Roald Dahl eBooks Reportedly Censored Remotely (thetimes.co.uk) 244
"Owners of Roald Dahl ebooks are having their libraries automatically updated with the new censored versions containing hundreds of changes to language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race," reports the British newspaper the Times.
Readers who bought electronic versions of the writer's books, such as Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, before the controversial updates have discovered their copies have now been changed.
Puffin Books, the company which publishes Dahl novels, updated the electronic novels, in which Augustus Gloop is no longer described as fat or Mrs Twit as fearfully ugly, on devices such as the Amazon Kindle. Dahl's biographer Matthew Dennison last night accused the publisher of "strong-arming readers into accepting a new orthodoxy in which Dahl himself has played no part."
Meanwhile...
Puffin Books, the company which publishes Dahl novels, updated the electronic novels, in which Augustus Gloop is no longer described as fat or Mrs Twit as fearfully ugly, on devices such as the Amazon Kindle. Dahl's biographer Matthew Dennison last night accused the publisher of "strong-arming readers into accepting a new orthodoxy in which Dahl himself has played no part."
Meanwhile...
- Dahl's publisher earlier announced they'd also resume publishing original versions of Dahl's novels "before the end of the year," reports the BBC.
- The Telegraph notes that when he was alive, Dahl himself "threatened to never write another word if his publishers ever changed his language, promising to send his 'Enormous Crocodile' to gobble them up if they did so."
- A New York Times opinion writer adds that "the changes to Dahl's texts first began to appear more than a year ago without attracting any significant attention until now."
- Children's book author Frank Cottrell-Boyce admits in the Guardian that "as a child I disliked Dahl intensely. I felt that his snobbery was directed at people like me and that his addiction to revenge was not good. But that was fine — I just moved along."
But Cottrell-Boyce's larger point is "The key to reading for pleasure is having a choice about what you read" — and that childhood readers faces greater threats. "The outgoing children's laureate Cressida Cowell has spent the last few years fighting for her Life-changing Libraries campaign. It's making a huge difference but it would have a been a lot easier if our media showed a fraction of the interest they showed in Roald Dahl's vocabulary in our children."
They removed “fat,” “ugly,&rdquo (Score:5, Informative)
They removed “fat,” “ugly,” “crazy” and “female” — by "sensitivity experts." They also alter references to gender, race and physical appearance in newer editions.
Non-paywalled link:
https://nypost.com/2023/02/20/... [nypost.com]
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:3, Insightful)
It has to stop.
There has to be a way to stop these people.
Make candidates announce positions .... (Score:2, Insightful)
It has to stop. There has to be a way to stop these people.
Stop voting for people who support this. Make candidates announce their stand on these and other "woke" issues. Don't vote for candidates that support this "feels good" nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't vote for candidates ...
Voters are going to put jobs, tough on crime, jobs and 'national security' way before culture wars, come time to vote.
It has to stop.
It was Ghandi who recognised that language included stereotypes and therefore controlled one's way of thinking. (See the post [slashdot.org] on Dahl's re-write.) This revisionism is mentioned in 1984: As an attempt to eliminate bad thoughts. It's great that fat-shaming and slut-shaming is discouraged but censorship is a slippery slope. 'Politically correct' and 'think of the children' become an excuse
Re: (Score:3)
It has to stop. There has to be a way to stop these people.
Stop voting for people who support this. Make candidates announce their stand on these and other "woke" issues. Don't vote for candidates that support this "feels good" nonsense.
Ideologues of all kinds and beliefs should just stop regulating what other people read. How is this any different from MAGA conservatives religious zealots banning and burning books because there's stuff in them that hurts their fee-fees?
Re: (Score:3)
It has to stop. There has to be a way to stop these people.
Stop voting for people who support this. Make candidates announce their stand on these and other "woke" issues. Don't vote for candidates that support this "feels good" nonsense.
Ideologues of all kinds and beliefs should just stop regulating what other people read. How is this any different from MAGA conservatives religious zealots banning and burning books because there's stuff in them that hurts their fee-fees?
The MAGA edits are not becoming the standard amazon editions. Amazon is not pushing a MAGA edit to people who bought the original.
What the MAGA folks do is if you send them your original to prove ownership of the copyright material, they will provide you with their edited version that you can then share with your kids. That's something quite different. And if the wokees did that for their community that would be just fine too as folks outside the community are not affected.
