The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Wyrd Sisters
Podcasts
>
S&L Podcast - #212 - Do You Have the Right to Delete Swear Words?
date
newest »
newest »
ET wrote: " I would be more than willing to change a character's gender for a daughter's bedtime story"I like it! We could have Bilba Baggins going along as den mother to a bunch of grumpy dwarves, to keep them from acting childish and doing stupid things.
Kenneth wrote: "I don't have a problem with changing Bilbo's gender. It doesn't affect the context and meaning of the story. I think that's fine, and in a tale with so many male characters, it's actually a welcome..."
That we approve of an edit to the text doesn't change the fact that we're altering the text. It seems odd to be defending 'Authorial Intent' except when a change makes the story more palatable to our sensibilities. By that same standard, isn't that exactly what the CleanReader group is doing? They're making a story more palatable to their sensibilities. If we do it, why is it wrong for them?
After all, given the character ages, changing Bilbo to a girl means the Hobbit is about a young, unmarried woman running off in the company of a dozen strange, older men. The word of a drifter she hasn't seen in years is her only assurance that the strangers can be trusted, which sounds like a Grimm's Fairy Tale waiting to happen.
Can we honestly say Tolkien, 1940s Catholic that he was, would be okay with that as a children's story?
John:
I'd definitely agree the genderswapped story has opportunities that the all-male cast doesn't provide.
That we approve of an edit to the text doesn't change the fact that we're altering the text. It seems odd to be defending 'Authorial Intent' except when a change makes the story more palatable to our sensibilities. By that same standard, isn't that exactly what the CleanReader group is doing? They're making a story more palatable to their sensibilities. If we do it, why is it wrong for them?
After all, given the character ages, changing Bilbo to a girl means the Hobbit is about a young, unmarried woman running off in the company of a dozen strange, older men. The word of a drifter she hasn't seen in years is her only assurance that the strangers can be trusted, which sounds like a Grimm's Fairy Tale waiting to happen.
Can we honestly say Tolkien, 1940s Catholic that he was, would be okay with that as a children's story?
John:
I'd definitely agree the genderswapped story has opportunities that the all-male cast doesn't provide.
ET wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "I don't have a problem with changing Bilbo's gender. It doesn't affect the context and meaning of the story. I think that's fine, and in a tale with so many male characters, it's ac..."
Actually, with respect to the dwarves, a lot of their genders aren't explicitly stated and dwarven females also have beards. A subset of them could be easily gender swapped.
Actually, with respect to the dwarves, a lot of their genders aren't explicitly stated and dwarven females also have beards. A subset of them could be easily gender swapped.
It's certainly true that their beards don't prevent them from being female, but within Tolkien's dwarven language, their names imply the likelihood that they are all male. Moreover, if any of them were female, surely it would have come up at some point in a two hundred page book? At a bare minimum, we are stretching Authorial Intent and Respect for the Text to the breaking point by making these changes.
As many of the criticisms directed at CleanReader are based around respecting those things. It seems rather disingenuous to criticize CleanReader for something we're all more than willing to do.
In a similar vein, Chuck Wendig will be writing a Star Wars novel. Based on the previous ones, there's little chance cursing will be allowed in it. Is that censorship or simply making the novel more appealing to a wider audience?
As many of the criticisms directed at CleanReader are based around respecting those things. It seems rather disingenuous to criticize CleanReader for something we're all more than willing to do.
In a similar vein, Chuck Wendig will be writing a Star Wars novel. Based on the previous ones, there's little chance cursing will be allowed in it. Is that censorship or simply making the novel more appealing to a wider audience?
ET wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "I don't have a problem with changing Bilbo's gender. It doesn't affect the context and meaning of the story. I think that's fine, and in a tale with so many male characters, it's ac..."I don't see why "1940s Catholic" Tolkien would have a problem with that scenario. His stories are full of women leaving home by themselves. The Lay of Leithian itself is all about a young woman who sneaks away from her father's palace to meet up with an impoverished drifter every night, and about all the dangerous and unpleasant places she's willing to go to rescue him. And that girl's the analogue for Tolkien's own wife. Even within LotR, you've got Eowyn, who runs away from home to join the (all-male) army.
ET: there's no indication that khuzdul has gender, and we only get the name of one dwarven woman and it's not even certain that that name is necessarily khuzdul anyway; so how can you say that their names are male names?
