Cutter's Blog : Is Publishing Doomed?
(Originally published as Ruminations #10 www.coffeewithcutter.com)
Following the neutering of Roald Dahl’s classic children's books, it seemed only inevitable that mainstream publishing would sink its teeth further into their obscene practices of censorship. Dahl was only the beginning, as many have now come to realise. Recently, it was reported that Ian Flemming’s 007 novels would be subject to revisions at the hands of sensitivity readers, and now, R.L Stine is the latest author on the chopping block. But, as you’re about to discover, there is something especially sinister about this particular case. R.L Stine is perhaps best known as the author of Goosebumps, a sprawling horror series for children. Many of the books were spoofs/knock-offs/homages to classic horror films, and these short-and-sweet books are likely responsible for introducing countless young minds to the genre. This was the case for me, at least. I remember reading Night of the Living Dummy (1993) and The Haunted School (1997) as a kid and being captivated by the playful terror of Stine’s writing. Recent reports claimed that Stine was going back to revise many of his classic Goosebumps books in order to remove language that may be deemed offensive such as references to weight, mental health, ect. But now, it has been revealed that R.L Stine actually had no part whatsoever in this revisionist tirade. In an appalling move, the publishers have gone behind the author's back to rewrite his work without his consultation. Rewriting the words of a dead man is one thing, but to hijack the works of those who’re still with us (and Stine shows no sign of slowing down when it comes to his output, which is actually quite remarkable when you look at how much he’s given us) is awfully perverse, not to mention shady as hell and a greedy abuse of power. What these publishers are beginning to show time and time again is that they couldn’t give a damn about the art itself. It seems to me that publishing is drifting further and further away from the raw, unfiltered power of storytelling. Publishers don’t appear interested in upholding and protecting significant works of the past. And why is that, do you think? For the sake of political correctness? Or are these publishers merely afraid of the totalitarian mob who seek to destroy all that they do not agree with? Whatever the motivation, it’s a worrying indication for what awaits us in the future.
I mentioned before in my Dahl on Trial blog that I’ve become hesitant to pursue a traditional publishing contract and now, more than ever, I’m dead-set on remaining a DIY/underground creator. Would it be nice to have all the benefits of a traditional publishing deal? Sure it would. Marketing is something that all self-published authors struggle with, but to be honest, it’s not worth it if the work is going to be butchered to appease a very vocal minority of sensitive sods. Because at that point, it’s no longer my work, is it? Just like how the new editions of R.L Stine’s Goosebumps will not be true to his original vision. Authors agonise over their words. Our craft is something we take great pride in. But what becomes of that craft once the totalitarians get hold of it? And what then becomes of the author's original intent?
To put it bluntly, the identity of the work diminishes entirely, and all that is left is the desecrated remains of a slaughtered vision.
In George Orwell’s 1984, there is a passage that reads:
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Terrifyingly so, the new world order as depicted in 1984 is creeping closer and closer to manifesting fully within our own reality. Books are starting to be rewritten and in recent years we’ve witnessed brigades of spoiled, entitled brats tearing down statues of historical figures. You cannot rewrite the past. You cannot change history. And you certainly can’t modify the words of creators you do not agree with. There are plenty of things I myself do not like, but I would never in a million years advocate for them to be banned or amended to fit in with my own personal viewpoints or preferences. No matter how you try to frame it, these people have no moral right to hijack the words of authors. Authors have a right to freedom of expression (as do creators in any medium, for that matter), and if I was R.L Stine I’d be waging war against Scholastic for butchering with my work.
The more stories I read about this trend in publishing, the less enthusiastic I become about writing itself. Right now, I’m about nine chapters away from finally finishing the first draft of my second book (to be honest, it shouldn’t have taken this long, but the story has changed and evolved so much over that I’ve struggled to make hasty progress), and there are days when I simply can’t bring myself to get excited about writing. My passion for storytelling isn’t dead (I’ve a long list of books I want to write, all of which have titles and a bare bones idea of what they’re about) but I’m beginning to feel disenchanted towards writing because of publishing’s bleak future. If we’re not careful, if we don’t start standing up to this nonsense, the liberation of literature will cease to exist. By rewriting books, all we will be left with are sanitised interpretations deemed ‘improvements’ by the pettiest little insects our culture has ever seen. Art matters, more so than the delicate feelings of a very select few who can’t help but find anything and everything problematic. If that sounds harsh, tough. If this madness doesn’t stop, then traditional publishing is well and truly doomed.