Bullshit, you must have missed the part about book burnings. The MAGA nuts are banning long list of books in schools and libraries across the country and pressuring book sellers not to sell them. The next time they manage to land a trifecta they'll happily ban anything from Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' and the Koran to the damn Teletubbies because Tinky Winky carries a handbag and might be gay which hurts their snow flaky feelings and offends their imaginary friend.
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:2)
There has to be a way to stop these people.
Stop buying things you don't actually own. This is hardly a phenomenon exclusive to ebooks. iTunes has replaced purchased songs with different recordings, and changing things after you've bought them is called "business as usual" in the gaming and mobile app spheres.
It's become a case of "old man yells at cloud" (literally), because if it's in the cloud - you don't own it.
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:2)
Ah, the glories of the digital revolution. Why burn books when you can just edit them retroactively?
My idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: If the copyright holder modifies "Star Wars", the original must also be purchasable/viewable at the same price, etc. That way, history is not erased for feelings or profit, and the copyright holder can still modify what he/she wants in the future.
Anti-corporates are the people supporting this (Score:4, Insightful)
There has to be a way to stop these people. You have to vote for anti-corporate candidates and then vote for candidate who will reduce copyright terms. Until then the copyright holder will get to dictate terms until you're long dead.
WTF -- the anti-corporate leftists are the people pushing this. This is just part of the "woke" revolution where "feelings" are what really matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-corporates are the people supporting this (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF -- the anti-corporate leftists are pushing this. This is just part of the "woke" revolution where "feelings" are what really matters.
Lefties are pushing this particular edit, but righties like DeSantis are also trying to control what you read.
We must stand up to authoritarianism and thought control from either end of the ideological spectrum.
Re:Anti-corporates are the people supporting this (Score:5, Informative)
No, the problem is copyright length.
Not in this case.The problem is editing an author's words to satisfy political ideologies. Also there is a problem with forcing an edited version upon someone who purchased the original. Its a quite Orwellian rewriting of history.
If you don't want to be beat over the head with right holders constantly updating their IP to be more "woke" or adding CGI Jawas, you reduce the length of copyright so the works fall into public domain sooner.
That increases the opportunity for editing. That does not address pushing unwanted updates. Copyright length is irrelevant in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
That increases the opportunity for editing. That does not address pushing unwanted updates. Copyright length is irrelevant in this case.
The idea is that at least a few people would have unaltered original versions and when the copyright expired they'd be free to share them. Yes, people could also make their own edited derivative works, but the existence of this [imdb.com] doesn't mean you've lost access to this. [archive.org]
Also, as someone else mentioned earlier in this discussion, there's always just resorting to civil disobedience (the "high seas") if you feel present copyright laws are unjust. I have a copy of the entire original unaltered Star Wars trilogy
Re: (Score:3)
There has to be a way to stop these people. You have to vote for anti-corporate candidates and then vote for candidate who will reduce copyright terms. Until then the copyright holder will get to dictate terms until you're long dead.
WTF -- the anti-corporate leftists are the people pushing this. This is just part of the "woke" revolution where "feelings" are what really matters.
This is not a left or "woke" problem. This is a human problem. For example, right-wing Republicans in Florida are advancing their personal ideologies by canceling school curriculums and corporate speech and furthermore punishing people with legal and financial penalties to force obedience. There is no theoretical reason to think or believe that only the left or the right has a monopoly on trampling First Amendment rights.
Amazingly that this obvious truism is marked as a troll on slashdot. Goes to show that slashdot is not immune to the current political problems plaguing the US. That cancel culture is equally embraced by all ends of the political spectrum is obvious. However, it is the extreme right that has grabbed the PR horns, accentuated the left-wing cancels while casting the right-wing cancels as righteousness. Even here on slashdot.
Re: They removed “fat,” “ugly,&a (Score:2)
Re: They removed “fat,” “ugly,& (Score:2)
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:5, Insightful)
I came here specifically to ask you a question, AmiMoJo. I feel the need to preface it by saying that I'm not trolling nor being disrespectful - I'm genuinely curious. Are you in favour of these revisions? If you're not in favour of them, how do you reconcile that with the sentiment expressed by your sig?