The line of reasoning that the dwarves could have been female is based on some extended assumptions. (1) For some reason Tolkien didn't feel the need to mention their gender throughout the entire novel although he specifically mentions the gender for Galadriel and Eowyn when they appear. He also didn't feel the need to mention that there were females dwarves in the Hobbit when he was specifically asked about female dwarves in letters or in the Durin's Folk section of Appendix A.
(2) Unlike the Elven names, the dwarven names were taken in whole from names in the Poetic Edda, which is derived from a language that does have a clear divide between male and female languages. The one dwarven female name will do have, "Dis," is one of the few dwarven names that don't appear in the Edda, implying he had to specifically create it. It's much more of a logical leap to assume he was using the dwarven names as gender neutral when names with gender connotations are the norm in every language he created. There are no male "Eowyn"s or Galadriel"s.
Moreover there is a clear trend of names ending in "in" to be given to kings, who we know were male and are used again by the Hobbit dwarves. Given Tolkien's detailed notes on the linguistics of his languages, if that "in" ending is gender neutral, we have to assume Tolkien specifically decided dwarven kings used gender neutral names and never bothered to write that down.
(3) Odd that you'd bring up Luthien and Eowyn since they are the exceptions that prove the rule showing Tolkien wasn't a huge enthusiast for women on adventurers. His works cover thousands of pages and only two women go on a major adventure. One of whom decides her place is in the home afterwards. Outliers don't hide the clear trend.
But fair enough, let's say Bilbo is female and the dwarves had a number of ladies among them. Somehow none of those stretches of the imagination strikes you as crossing the line of changing the text or ignoring authorial intent, but changing "f**k" to "frickin" breaks it?
That strikes me as fundamentally disingenuous.
To sum up, I don't have a problem with genderswapping and I don't feel any need to censor cursing, but by claiming their criticism is based around respecting the text and authorial intent, the critics of CleanReader have been pretending they're standing on moral high ground that doesn't exist.
(2) Unlike the Elven names, the dwarven names were taken in whole from names in the Poetic Edda, which is derived from a language that does have a clear divide between male and female languages. The one dwarven female name will do have, "Dis," is one of the few dwarven names that don't appear in the Edda, implying he had to specifically create it. It's much more of a logical leap to assume he was using the dwarven names as gender neutral when names with gender connotations are the norm in every language he created. There are no male "Eowyn"s or Galadriel"s.
Moreover there is a clear trend of names ending in "in" to be given to kings, who we know were male and are used again by the Hobbit dwarves. Given Tolkien's detailed notes on the linguistics of his languages, if that "in" ending is gender neutral, we have to assume Tolkien specifically decided dwarven kings used gender neutral names and never bothered to write that down.
(3) Odd that you'd bring up Luthien and Eowyn since they are the exceptions that prove the rule showing Tolkien wasn't a huge enthusiast for women on adventurers. His works cover thousands of pages and only two women go on a major adventure. One of whom decides her place is in the home afterwards. Outliers don't hide the clear trend.
But fair enough, let's say Bilbo is female and the dwarves had a number of ladies among them. Somehow none of those stretches of the imagination strikes you as crossing the line of changing the text or ignoring authorial intent, but changing "f**k" to "frickin" breaks it?
That strikes me as fundamentally disingenuous.
To sum up, I don't have a problem with genderswapping and I don't feel any need to censor cursing, but by claiming their criticism is based around respecting the text and authorial intent, the critics of CleanReader have been pretending they're standing on moral high ground that doesn't exist.
Mod
Skipping over swear words, changing stories slightly so you don't scare nervous children or adding the child to the story are a parents right. They know what is best (or entertaining) for their child.
But we wouldn't want an app that does that automatically.
@John: No, I wouldn't be okay with changing the character's name or any of their textual interactions with other characters. Only the gender pronouns as necessary. It has to be the same story. In the case of "The Hobbit", the gender of the protagonist does not bear on the story in any meaningful way and can be changed. When you propose to change the character's lines and such, this is now a re-write and I don't like it.ET, Wastrel successfully refutes you above. Your dismissal is cursory.
See the previous paragraph. CleanReader is changing the context of stories, the fabric that is essential. It is a prudish tool for a revisionist culture, that is detrimental to the preservation of art, and as such I cannot condone it in any fashion.
