all 11 comments

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll start saying I've not read Dahl's books and I'm only familiar with the Matilda movie, which I liked, and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, which was pretty weird and I disliked. However, even I can see how sensitivity readers had completely altered the books despite claims of trying to preserve the original essence.

I don't see the purpose of the changes, either. First, writers spent a good deal of time choosing every word; so, of course, any attempt to randomly change them is going to produce clunky results. Second, if you think the books are offensive, I really don't know why you are eager to read them, even if you're reading a tamer version. I think there is value in analyzing and discussing how a book covers controversial subjects (as long you don't start assuming that an author always supports everything that happens in their books or makes thing up, anyways), but this can only be done with the original. And when we're talking about old books, updating their language and ideas is, in my opinion, a form of historical revisionism, but whitewashing the past doesn't erase what happened. And, when you don't know history, it makes you prone to repeat past mistakes or unable to understand the present.

I'd say sensitivity readers should write their own stories instead, but I think it's clear why they don't: they really don't know how.

Kind off-topic for this sub, but this incident reminded me of the publication of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. In Latin America, the book title was translated not as Harry Potter y el príncipe mestizo, but as Harry Potter y el misterio del príncipe (Harry Potter and the Prince's Mystery) in case people got offended over the word mestizo even if it was the better translation choice. On the contrary, people were ofended because of the implication we would interpret it as a racist thing. And, besides the title, the books used the word mestizo, anyway, which made everything more ridiculous.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Don’t think critically, just make everything super nice and comfy, not hurting feelings is priority one. Emotional stunting makes it easy for everyone to focus on their identity politics and stop asking for community-based problem solving.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh, but TRAs are perfectly fine being offensive when they want to. In fact, a good deal of their "inclusive language" is pretty dehumanizing toward women. Trans identified people just reserve the right not to be the object of offense.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Absolutely, it’s about feeling nice from virtue signalling online and from forced compliance, not actually doing anything for any sort of equality.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Focusing so much on language is backwards, anyway. I mean, sure, language is important or I wouldn't have spent so much time talking about it here; however, language reflects social prejudices. Even if you baned all the offensive words, as long social values don't change, new ones will be coined. And, of course, not amount of language changes is going to modify physical reality, another reason why correctly sexing people is not the same than, for example, a racial slur.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn’t agree more

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think people with triggers/ extreme sensitivity need to be responsible for managing their triggers and leave shit alone. Ultimately doing things like this causes more harm than good imo, because the world is never going to be perfectly warm and fuzzy, so why are we bending over backwards to alter classic work so someone isn’t triggered by the word fat, as if that same someone won’t be called worse by people irl, or hear the same language elsewhere?

Like- just read Dr. Seuss. That’s is if you can handle the literal violence of the narrator rejecting Sam I Am and his green eggs and ham 🙄

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They're apparently now going through Agatha Christie books or something like that? Its all rather silly, we have so many books to choose from and its important to keep original language so people can see how things have changed, what has changed, etc. But also its just words!

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And with Agatha Christie's books they don't have the excuse that is for kids. Presumably, the adults who read them understand that social actitudes have changed.

It seems they want to "update" some Ursula K. Le Guin's children books, which I find completely absurd. Having read all the Earthsea's books and learning about her views, I cannot imagine her writing something questionable for children. And, indeed, the problematic parts are only seven instances of four words. So, what is the point?