I should also say that my relationship with wokeness is a bit nuanced. When it was about standing up for gays, blacks, indigenous peoples, etc, I considered myself woke. When it became about strident virtue signalling, censorship, cancel culture, and revisionist history, they lost me. I still support the stated goals, but I feel the methods being used by many are appalling and dangerous, not to mention looking a lot like the behaviour of the prejudiced cretins whose actions and attitudes they're fighting against.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who destroy history - and altering it the way Puffin has amounts to destruction - are criminals.
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:3)
Who are these "experts", what studies have the seen that show that these changes have any significant impact on the way children treat each other. Its an appeal to authority without having any reference to what authority they have. My opinion is these experts are people in their sales department, stir up some controversy, get some free advertising, make some more sales. But maybe I am being too cynical.
Yeah the changes maybe minor, but the impact is also minor if at all, or even negative if parents start ta
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:2)
> I doubt the movie version would have stuck to his original description either, had it even been made.
Disney could still turn it into a movie except they would change the Oompa-Loompas to Foxconn workers and instead of Chocolate they make iPhones.
Then everything would be updated to modern times and the currently accepted version of exploited workers everyone is OK with... for now.
Re:They removed “fat,” “ugly,&am (Score:2)
Cast Chris Rock as Wonka, make the Chinese workers dance and sing BTS songs, insert a gay sex scene and I think we have ourselves the next Hollo wood blockbuster.
Re: They removed “fat,” “ugly,&a (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's a notable distinction between the author making changes in his own volition and somebody else just doing it after the fact.
Though on that same token, there's also a notable distinction between editing after the fact to adapt to how the meaning of words changes over time, and editing after the fact for ideological reasons, and that can be notwithstanding of whether it was the author who made the change.
Take for example, George Lucas modifying Star Wars so that Han didn't shoot first. I personally don't give a shit about Star Wars, but I can certainly see why it would piss off the fans, namely because it fundamentally alters the character that they had in their mind, and it fundamentally dulls down a work that they thoroughly enjoyed.
That said, I totally get and agree with people being upset over these changes to Dahl's works, even if the author would have been fine with it (though I suspect that wouldn't be the case here.) If you look at the language he used, it's pretty clear the characterization that he's trying to establish, and he's using very colorful language to do so. These edits feel a bit like they're heavily dulling that color, and without any really good reason to do so.
One of the things authors like Dahl do with characterization is try to draw out emotional feelings among the readers to make their stories feel more alive. I still remember reading James and the Giant Peach when I was in third grade, and getting those strong emotions, both good and bad. That's what made it fun to read.
What they're doing here feels a bit like taking every fun 80s cartoon you ever watched and making them black and white and overall just bland, because they think the colors night offend colorblind people.
Even the things that they really seem to be demonizing (and really, they're not bad things at all) like changing "mothers and fathers" to just "parents" really seems to be dulling it down. The word "parents" existed at Dahl's time, I think if he wanted to use that, he would have. Moreover, the latter carries less imagery, and makes the refererred people a bit more faceless. I seriously doubt that a kid with same sex parents would be particularly offended by it, nor would it come as a shock to them that most kids have a mother and a father. Still, the word mother or father, especially given both are plural, would draw more familiar imagery than just parents. And even if they were bothered by it, so what? I'm sure there were little things in they book that bothered me as well, but it's not exactly traumatizing.
Though changing "female" to "woman" is a bit telling considering that progressives nowadays argue that the word "woman" (or "man") has no actual meaning. When I think of their motive behind doing that, it feels like they're just trying to remove the imagery outright as if to say "here's a book about some faceless unidentifiable floating consciousnesses doing stuff involving a peach, we removed their identities to protect the reader."
That said, I think these edits are purely ideological and based on misplaced concern. What's most bothersome of all though is that they're changing the contents of books that people already own. Think banned books, only it's worse than a public library simply not having the book, rather the book in its existing form has been confiscated from its current owners.
Though I'm not surprised that you of all people would go along with this, you seem to have an affinity for revising reality to fit your own little world view and fuck everyone else.
Re: They removed “fat,” “ugly,&a (Score:2)
I don't think Dhal would have changed it if he wasn't forced to by his publisher. It was pretty much "change it or we aren't printing it."
This post reads like an onion article (Score:5, Insightful)
Danny Elfman did it too? (Score:2)
Re: Danny Elfman did it too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Adapting a work to a new medium isn't quite the same as altering the original unilaterally. I'd be pissed if books I purchased were updated to versions I don't want.