Now I wanna reread The Hobbit and change pronouns...
I have a personal conflict with this question. Probably the cause I would fight for the most is anti-censorship but I also think you have the right to do whatever you like with your own things as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I would never use this app myself but if you want to ruin a book that you own then who am I to stop you from hurting yourself?
Serendi,
I'm sure there's an app for that. (My apologies. I couldn't resist.)
Kenneth,
I might suggest your statement is cursory. In what way does Wastrel refute my argument? Does he show that Eowyn and Luthien are somehow more representative of Tolkien's intent than the entirety of the rest of his characters and works? Which are essentially all male? Try googling University of Arda and see what the feminists there have to say on Tolkien before pretending Tolkien would have no issue with a girl Bilbo and dwarves. His son didn't even like the changes to the movies, after all.
In addition, does Wastrel show it's just a coincidence that the names associated with kings and males like Durin, Thorin, Gloin, Oin, Dain, Dwalin, Balin all end in a similar pattern? Fili and Kili as well. Just as gendered names in other languages have set ending patterns such as "ette" in French or "us" in Latin. It was clearly Tolkien's authorial intent to have them all male.
Wastrel refutes none of these things. Wastrel in fact has not replied. Perhaps he is busy or writing an amazing rebuttal. It's entirely likely. I am hardly a genius, after all, and this subject is largely opinion based anyway. But given his silence, your statement that I have been refuted by a person who hasn't replied seems a bit premature.
The debate over whether changing gender effects the context of a story more than changing cursing is inherently subjective.
Whether we think changing gender is cute, we are still changing the text. Either this is acceptable or it is not. You don't have any moral high ground to declare it's okay when it's done for a purpose you support, while declaring it detrimental to the preservation of art when you don't support it.
Either way you're changing the art, which is either acceptable or not.
Returning to Wendig's comment that people who don't like his cursing shouldn't read his book. If Wendig was told by his Star Wars editors that cursing wouldn't be allowed in a Star Wars novel, would he take his own advice and tell his editors to find another writer?
I'm sure there's an app for that. (My apologies. I couldn't resist.)
Kenneth,
I might suggest your statement is cursory. In what way does Wastrel refute my argument? Does he show that Eowyn and Luthien are somehow more representative of Tolkien's intent than the entirety of the rest of his characters and works? Which are essentially all male? Try googling University of Arda and see what the feminists there have to say on Tolkien before pretending Tolkien would have no issue with a girl Bilbo and dwarves. His son didn't even like the changes to the movies, after all.
In addition, does Wastrel show it's just a coincidence that the names associated with kings and males like Durin, Thorin, Gloin, Oin, Dain, Dwalin, Balin all end in a similar pattern? Fili and Kili as well. Just as gendered names in other languages have set ending patterns such as "ette" in French or "us" in Latin. It was clearly Tolkien's authorial intent to have them all male.
Wastrel refutes none of these things. Wastrel in fact has not replied. Perhaps he is busy or writing an amazing rebuttal. It's entirely likely. I am hardly a genius, after all, and this subject is largely opinion based anyway. But given his silence, your statement that I have been refuted by a person who hasn't replied seems a bit premature.
The debate over whether changing gender effects the context of a story more than changing cursing is inherently subjective.
Whether we think changing gender is cute, we are still changing the text. Either this is acceptable or it is not. You don't have any moral high ground to declare it's okay when it's done for a purpose you support, while declaring it detrimental to the preservation of art when you don't support it.
Either way you're changing the art, which is either acceptable or not.
Returning to Wendig's comment that people who don't like his cursing shouldn't read his book. If Wendig was told by his Star Wars editors that cursing wouldn't be allowed in a Star Wars novel, would he take his own advice and tell his editors to find another writer?
John (Taloni) wrote: "If I read aloud to a young child and saw a swear word I would probably change it to "fiddlesticks" or somesuch.""I lurve it when Uncle John reads us Game of Thrones!"
"Yesh! Eshpecially when Jaime fiddleshticks Cersei, or Tyrion fiddleshticks the Polite Young Ladies Who Do Their Homework!"
"Oh, and when Ned Stark got his fiddlesticks chopped off and then went on a nice holiday to someplace warm! That was super!"
