Politically "Correct" Editing of Classic Stories

[Ellafun]

Greetings, Author's Hangout!

I have been writing stories all my life, and while I have not been published (yet!) I am horrified by "well-meaning" activists who come along and edit classic works to be less "offensive." (The debacle regarding Huckleberry Finn, for example).

Here is the latest B.S.:
Canadian Author Edits ”Twas The Night Before Christmas” To Make Santa A Nonsmoker
http://wbsm.com/canadian-author-edits-twas-the-night-before-christmas-to-make-santa-a-nonsmoker/

Seriously? Get over yourself. I was just curious if anyone else had an opinion?

p.s. I hope this is not a duplicate thread...I searched the AH but couldn't find anything. My apologies if this is dreadfully old news.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree. Let the work go out of popularity if the changes in time have made it political incorrect, but don't tamper with the original.

 

[Handley_Page]

I love it when someone makes fun of the "Politically Correct" stuff like this.

 

[Stella_Omega]

She'll sell a few copies. It's disconcerting to a parent to have to stop and explain to their kid what a pipe is-- beleive it or not, some children have never seen a pipe or the smoke from one, at all. Ever.

Other people have plenty of copies of it already. I just counted five on my shelf! And they were picked because of their illustrations, which is the main reason anyone buys the book.

 

[RjThoughts]

What will they do with Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories? Seriously, his addiction to morphine, him living alone but spending much time with Watson....his smoking.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What will they do with Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories? Seriously, his addiction to morphine, him living alone but spending much time with Watson....his smoking.

Parents don't read him aloud to small children during the holiday season.

Robert Downey Junior's Jude Law joked a lot about the sexual tension between Holmes and Watson in interviews about their movie

What do you think of the newest Holmes, by the way? Set in modern times, Sherlock carries a smart phone, and Doctor Watson is an Asian-American woman-- Lucy Liu, in fact. *swoon* It's called Elementary

 

[sr71plt]

She'll sell a few copies. It's disconcerting to a parent to have to stop and explain to their kid what a pipe is-- beleive it or not, some children have never seen a pipe or the smoke from one, at all. Ever.

Other people have plenty of copies of it already. I just counted five on my shelf! And they were picked because of their illustrations, which is the main reason anyone buys the book.

So, Stella, what you're saying is that you would approve of someone else taking a successful book you've written, changing a few words to make it politically correct (to them) and republishing essentially your work for their profit--on the basis of choosing what is politically correct for them over what you wrote?

 

[RjThoughts]

Parents don't read him aloud to small children during the holiday season.

What do you think of the newest Holmes, by the way? Set in modern times, Sherlock carries a smart phone, and Doctor Watson is an Asian-American woman-- Lucy Liu, in fact. *swoon* It's called Elementary

I like it, but I fear it might be cancelled, due to it being one of those "smart" shows. She needs to be roll her eyes more, though. So many of his quirks deserve it.

 

[Ellafun]

So, Stella, what you're saying is that you would approve of someone else taking a successful book you've written, changing a few words to make it politically correct (to them) and republishing essentially your work for their profit--on the basis of choosing what is politically correct for them over what you wrote?

Well, this was sort of my objection to this editing process. And honestly, the first time I had to really explain what a pipe was to my children was during Disney's "The Little Mermaid" when the seagull called it a "Snarfblatt."

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, Stella, what you're saying is that you would approve of someone else taking a successful book you've written, changing a few words to make it politically correct (to them) and republishing essentially your work for their profit--on the basis of choosing what is politically correct for them over what you wrote?

Wow, I never expected such a stupid straw man argument from you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I like it, but I fear it might be cancelled, due to it being one of those "smart" shows. She needs to be roll her eyes more, though. So many of his quirks deserve it.

Yeah, I know. And how DARE they create a show in which a woman and a man work together without any sexiness?

 

[Ellafun]

Wow, I never expected such a stupid straw man argument from you.

Oh, and see....I was trying to diffuse his comment...fail

 

[RjThoughts]

Yeah, I know. And how DARE they create a show in which a woman and a man work together without any sexiness?

OMG that can't happen. I want a tv show that doesn't dumb itself down for the audience. When a situation calls for the $150 word, don't use 100 $1.50 ones!

 

[Stella_Omega]

OMG that can't happen. I want a tv show that doesn't dumb itself down for the audience. When a situation calls for the $150 word, don't use 100 $1.50 ones!

As far as I know, T.V is made by people exactly as dumb as the audience it assumes. Like, smart people become dumb by exposure to the production environment.

 

[PennLady]

So, Stella, what you're saying is that you would approve of someone else taking a successful book you've written, changing a few words to make it politically correct (to them) and republishing essentially your work for their profit--on the basis of choosing what is politically correct for them over what you wrote?

Does that even apply in this case? The story is in the public domain, as far as I can tell. At least it's old enough to be.

The only other politically correct re-writes I have are some from a long time ago, Politically Correct Fairy Tales, that were done with humorous intent.

 

[sr71plt]

OK, I'm game, Stella. Explain to me where my post is stupid rather than just throwing out your judgmental words without backing them up.

I think my comment was right on point (and I'm baffled on the OP's followup comment, because I think I was taking the same stance as the OP was). The original work is the original author's. If you want a currently politically correct work on the same theme, write it yourself. Don't bastardize what the original author wrote and ride on their back. If the original work is seen as just too politically incorrect, just shelf it (as in Little Black Sambo).