Re: Danny Elfman did it too? (Score:2)
Wtf are you smoking? Hard non sequiter, dude.
Re: Danny Elfman did it too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
destinyland noted:
For his Oompa Loompa songs in Tim Burton's 2005 movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Danny Elfman himself trimmed down Roald Dahl's original lyrics [destinyland.org].
Of course he did, Dave. If he'd've incorporated all the original lyrics, the song would've been five minutes long - six, with tuba solo. It would've brought the movie to a screeching, grinding, clattering halt for no defensible reason.
It's the same reason Peter Jackson chose to leave the Tom Bombadil song (and Tom Bombadil himself) out of The Fellowship of the Ring movie ...
Re:Danny Elfman did it too? (Score:5, Informative)
For his Oompa Loompa songs in Tim Burton's 2005 movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Danny Elfman himself trimmed down Roald Dahl's original lyrics [destinyland.org].
Dahl himself made changes to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Dahl's widow said that Charlie was originally written as "a little black boy." Dahl's biographer said the change to a white character was driven by Dahl's agent, who thought a black Charlie would not appeal to readers.
In the first published edition, the Oompa-Loompas were described as African pygmies, and were drawn this way in the original printed edition. After the announcement of a film adaptation sparked a statement from the NAACP, which expressed concern that the transportation of Oompa-Loompas to Wonka's factory resembled slavery, Dahl found himself sympathising with their concerns and published a revised edition. In this edition, as well as the subsequent sequel, the Oompa-Loompas were drawn as being white and appearing similar to hippies, and the references to Africa were deleted.
Re: (Score:3)
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn't she.
Are you _sure_ you understand what you write?
Re:Danny Elfman did it too? (Score:4, Funny)
I also can't stand Moby Dick.
Yeah, it's one of Led Zeppelin's weaker tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you're not into percussion. Moby Dick is choice.
(yes, I ruined your joke by cracking one of my own, my apologies. But honestly.. if you've got a pulse and can follow a beat, Moby Dick is one of the epic all-time bangers, right up with Beethoven.)
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't surprise me. I read that Dahl was a nasty person that hated kids. His books have so many anti child messages that it surprises me that he is praised for his books for children. One interviewer said the only reason he wrote children's books was because "the little fuckers will buy anything." Myself, I have tried to read his books many times over the years. I never make it very far into them. I just find his writing style to be unreadable. But that is just me. I also can't stand Moby Dick.
Reposting to counter troll mods.
A change in tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of burning books all one need do is "edit" them. Now *that's* progress!
There's a word for that: Bowdlerize (Score:4, Interesting)
So cute that they're saying they're backtracking except they're not backtracking at all. Lying scum.
Emphasis added. Notice the downplaying and the contravening of the late author's explicit wishes.
There's a bunch of people that make it their life goal to change other people's language for them, to "be more inclusive". Notice that "inclusive" got a make-over as well. Not the first time words get redefined to serve an ideological purpose. [newdiscourses.com]
Meanwhile, James [yahoo.com] Bond [rollingstone.com] is next. [insider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Then tell me about those changes. Hey, maybe some parents will actually go "yes, that's sensible".
But changing a book behind my back is a surefire way to have me resist that change on principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, say this or that about the changed content, but the shocking thing here is there's a device called Kindle, which actually obeys commands to remotely censor and burn parts of books, changing them without user consent.
https://slate.com/technology/2... [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Really? That's the best (and only) joke anyone could come up with for this ripe story?
But editing paper books is much more tedious that the ebooks. For example, one method is to cut out the target page close to the binding and glue in a replacement page...
Re: A change in tactic (Score:2)
Is there a difference between a publisher doing this for their own reasons, and doing it to get past government filters - making a Florida edition?
The risks of the online service age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first time it's happened. Early in the Kindle's life, Amazon deleted Nineteen Eighty Four from people's devices because they lost the rights to it. There have been numerous incidents of music libraries being wiped out by services where people "bought" the songs closing down.
And yet still people carry on paying for this stuff. They will never learn. We need to find some other way to fight it.
Fahrenheit 451 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But look at the bright side, we don't have to burn books anymore, we can make them "agreeable" now. Just remove all the non-agreeable parts.