ET wrote: "Do any of the people against the Clean Reader app oppose a mother changing Bilbo to a girl for her daughter's benefit? If there was an app that gave books a more equitable gender ratio, would any of the people against the Clean Reader app be against it? After all, changing Bilbo to a girl clearly goes against Tolkien's authorial intent. "NPR's Talk of the Nation (RIP) once experimented with a book club and they started with Treasure Island. One of the callers was a girl about 12 years old and he asked her if she thought the story would appeal to her more if the main character were a girl. And she responded that it wouldn't, because historically women couldn't go on adventures like that, so it would be too unrealistic.
Not entirely applicable to The Hobbit, but an incredibly mature take on the subject, I thought.
Been reading this thread, but this weekend actually heard the podcast ep. One thing about Wendig saying he purposely put the words in there. I'm almost done listening to Wool Omnibus. That story has very sparse use of strong profanity like "fuck". I have no idea how often they say "shit" or "damn" as those words are used in the regular world so often as to have lost all potency to me. But when the characters say "fuck" it expresses all the rage or frustration they feel - it's special because it's not there all the time. I also think that it can (in other works) lend a certain feel to characters and/or tell you something about them. Say a book where one character constantly swears and another doesn't. Or what about characters who take slanders against their sex, ethnicity, etc and own them - by using them. (Arguments on whether that's "owning" or not aside) It means something and if you replace that - you're losing out on understanding.
Finally, related to this month's pick - Pratchett had a Discworld book - I don't remember which one, but I think Thief of Time which had two criminals that I think were meant to be a riff on the guys from Pulp Fiction (the Tarantino movie). All their curse words were something like _____ing. There was a great joke about this at the end of that book.
ET wrote: "I'd agree that the Clean Reader app seems rather pointless as any book with cursing is liable to have more offensive content within, but listening to this discussion brought to mind the story about..."An interesting idea and there are stories where it doesn't matter. But also, I think it eliminates a chance for growth and learning. Eg: Bilbo is a man - what do you think he would have done differently if a woman? What do you think he would do the same no matter his sex?
Mod
He did something like that in one of the books I just read (Light Fantastic, Equal Rites, and Mort). I don't remember which though.
But he used underscores or maybe dashes, and later made a comment about the person saying underscore or dash rather than whatever curse word it was a stand in for.
AndrewP wrote: "But seriously, if you think this app is a good idea haven't you read 1984?..."Show me where the government mandates the app's use and I might agree with you there.
How is this different from skipping a paragrhap or two or three when you are reading a book that is paced too slow for your liking?
Eric wrote: "An interesting idea and there are stories where it doesn't matter. But also, I think it eliminates a chance for growth and learning. Eg: Bilbo is a man - what do you think he would have done differently if a woman? What do you think he would do the same no matter his sex? "
If we're respecting authorial intent, which seems to be a mask some critics are hiding behind, then it matters less what I think would change (because again I'm fine with genderswapping), it's about what the author thinks would change. Does switching genders change the context of the story?
Let's consider Eowyn and Luthien since they were brought up.
If Eowyn is male, does her story change? Yes, she dies on the fields of Pelennor. Would making Luthien male change her story? Yes, it would be about a prince rescuing his constantly endangered and far weaker girlfriend.
Going further, can anyone name a single husband in Tolkien's works who wastes away after his wife leaves or dies? Elrond, Thrandruil, and Celeborn all manage to stick around Middle Earth after their spouse leaves for the west or dies. Compare that to Arwen, who essentially decides to die after Aragorn does. She literally can't live without her man. Is Theoden's state in the Two Towers because of grief over his lost wife? No, it's not.
As we can see, each of these characters suffers a lost partner, only the girl can't live without hers. Gender often changes how characters respond to similar events in Tolkien's works. If so, changing gender is clearly disrepecting the text. Aren't we supposed to be preventing anything "detrimental to the preservation of art" like Kenneth says?
Tolkien wrote three novels about a fellowship of nine men after writing about an adventure of thirteen people where the majority are directly declared men and the rest are strongly implied by virtue of the fact that Tolkien never says otherwise. After all, with every other lady in his stories, he directly says they're women.
Clearly, Tolkien only wanted male adventurers in the Hobbit and LotR as members of the company of dwarves and fellowship. Why? No clue. But the trend is there. Bilbo's mother is specifically mentioned as having adventurers. After he wrote the Hobbit, he had requests to write another story in that vein. He could have written her story. Instead, he chose to write about a fellowship of nine men.