I see this in hymnals as well--messing with the original words of the lyrics to make them gender neutral or to take the shield rattling out of them. Modern versions should just dump those lyrics and write completely new ones, not bastardize the originals.

Pardon me for thinking like an actual author would.

(Incidentally, I already knew you favored making author's works politically correct for you, as you do it with post quotes here quite frequently with your "there, I fixed it for you" bastardizations of what they originally posted.)

 

[PennLady]

As far as I know, T.V is made by people exactly as dumb as the audience it assumes. Like, smart people become dumb by exposure to the production environment.

That would explain why they canceled "Firefly." (RIP Book and Wash...)

 

[sr71plt]

Does that even apply in this case? The story is in the public domain, as far as I can tell. At least it's old enough to be.

The only other politically correct re-writes I have are some from a long time ago, Politically Correct Fairy Tales, that were done with humorous intent.

Ethically, I think it does, yes (thinking as an author). Again, just dump that version if it's really not in keeping with the times and write your own wholly new work using that theme. Respect the artistic rights of the original author. Parodies are fine. Changing a few words/images here and there just for political correctness (of the moment or particular group's dogma) is not only different, it's also anal retentive and just a bit too judgmental and smug for me.

 

[RjThoughts]

That would explain why they canceled "Firefly." (RIP Book and Wash...)

It was on Fox. Fox back then wasn't too swift. They cancelled many shows, like "America's Most Wanted", "Cops", "Simpsons", and Family Guy."

 

[Ellafun]

OK, I'm game, Stella. Explain to me where my post is stupid rather than just throwing out your judgmental words without backing them up.

I think my comment was right on point (and I'm baffled on the OP's followup comment, because I think I was taking the same stance as the OP was). The original work is the original author's. If you want a currently politically correct work on the same theme, write it yourself. Don't bastardize what the original author wrote and ride on their back. If the original work is seen as just too politically incorrect, just shelf it (as in Little Black Sambo).

I see this in hymnals as well--messing with the original words of the lyrics to make them gender neutral or to take the shield rattling out of them. Modern versions should just dump those lyrics and write completely new ones, not bastardize the originals.

Pardon me for thinking like an actual author would.

(Incidentally, I already knew you favored making author's works politically correct for you, as you do it with post quotes here quite frequently with your "there, I fixed it for you" bastardizations of what they originally posted.)

You needn't be baffled, you are correct...I was simply trying to place myself between you and Stella to avoid a confrontation. That's all. ~sigh~

 

[Stella_Omega]

That would explain why they canceled "Firefly." (RIP Book and Wash...)

http://nerdapproved.com/news/former-fox-president-explains-why-firefly-had-to-be-cancelled/

Back to the subject at hand, I don't much like bowdlerising work either. Nor do I care much for parodies. But both things are pretty much fait accompli. it's what people do all the time. King James did it to the Bible, Disney made a bazillion dollar empire out of doing it to public domain fairytales.

I don't see that the motivation makes any difference. Changing a few words to make a version someone likes better for any reason, be it parody, politics or modernising, or esthetics-- all the same.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, this was sort of my objection to this editing process. And honestly, the first time I had to really explain what a pipe was to my children was during Disney's "The Little Mermaid" when the seagull called it a "Snarfblatt."

What's wrong, if it comes up as a question in the child's mind, with taking that as a teaching moment--and not just trying to wipe out history and claim that what we think we know about anything at this moment is the politically correct answer for all time, including the past.

My father got hooked on smoking by the U.S. Army in World War II. No one at the time was launching a hidious plot to do evil things with tobacco. They were trying to help the soldiers keep calm and didn't know any better about the damage of tobacco. And lung cancer contributed to my father's death. I'm not about to wipe out that it once acceptable behavior and write up either the U.S. government or my father as evil--or even stupid--just to be smug today about what is politically correct--and that some smug folks think should always have been politically correct.

I'd simply tell the child, if Santa's smoking comes up, that at the time this story was written, they didn't know that smoking damaged your health.

Guess what. The kid can take that--even if your judgmental politics of today can't.

 

[RjThoughts]

My stance:

If parents want to sanitize stories for their OWN children, fine.

If someone's looking to gain a buck from it, NO. That's akin to trying to censor. Why censor? You're putting YOUR ideas over mine. If you don't like the story as written, fine, change it for your own children by yourself or just don't buy the book.

 

[PennLady]

It was on Fox. Fox back then wasn't too swift. They cancelled many shows, like "America's Most Wanted", "Cops", "Simpsons", and Family Guy."

No, they didn't give it enough time to catch on (and don't get Mr Penn started on that ).

However, "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are still on, and still on Fox. Plus AMW and Cops may have been canceled, but they ran for a long time.

 

[RjThoughts]

No, they didn't give it enough time to catch on (and don't get Mr Penn started on that ).

However, "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are still on, and still on Fox. Plus AMW and Cops may have been canceled, but they ran for a long time.

Both cartoons were cancelled, because some shmucky young exec thought they were Fox material. And AMW was cancelled oin 1996 by another exec who thought the high production costs were more important than capturing criminals, but came back when most of the states' top cops and head of the FBI flooded Fox.