Re: (Score:2)
"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better-looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."
Should have read the ToS - contract issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this isn't censorship. No one forced his estate to do this. They just wanted to make edits they thought would make his work endure longer. You're welcome to disagree, but this isn't a culture war, cancel culture, political correctness run amok, or anything else.
Someone with a vested business interest in widening his audience is attempting to make his work more palatable to what they perceive as today's sensitivities. If you're posting on Slashdot, you're a bit too old to be reading children's books anyway, so you're not the target audience...in fact, I'll wager slashdot readers skew pretty old...and your kids are beyond the age they should be reading these books either.
So unless you are a kid or have kids the age that should be reading this, sorry, you're not the target audience. Your opinion on the subject is about as relevant as mine on tampons.
Re:Should have read the ToS - contract issue (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a fun bit in our contractual laws here. It's a part about "disproportionate and unexpected clauses". In essence, what it says is that if you have clauses in your contract that the average, normal person would not expect to be there (like, say, this one), you have to explicitly have them sign off that clause in particular or it's void.
Yes, there are already verdicts around this. This actually DOES hold up in court. Unless that contract says in easily understandable language "we change the books if we so please, sign here to accept this", you can shove that changes where the sun doesn't shine and where they belong.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a fun bit in our contractual laws here. It's a part about "disproportionate and unexpected clauses".
Can I start by stressing that I don't disbelieve you, I'd just like a few more details:
- Where is "here"? From your last line I suspect you mean the USA but please remember that Slashdot has an international audience so it is helpful to make this sort of thing clearer.
- Can you provide a link to the actual statute you are referring to? "In essence" is helpful, but sometimes one needs to dig into the details.
- Similarly, can you link to any judgements which uphold this concept, particularly where the
Re: (Score:3)
The sig is very old now, I'm no longer in the US. Austria is my current base of operation.
The rule in question is about the "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen" (general terms and conditions), which are essentially click-through contracts like the one you usually sign when buying something like ebooks or other fungible goods (opposite to individual contracts that you usually have between two partners who negotiate a deal about a particular, usually non-fungible, good or service). Contracts like this are n
Re: Should have read the ToS - contract issue (Score:2)
I've seen a whole narrator change because of publishing rights, The Martian by Podium Audio.
But this is the hill folks want to die on, a publisher making some minor edits.
Not saying I like it, I wish we had access to different editions, but you all keep tilting at those giants, and good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is the hill folks want to die on, a publisher making some minor edits.
Minor is in the eye of the beholder.
But they always start out with something "minor", to establish the precedent, then move on. If you wait until it gets to something major enough to burn you, you have to overthrow a mass of established practice. So you have to pull the weed when it first sprouts.
(It's the same old salami-slicer, similar to how censorship starts: First they go after something disgusting like kiddie porn - and
Re: Should have read the ToS - contract issue (Score:2)
So, when your family/friends are killed, that is murder. When it is someone else that do not approve of, you consider that cleansing of society.
You you/your far left extremists/etc are simply the other side of the coin with Trumpers/DeSantis/fascist.
Re: Should have read the ToS - contract issue (Score:2)
Are you butthurt he pointed out this is what can happen when you "buy" digital access tokens to content on someone else's computer?
Or are you in the middle of Matilda right now and that got you. Maybe you're the proud owner of some Matilda NFTs, double whammy. What a clown.
1984? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't there a book about a time when 'facts' would be released to the public, only to be changed the next day to suit the whim of those in power? To reflect a pseudo-reality that aligned with the prevalent belief system pushed by a few?
What was the name of that book again? It's on the tip of my tongue...
Re:1984? (Score:5, Interesting)
--George Orwell "1984" (June, 1949)
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Re: 1984? Facts? (Score:2)
Oh boy, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't a history book sweetie, it's fiction. So is Matilda. Maybe your mom should tell you the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Has everything to do with 1984. Orwell was warning us of this.
It also is true, what you say, that this was a move to make moar cash. No different than releasing a slighty-altered version of your wonderdrug, so now you can milk that patent another two decades.
But, it's still government in cahoots with commerce to run your world. A bizarre upside-down socialist - fascist thing. It's eerily parallell to about 100 years ago, in Europe.. only now it's in the UK and US.. and a lot of Europe. But I hear some
Without telling... remotely... (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to distinguish two kinds of work:
* humankind art that is here to stay without changing a comma;
* functional texts like constitutions, engineering books, encyclopedias, children books, that are updated to reflect current knowledge and current views.