Following the neutering of Roald Dahl’s classic children's books, it seemed only inevitable that mainstream publishing would sink its teeth further into their obscene practices of censorship. Dahl was only the beginning, as many have now come to realise. Recently, it was reported that Ian Flemming’s 007 novels would be subject to revisions at the hands of sensitivity readers, and now, R.L Stine is the latest author on the chopping block. But, as you’re about to discover, there is something especially sinister about this particular case. R.L Stine is perhaps best known as the author of Goosebumps, a sprawling horror series for children. Many of the books were spoofs/knock-offs/homages to classic horror films, and these short-and-sweet books are likely responsible for introducing countless young minds to the genre. This was the case for me, at least. I remember reading Night of the Living Dummy (1993) and The Haunted School (1997) as a kid and being captivated by the playful terror of Stine’s writing. Recent reports claimed that Stine was going back to revise many of his classic Goosebumps books in order to remove language that may be deemed offensive such as references to weight, mental health, ect. But now, it has been revealed that R.L Stine actually had no part whatsoever in this revisionist tirade. In an appalling move, the publishers have gone behind the author's back to rewrite his work without his consultation. Rewriting the words of a dead man is one thing, but to hijack the works of those who’re still with us (and Stine shows no sign of slowing down when it comes to his output, which is actually quite remarkable when you look at how much he’s given us) is awfully perverse, not to mention shady as hell and a greedy abuse of power. What these publishers are beginning to show time and time again is that they couldn’t give a damn about the art itself. It seems to me that publishing is drifting further and further away from the raw, unfiltered power of storytelling. Publishers don’t appear interested in upholding and protecting significant works of the past. And why is that, do you think? For the sake of political correctness? Or are these publishers merely afraid of the totalitarian mob who seek to destroy all that they do not agree with? Whatever the motivation, it’s a worrying indication for what awaits us in the future.
I mentioned before in my Dahl on Trial blog that I’ve become hesitant to pursue a traditional publishing contract and now, more than ever, I’m dead-set on remaining a DIY/underground creator. Would it be nice to have all the benefits of a traditional publishing deal? Sure it would. Marketing is something that all self-published authors struggle with, but to be honest, it’s not worth it if the work is going to be butchered to appease a very vocal minority of sensitive sods. Because at that point, it’s no longer my work, is it? Just like how the new editions of R.L Stine’s Goosebumps will not be true to his original vision. Authors agonise over their words. Our craft is something we take great pride in. But what becomes of that craft once the totalitarians get hold of it? And what then becomes of the author's original intent?
To put it bluntly, the identity of the work diminishes entirely, and all that is left is the desecrated remains of a slaughtered vision.
In George Orwell’s 1984, there is a passage that reads:
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Terrifyingly so, the new world order as depicted in 1984 is creeping closer and closer to manifesting fully within our own reality. Books are starting to be rewritten and in recent years we’ve witnessed brigades of spoiled, entitled brats tearing down statues of historical figures. You cannot rewrite the past. You cannot change history. And you certainly can’t modify the words of creators you do not agree with. There are plenty of things I myself do not like, but I would never in a million years advocate for them to be banned or amended to fit in with my own personal viewpoints or preferences. No matter how you try to frame it, these people have no moral right to hijack the words of authors. Authors have a right to freedom of expression (as do creators in any medium, for that matter), and if I was R.L Stine I’d be waging war against Scholastic for butchering with my work.
The more stories I read about this trend in publishing, the less enthusiastic I become about writing itself. Right now, I’m about nine chapters away from finally finishing the first draft of my second book (to be honest, it shouldn’t have taken this long, but the story has changed and evolved so much over that I’ve struggled to make hasty progress), and there are days when I simply can’t bring myself to get excited about writing. My passion for storytelling isn’t dead (I’ve a long list of books I want to write, all of which have titles and a bare bones idea of what they’re about) but I’m beginning to feel disenchanted towards writing because of publishing’s bleak future. If we’re not careful, if we don’t start standing up to this nonsense, the liberation of literature will cease to exist. By rewriting books, all we will be left with are sanitised interpretations deemed ‘improvements’ by the pettiest little insects our culture has ever seen. Art matters, more so than the delicate feelings of a very select few who can’t help but find anything and everything problematic. If that sounds harsh, tough. If this madness doesn’t stop, then traditional publishing is well and truly doomed.
No comments have been added yet.