Again, the trend implies he considers gender relevant to the characters even if we don't. If gender doesn't matter to him, why did he write companies of nine and thirteen men? If gender was meaningless to Tolkien, the odds would imply at least some of them would be female. Instead we get none.
The sheer odds of flipping a coin 22 times and getting the same side every time are astronomical if the person doing the flipping isn't purposefully making it land on that one side. The character's gender was a purposeful choice on Tolkien's part. He repeatedly chose to write male characters just as some authors choose to have their characters curse.
It's his authorial intent. If we only honestly care about that, we should oppose genderswapping in his works just as we do prudifying Wendig's.
We don't oppose genderswapping because none of us actually care about respecting the text.
My comments aren't aimed at defending Clean Reader or attacking genderswapping. I, for one, am glad we aren't bound to the author's interpretation, but instead are able to use it as a springboard to other things. But if we are allowed to change our copies of novels to suit our sensibilities, it is also acceptable for other people to do the same whether we agree with their sensibilities or not.
To declare otherwise is an obvious double standard.
If we're respecting authorial intent, which seems to be a mask some critics are hiding behind, then it matters less what I think would change (because again I'm fine with genderswapping), it's about what the author thinks would change. Does switching genders change the context of the story?
Let's consider Eowyn and Luthien since they were brought up.
If Eowyn is male, does her story change? Yes, she dies on the fields of Pelennor. Would making Luthien male change her story? Yes, it would be about a prince rescuing his constantly endangered and far weaker girlfriend.
Going further, can anyone name a single husband in Tolkien's works who wastes away after his wife leaves or dies? Elrond, Thrandruil, and Celeborn all manage to stick around Middle Earth after their spouse leaves for the west or dies. Compare that to Arwen, who essentially decides to die after Aragorn does. She literally can't live without her man. Is Theoden's state in the Two Towers because of grief over his lost wife? No, it's not.
As we can see, each of these characters suffers a lost partner, only the girl can't live without hers. Gender often changes how characters respond to similar events in Tolkien's works. If so, changing gender is clearly disrepecting the text. Aren't we supposed to be preventing anything "detrimental to the preservation of art" like Kenneth says?
Tolkien wrote three novels about a fellowship of nine men after writing about an adventure of thirteen people where the majority are directly declared men and the rest are strongly implied by virtue of the fact that Tolkien never says otherwise. After all, with every other lady in his stories, he directly says they're women.
Clearly, Tolkien only wanted male adventurers in the Hobbit and LotR as members of the company of dwarves and fellowship. Why? No clue. But the trend is there. Bilbo's mother is specifically mentioned as having adventurers. After he wrote the Hobbit, he had requests to write another story in that vein. He could have written her story. Instead, he chose to write about a fellowship of nine men.
Again, the trend implies he considers gender relevant to the characters even if we don't. If gender doesn't matter to him, why did he write companies of nine and thirteen men? If gender was meaningless to Tolkien, the odds would imply at least some of them would be female. Instead we get none.
The sheer odds of flipping a coin 22 times and getting the same side every time are astronomical if the person doing the flipping isn't purposefully making it land on that one side. The character's gender was a purposeful choice on Tolkien's part. He repeatedly chose to write male characters just as some authors choose to have their characters curse.
It's his authorial intent. If we only honestly care about that, we should oppose genderswapping in his works just as we do prudifying Wendig's.
We don't oppose genderswapping because none of us actually care about respecting the text.
My comments aren't aimed at defending Clean Reader or attacking genderswapping. I, for one, am glad we aren't bound to the author's interpretation, but instead are able to use it as a springboard to other things. But if we are allowed to change our copies of novels to suit our sensibilities, it is also acceptable for other people to do the same whether we agree with their sensibilities or not.
To declare otherwise is an obvious double standard.
I am against any genderswapping of the Hobbit, but in favour of re-titling it to "Bilbo's Magnificent Sausage Party".
Brendan wrote: "I am against any genderswapping of the Hobbit, but in favour of re-titling it to "Bilbo's Magnificent Sausage Party"."Define "magnificent."
If we are going to get upset about text alterations, we should also be upset with the publishers who alter text for US vs. UK audiences, for instance. There would be much less uproar if this was a publisher creating sanitized versions under license instead of just an app.
