Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertDDL
This may as well (or even more likely) be censorship by the publisher than the author's own decision. But this is something that I'm simply not able to understand: when you read "f--" and know that it means "fuck," so that "f--" in the text basically serves as a logogram for "fuck," what difference can this possibly make to having it spelled out?
|
That was Carlin's point in his (updated) routine, and mine, a few posts ago. You see it; your brain processes it; you hear the word in your head. How on EARTH can that possibly be somehow different than seeing it in print? For a 6-year-old, or 10-year-old...sure. But for an adult? It's not like one isn't processing the word. I absolutely don't understand that at all.
That's akin to saying that if your ears HEAR it, it's profanity. If your eyes see the abridged version, and send it to your brain, and your brain says it--well, that's not. That position is that your ears are more sacred ground than your brain--isn't it? Can anyone--anyone--explain the logic of that to me?
Vis-à-vis scorn: I don't have a problem with parenting choices. I have a problem with electronic parental-abdication babysitting apps, AND, with book censorship/abridgement in general, without parents doing what (one of the posters did), which was to read it WITH their children, and make informed, intelligent decisions about what their particular kids should/shouldn't hear. I wouldn't let other people decide what TV shows my kids could watch, or what religion to teach them (that's an hypothetical), why on earth would I let third parties decide what WORDS in a book they could read? That, to me,
is daft. Worse...it's lazy.
Hitch