Modern Disney adaptation of Snow White and Rapunzel to remove gruesome happenings is something well known and accepted. What is shocking here is they changed it without telling anyone, and that they dared to remotely change books already purchased. Rewriting old books in newspeak is literally 1984-level horror tale.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney's adaptation of eg. Snow White is a new version sold as its own version; they don't go back and change all versions of Snow White ever published to make them fit their own version.
Authors take note (Score:5, Insightful)
After the author is dead, the "estate" will do anything including changing the written word if it means more money for them. Time for authors to start thinking about talking to a lawyer to put down exactly what an estate may or may not do. Maybe put some teeth into the legalese too, e.g. texts instantly enter the public domain if they are purposefully modified in any way.
Farenheit 451 ans 1984 (Score:2)
We are there, the clerc win !
Paper wins again (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of many reasons paper books are superior to digital. You never have to worry about the book changing because of someone else's whim when you own a physical copy. The original words of the author remain untouched in perpetuity, unless the book itself is destroyed, or when the Earth is eventually charred to a cinder.
Rip that shit to .pdf (Score:3)
What happened to the good old "fuck you, I do what I want to!" computer culture of the early 2000s where the second thing one studied after the most basic computer use was piracy?
It is inevitable that authority seeks to fuck the people who should not have a flicker of regret returning the favor.
The modern Left are as censorious as the Right because most people are idiots and that will never be different. Disregard what either want you to do, hate them (they merit no respect because the sole reason they want respect is to rule you by tantrum) then do what you wilt.
Dhalgren (Score:2)
slippery road (Score:2)
WokeGPT for perpetual AI censorship? (Score:3, Interesting)
The obvious way to perpetuate wokeaganda is to make literature a constantly evolving social conditioning tool ever more difficult for normies to archive conveniently.
DRM and editing WILL be increasingly employed to this end.
1984 In Real Life (Score:2)
Remember, when you buy something digital, you never truly own it, and your access to it depends on a boardroom's permission.
Buy physical media for everything you hold dear.
Time to brush up on "Fahrenheit 451" and "1984." (Score:2)
Dirty, dirty, dirty. (Score:2)
Keep Kindles offline! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the family, we keep our e-ink Kindles offline, and install books only via USB (Amazon has made it a little more complicated to do that over time, but it can still be done). It's a bit less convenient, but it guarantees that nothing gets changed, and battery life is presumably even better.
I am not a lawyer, but I do wonder about the legality of changing files on someone else's device. I don't see anything in the Kindle Store Terms of Use ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/help... [amazon.com] ) that one agrees to allow Amazon to change files stored on one's device. I expect somewhere there is some agreement to system updates, but this is not a system update.
Are we sure? (Score:2)
Why is there no link to the Times story being quoted?
I did a Google News search and the only matching phrase for the text quoted is here on Slashdot.
Anyone fact-checking these things?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly bad job (Score:2)
I'm amazed they did this silently because I'm sure they could've sold the revised books again, and sell even more copies of the original versions. I'm not sure who they're trying to please here but it sure isn't their customers.
This isn't censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
They're not doing that out of the goodness of their heart by the way they're doing it because it makes the books more marketable. It's capitalism. Y'all like capitalism right?
"Inclusive language" is hurtful (Score:2)
I knew this day would come. (Score:4, Interesting)
While I do have an ipad stuffed full of sheetmusic and harry potter and manga and other books, I still have a paranoia.. about the publisher changing the material. I've had that paranoia since 2012, when Amazon yanked 1984 from Kindles. That was down to a licensing thing with a publisher. But at that time I thought "What if the publisher decides to change the content?"
And now it's happened.
If they want to change my paper books, they have to come into my house.
Guys.. we are living 1984. And the sad part is a lot of you are cheering it on.
It was a warning.. not a guidebook!
With this event, plus the Seuss cleansing from his publisher, and Fleming's.. we've arrived at a very dark time in our history.
We are now in an Orwellian, socialist world, us here in the US and I suppose UK and most of Europe.
This must be stopped, by any and all means. And I do mean that. Not just the censoring -- all of it.