^Yeah, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" makes more sense, but you have to know some history to get the reference. So "Sorcerer's Stone" it became in the US.
If the author/publisher is OK with readers digest abridgement, or changing spellings/idioms for their UK/US audience, then I have no issue.I don't like words being changed that distorts the meaning without author/publisher consent. Bottom for vagina, for example. If a person wants to do that with their personal copy, fine. But for someone to make an app, and attempt to generate some sort of revenue for it (either through ads, click-throughs, paid apps), without getting consent from the creator, then no. It violates fair use copyright.
Blacking words out? I'd have to think about that. I find that slightly less objectionable.
Brendan wrote: "I am against any genderswapping of the Hobbit, but in favour of re-titling it to "Bilbo's Magnificent Sausage Party"."That's got to be the wurst idea yet.
Mod
But that is usually done to make it easier to understand. Not to change the meaning.
The sentence:
"Playing draughts in gaol whilst serving time for writing bad cheques"
Loses no meaning when converted to:
"Playing checkers in jail while serving time for writing bad checks"
but is much more easily understood by an average American reader and vice versa to a UK or Aus/NZ reader if converted from 2nd to 1st sentence.
Book titles are often changed from one market to another. That is usually the publisher's call, knowing what works best in different countries.
Removing or changing words for less offensive ones does sometimes alter the meaning and impact the author was going for.
As i see it, cleanreader app is just another part of "violence is good, nipples are bad" catholic hypocrisy.If you don't like what you read, don't read it. But if you really want to read it, don't edit it to fit in your small mind. Grow up and broaden your mind.
It is simple as that.
Changing words you don't like in a book you didn't write is censorship, Nathan.
Darren wrote: "Changing words you don't like in a book you didn't write is censorship, Nathan."No it isn't. Censorship is preventing other people from reading things you don't like (even if you wrote it yourself).
Tommi wrote: "As i see it, cleanreader app is just another part of "violence is good, nipples are bad" catholic hypocrisy."That's a great way of putting it.
Tommi wrote: "As i see it, cleanreader app is just another part of "violence is good, nipples are bad" catholic hypocrisy."I certainly wouldn't limit it to Catholics. In this specific case, they are Mormons.
Please, we all know the reason nudity is treated differently than violence.
How many people are willing to commit murder? How many people are willing to have sex?
The first question yields a statistically minute portion of the population. The answer to the second question is nearly every person on Earth.
If you aren't willing to do something, seeing someone else do it isn't going to spur you to do it. If you want to do something and see it done, you are far more likely to be influenced by it. This is especially true for teenagers, who are the main target of the 'no nudity' rules, and we all know it.
It's why people 'set the mood' through the a variety of methods. If you believe people can be influenced into sex through mere music or candles, are you honestly going to pretend actual nudity can't 'set the mood'?
Whether or not it is actually effective, which is doubtful, there is nothing hypocritical about parents being more worried about nudity influencing their kids than violence.
Never mind the fact that the Catholics and Mormons you're criticizing are also the same groups who are most likely to not let their kids see violent movies.
How many people are willing to commit murder? How many people are willing to have sex?
The first question yields a statistically minute portion of the population. The answer to the second question is nearly every person on Earth.
If you aren't willing to do something, seeing someone else do it isn't going to spur you to do it. If you want to do something and see it done, you are far more likely to be influenced by it. This is especially true for teenagers, who are the main target of the 'no nudity' rules, and we all know it.
It's why people 'set the mood' through the a variety of methods. If you believe people can be influenced into sex through mere music or candles, are you honestly going to pretend actual nudity can't 'set the mood'?
Whether or not it is actually effective, which is doubtful, there is nothing hypocritical about parents being more worried about nudity influencing their kids than violence.
Never mind the fact that the Catholics and Mormons you're criticizing are also the same groups who are most likely to not let their kids see violent movies.
Mod
Catholic raised people have the reputation of being very sexually liberal here. Most of the naughty girls were catholics ;-)
Growing up in a family heavily involved with Jehovah's Witnesses and some Mormons, I know those 2 religions are very prudish and would love the clean reader app and anything else that hides nudity or sex.
Admittedly, when we talk in generalities about any large group, it's impossible to do anything but offer stereotypes.
