not sure it's a big problem though. Isn't it more of a thing about what the market wants and how the owners of the IP want to manage it? I mean... I'm not the biggest pro-capitalist ownership rights advocate on these boards (and I'm not particularly convinced of the long IP ownership laws underpinning our current approach), but isn't that the argument? If they own it and want it to say "weird" instead of "queer" or whatever, is "you're limiting access to the original" a convincing argument to stop them?

(to be honest, I'm not 100% convinced by that argument but I'm trying it out...)

The owners of the IP can do anything they want with it.

This subthread has been about whether the owners are overly sensitive knuckleheads, not if they are breaking the law.

Well the topic was raised as Jos pointed to the bizarre teeth gnashing taking place and then Languish turned out with its own teeth gnashing.