View Single Post
Old 04-07-2011, 02:04 PM   #8
MaggieScratch
Has got to the black veil
MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MaggieScratch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
MaggieScratch's Avatar
 
Posts: 542
Karma: 2144168
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Device: Kobo Aura One, Kindle Paperwhite 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L View Post
To be accurate about this, the original novel wasn't in fact "censored" - at least, not in the sense of a government or a court forcing parts of the work to be cut. It was the publishers, Scribners, who wanted the changes, presumably not for any legal or moral reason, but because they believed the book would sell better that way.
Well, actually not. From the article:

Quote:
"My father fought bitterly to hold on to every four-letter word in the manuscript," his daughter Kaylie told the New York Times.

"The publisher was concerned about getting through the censors."
Emphasis mine. It was indirect censorship. There was a chilling effect created by the existence of censors that caused the publisher to pre-emptively edit the book.
MaggieScratch is offline   Reply With Quote