In that vein, my comment about 1940s Catholic Tolkien was unfair.
Likewise, I'd say there are usually multiple stereotypes for any large group. For just about any religious group in America, Catholic or not, the fact that they are more conservative than average gets exaggerated into the stereotype that they are borderline puritans. The reputation you mentioned is also common as a stereotype for most faiths. It fits into the more general religious stereotype that the kids of strictly religious parents tend to be wild.
In that vein, my comment about 1940s Catholic Tolkien was unfair.
Likewise, I'd say there are usually multiple stereotypes for any large group. For just about any religious group in America, Catholic or not, the fact that they are more conservative than average gets exaggerated into the stereotype that they are borderline puritans. The reputation you mentioned is also common as a stereotype for most faiths. It fits into the more general religious stereotype that the kids of strictly religious parents tend to be wild.
Tassie Dave wrote: But that is usually done to make it easier to understand. Not to change the meaning."Sometimes but not always. The US edition of The Eyre Affairthe Eyre Affair shuffled chapters and made other extensive changes. Also, some meanings are changed when the target audience has no equivalent meaning to change to.
Easier understanding could also be achieved with an glossary and/or appendix explaining the "confusing" parts to those who need it. Then the text doesn't change.
It is a lot to ask of many people to broaden their minds by learning about other languages/dialects/cultures.
"haven't you read 1984?"I did, but I made some changes so as to prevent my exile from the love of Big Brother.
I changed "Big Brother" to "Brian Dowling", how can you not love him?
/joke
I'd really like an app that takes John Norman's Gor series and deletes all BDSM references and long monologs about why women should be the property of men. I realize that I'd have something resembling a comic book in length, but at least I could find out what happens in this series without getting angry at the author.However, I think the author rereleased all his books with more of those things in them.
Nathan wrote: "AndrewP wrote: "But seriously, if you think this app is a good idea haven't you read 1984?..."Show me where the government mandates the app's use and I might agree with you there."
In the USA the FCC mandates that swear words be removed from TV or Radio. It's a slippery slope.
Slippery slope how? One is a product being offered by a company another is a government mandate.
Yeah, I don't get "slippery slope" from this, either.If I buy a book, I can do whatever I want to it. Authors can go on about their "moral rights" but that's a lot of hot air. You created a product and I get to do what I want with that product, as long as I'm not making money off of it.
This is like music mash-ups or Viewer Cuts of movies.
The FCC thing is reasonable to me, as well. We don't censor things just to be dicks about it, we do it so that children who are developmentally unprepared for certain types of stories or language aren't inadvertently exposed to them. It strikes a nice balance between artistry and responsibility in the social compact.
I like the idea of the Clean Reader app...for kids. I am a mother of a 12 year old book worm and over the years I have read several books that my son would love but, due to the language, I don't feel comfortable letting him read yet. From what I gather, this app is similar to the "Edited for Public TV" movies or parental control settings on video games and the computer. I agree that, in most cases, content would be lost but that isn't always the case. This app could be the books' equivalent to movies on network TV, not quite whole but acceptable for pre-teens.That being said, this app should NOT be available without the author's permission and the author should have a say in the amount of changes that are made.
No the author does not have those rights. It's just a word filter it's not a distributor. It's merely a filter that edits out "bad" words.
I like the Pratchett approach to cursing in The Truth. Mister Tulip cursed all the time -ing and -ing that.
deleted user wrote: "I'd agree that the Clean Reader app seems rather pointless as any book with cursing is liable to have more offensive content within, but listening to this discussion brought to mind the story about..."Charles Stross has a response app to Clean Reader.
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
The Eyre Affair (other topics)Wool Omnibus (other topics)
Wyrd Sisters (other topics)
Wyrd Sisters (other topics)
Wyrd Sisters (other topics)
More...
I think the Clean Reader app is just prudish nonsense. I remember reading an interview with Gene Wolfe (A self-identified Catholic convert who takes his beliefs seriously) about why he included so much torture, violence, and sexual deviance in his Solar Cycle. His response was something to the effect that he has to be true to the nature of the characters in order to present his story. While the protagonist Severian is an abject sinner, his struggle to be a good person is far more meaningful. If the story were "cleaned" of the language and actions that are deemed "inappropriate" by prudes, his redemption would make little sense in the context of the plot.