The Off Topic Topic

[garbon]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

Why does the author and a dead one at that need such primacy? Why can't works change?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah that seems needlessly strict and limiting because you're closing off huge chunks of literature.

It's true that translation is an act of creation because good translations are aiming for the spirit of a book rather than words on a page, but I think it's a generous one that opens doors between one language and another rather than, in fact, a barrier. And for certin writers/languages there are translators who develop a particular reputation.

I mean he says this sort of thing all the time, but Garcia Marquez said he preferred Gregory Rabassa's English translation of One Hundred Years of Solitude to his own original

[HVC]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

Why does the author and a dead one at that need such primacy? Why can't works change?

Because you're still selling it under the authors name. If you changed the author to "By Committee" then it would be different

[Richard Hakluyt]

Roald Dahl translated into 21st century English then?

Seems a bit unnecessary.

[garbon]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

Why does the author and a dead one at that need such primacy? Why can't works change?

Because you're still selling it under the authors name. If you changed the author to "By Committee" then it would be different

Has the nature of the work fundamentally changed?

[Josquius]

Consider however that already published works tend to have substantial differences to the original manuscript. A lot of authors will credit their editors in the foreword but the author's name is the only one on the cover.

[Grey Fox]

Another problem blame on left woke mob when in fact it's a problem of capitalism and the need at all cost to monetize already created and owned properties.

[HVC]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

Why does the author and a dead one at that need such primacy? Why can't works change?

Because you're still selling it under the authors name. If you changed the author to "By Committee" then it would be different

Has the nature of the work fundamentally changed?

Depends how much importance you put in an authors writing. They've gone ahead and changed whole sentences, not just swapped a synonym here and there (which even then is still changing an authors work). To give a crappy comparison, because I'm good at that , does changing the eye colour on the Mona Lisa fundamentally change the work? Guess it depends on the importance one places on an artists work.

[Sheilbh]

Another problem blame on left woke mob when in fact it's a problem of capitalism and the need at all cost to monetize already created and owned properties.

Monetise everything - and, perhaps, create work (and profit) for a sensitivity reading consultancy on a big multi-year project covering multiple books?

[garbon]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

Why does the author and a dead one at that need such primacy? Why can't works change?

Because you're still selling it under the authors name. If you changed the author to "By Committee" then it would be different

Has the nature of the work fundamentally changed?

Depends how much importance you put in an authors writing. They've gone ahead and changed whole sentences, not just swapped a synonym here and there (which even then is still changing an authors work). To give a crappy comparison, because I'm good at that , does changing the eye colour on the Mona Lisa fundamentally change the work? Guess it depends on the importance one places on an artists work.

I think the Mona Lisa as an example is very poor on many fronts.

[The Larch]

Another problem blame on left woke mob when in fact it's a problem of capitalism and the need at all cost to monetize already created and owned properties.

That's certainly a part of the problem. If the Dahl estate didn't have the need to be constantly churning out new editions of Roald Dahl's work these reviews to better fit the current society/market wouldn't be necessary.

According to the articles I posted the review process began in 2020, the same year in which the Dahl estate had to publicaly apologise for Roald Dahl's antisemitism. These two things might be thus linked, when the Dahl estate had to come out and speak against Dahl's antisemitism this might have made them start this full review of Dahl's works in order to remove other possible elements that would make them look bad, and they surely went overboard with it.

And the racist and sexist overtones in Dahl's works were already pointed out long ago, it's not something that is being realized now.

[HVC]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

Why does the author and a dead one at that need such primacy? Why can't works change?

Because you're still selling it under the authors name. If you changed the author to "By Committee" then it would be different

Has the nature of the work fundamentally changed?

Depends how much importance you put in an authors writing. They've gone ahead and changed whole sentences, not just swapped a synonym here and there (which even then is still changing an authors work). To give a crappy comparison, because I'm good at that , does changing the eye colour on the Mona Lisa fundamentally change the work? Guess it depends on the importance one places on an artists work.

I think the Mona Lisa as an example is very poor on many fronts.

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.

[The Larch]

sensitivity reading consultancy

They're not a consultancy, they're "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children's literature", which is even more Kumbaya sounding. 

They might still bill as much as a consultancy, though. 

[HVC]

sensitivity reading consultancy

They're not a consultancy, they're "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children's literature", which is even more Kumbaya sounding. 

They might still bill as much as a consultancy, though. 

Worse,  a consultancy with a PR department

[Sheilbh]

According to the articles I posted the review process began in 2020, the same year in which the Dahl estate had to publicaly apologise for Roald Dahl's antisemitism. These two things might be thus linked, when the Dahl estate had to come out and speak against Dahl's antisemitism this might have made them start this full review of Dahl's works in order to remove other possible elements that would make them look bad, and they surely went overboard with it.

That makes sense.

And the racist and sexist overtones in Dahl's works were already pointed out long ago, it's not something that is being realized now.

Some were already edited for that - and from the examples I've seen and those in the Guardian articles you posted, that's not what was being fixed. It's bad taste they're trying to correct (which is, I think, a key part of Dahl's appeal for kids).

They're not a consultancy, they're "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children's literature", which is even more Kumbaya sounding. 

They might still bill as much as a consultancy, though. 

Yeah I know someone who's part of an architecture "collective" not a firm. They still charge pretty mercilessly

Hell, I wouldn't be described if Deloitte or McKinsey describe their work as "sustainable changemaking" either