I may read the thread later, but this I had to get off my chest.
We really *are* boned.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of Amazon, books, modifications, and Orwell, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We are now in an Orwellian, socialist world, us here in the US and I suppose UK and most of Europe.
Today I learned that billion dollar businesses are "socialist". Huh.
Re:I knew this day would come. (Score:4, Interesting)
Today you learned that corporations in cahoots with government IS faciscm, good, wholesome, Il-Duce levels of Facismo.
Government is using the Corporate world to control your.. our.. world. And the reverse is true, too. Corporate using Government, to control our world. The wheel keeps turning.
That's what Orwell was foretelling. He WAS a socialist, then saw the light, and wrote 1984 as a warning. He knew it'd get here. It's a little different, the timing's off a bit, but essentially -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "every book has been re-written, every painting re-painted, every bit of history re-written"
Put in a different perspective from a different storyteller, we're *THIS* close to Buy N' Large.
Tell me when you think the water's hot 'nuff to warrant jumping out of the pot. I did some time ago. Some of you still think the water's fine. Ooookay. Your funeral.
Re: (Score:2)
No this is inane.
I have known for ages that corporations are in cahoots with the government. The only way it involves any petty culture war bullshit is because it's a useful distraction when you chicken little about that rather than the important stuff. This is no conspiracy but there are people who think it's useful.
But sure keep bleating about the red menace while the capitalist robber barons tighten their grip.
Double Plus Good! (Score:2)
We now have automatic revisionist history.
Profiting Off of Tribalism (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Eric Arthur Blair (Score:2)
Looks like any literature that offends our leaders' sensibilities may end up down the memory hole, to be replaced by their inept, banal scrawlings.
Dr. Seuss censored Dr. Seuss (Score:2)
Six Dr. Seuss books — including “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” and “If I Ran the Zoo” — will stop being published because of racist and insensitive imagery, the business that preserves and protects the author’s legacy said Tuesday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/0... [cnbc.com]
Re: after seuss was a huge success (Score:5, Informative)
Re: after seuss was a huge success (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I read the actual linked article, and it doesn't say that this is their reasoning. In fact, they said they were honoring existing holds, which they wouldn't do if they felt they were going to be stolen.
Nevertheless, these are de-facto banned books. At least, banned in the only meaningful way that any book can actually be banned in the United States. Generally when Europeans hear that, they assume nobody can read them, but no, that's only a thing in Europe.
Re: after seuss was a huge success (Score:2)
There is actual book banning going on in six states.
Re: you fucking idiot (Score:2)
This changes the book you already bought. No one went back and updated the Seuss books on your shelf.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you remind me which bit of 1984 was about corporate profiteering because I don't remember that part.
Re: 1984 (Score:2)
If you can explain to me in simple language how editing books to conform to a minority political ideology, and in the process antagonizing the free speech lobby, the conservatives, and the anticapitalists (anyone else left?) is pursuing a profit motive, I'll be impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dahl estate is a patriot seeking organisation. They are beholden to no one. They are doing this because they believe it will enrich then. They might be making a bad decision, much like FTX investors, but it's still a decision motivated by money.
Or you know a, giant conspiracy involving a number of ideologically opposed groups exhibiting an astonishing level of competence and organisation. I guess that's likely too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What I understand is these are changes the publisher voluntarily made, so the idea that Stalin came to liquidate them sounds somewhat divorced from reality. It's also hard for me to get worked up over children's books for entertainment being re-written. It reminds me of the people raging over Marvel movies/remakes not being what they remembered. Might be a bummer to the fandom, but 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 dealt with grown-up or at least serious matters.
I think your energy would be better focused on textbook
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't done using the force of law, and that's an important distinction.
Say Nabisco decides it is more profitable to swap the fat in your favorite lard-o-bites for Olestra, and as a result you shit your pants. That's not even remotely equivalent in scope to the government passing a law requiring all companies to only use real fat in their cookies.
Sure, you might be pleased with such an outcome, but the people who want cookies that make them shit their pants now no longer have a choice. Whereas in the
Re: (Score:2)
copyright absolutely makes this by force of law. Nobody but the copyright owner can distribute the original version.
Re: (Score:2)
copyright absolutely makes this by force of law. Nobody but the copyright owner can distribute the original version.
That's because copyright lasts significantly longer than it reasonably should.