RapierFugue
Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If you read the reports on this, its become obvious the reason it is being done is financial... pure and simple.
Indeed. Which doesn't make it any better, of course.
When I look at these "changes", "updates", "edits" or whatever term will finally be settled on (and I note the publishers can't fix on one term yet themselves, which to me says they aren't sure about their own actions) I can't help thinking we're at the top of a very slippery slope. If great works of fiction (or even non-great works) are "unprotected" enough to be re-written at will, on the whim of the current copyright holder, then what hope is there of preserving any cultural history? As it stands, historians look back over writings and can generally identify, with a surprising degree of accuracy, their historical context, and any cultural weight they may have brought to bear, but what chance now, if we're going to rip up things every 50-100 years?
Mindful as I am of Godwin's Law, it strikes me that what we're looking at here is something very close to book-burning, only if anything it's even more obscenely hateful; don't like what a book has to say? Not a problem! You don't have to burn it any longer, and suffer the opprobrium of others. No, these days, you can instead simply alter it until all context is removed, and what you're left with is a nice, inoffensive husk of the former work.
As the change isn't being directly driven by some school board or educational edict the only thing we can hope for is that educators reject, en masse, any work which has been fundamentally altered. Sadly though, given some of the dull-witted edicts and choices made by those in positions of educational authority the last few years, I'm not especially hopeful.
Lightening the tone somewhat, lest we all get too bogged down in the rather depressing nature of this wanton act of vandalism, I was listening a while back to an interview with Mel Brooks concerning one of my favourite films; “Blazing Saddles”. Mel was explaining the various N-word references, and said the following (from memory): “To start with, I had a few of those references and gags in it. I felt uncomfortable with their use, because hey, I’m not black. I could “own” all the Jewish gags and references because, believe it or not, I’m Jewish, so I'm capable of saying what is or isn't offensive to a reasonably well-adjusted Jew.
But as I’m not also black, I didn’t feel comfortable with passing those gags. So I got Richard Prior in to re-write the script. We started with about half a dozen n****r references and gags from my script and he shocked me by, instead of removing any, adding in about another 50, including one of the other black characters calling Bart “a shifty n****r”, and expanding and making more “offensive” the “the sheriff’s a n****r!” scene. I was very surprised, and asked why he was adding instead of removing. He said “coz this shit is funny, motherfucker!”. When I asked if some people might be offended, he said something that will stay with me for all time; “when I called you a “motherfucker” just then, did you think I was insulting you?” ... I replied no, of course I didn’t, I just thought he was joking with me. “That’s the point, man. If shit’s funny then it’s funny, and nothing any tight-ass cocksucker says will make it not funny. Laughing is where we’re most honest – start thinking about whether or not shit is offensive, rather than just funny, and you end up with a motherfucking Swiss stand-up set. Fuck that, and fuck any motherfucker says different.”“
:)
|
RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread