SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by fliptop
Anybody read his classics as a kid?
From Fox News:
A publisher has altered children's books by Roald Dahl – the author of several well-received children's books that were later made into hit movies, including "Matilda," "James and the Giant Peach," and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" – to remove language now deemed offensive.
Puffin, the publisher of Dahl's classic works, has hired sensitivity readers to make changes to certain portions of the author's wording in the U.K. editions as part of an effort to ensure the books "can continue to be enjoyed by all today." (emphasis mine)
Also at The Guardian.
A very wise man I worked w/ in radio once told me, "You'll never do a show that's all things for all people."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.
-- Ogden Nash
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Tuesday February 21, @06:13PM (1 child)
Puffin is rewording so Dahl's works may be enjoyed by all. Will the purists be thrilled b/c editions w/o the changes will increase in value? Or are they pissed b/c it's being changed in the first place?
As for porn, it's too prevalent. Any curious kid can figure it out. Back in my day, 8mm...buddy w/ a Playboy...etc...are you on my lawn?
If a kid isn't getting guidance at home, from their parents or siblings, about sex and their changing body while navigating puberty, they are kinda forced into learning about it from interactions w/ their peers at school and in the neighborhood. But who needs to ban books when everyone has a phone?
I'm just grateful my kids were out of high school before they had cellphones.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, @04:10PM
I would prefer they keep the original and add *notes about the problematic sections. For the Chinese wing/wong section add a note about it being a good example of ignorant bigotry. Or change the wording but oreserve the original in a similar *note. Just removing the language entirely prevents readers from learning about human history.