Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Brittain
The moral of the story is that copyright should last for death + 10.
|
I agree with all of your post, including this! It would solve the problems for readers of Dahl and Christie who prefer the original versions.
Here's another example of a publisher wanting to change the text of a book:
Scholastic, and a Faustian Bargain. Here, the author is alive, and refused the changes, but at the cost of an opportunity that would have been great for her career.
The book is "Love in the Library", a children's book taking place in a US interment camp for Americans of Japanese descent. Scholastic wants to materially change the author's note, removing a paragraph which puts the story into context with modern society, and removing the word "racism".
I believe that, just like the other examples in this thread, the motivation of the publisher is commercial, not ideological. They believe the book will sell better if they remove something that will offend some potential buyers and increase the risk of it being banned from schools and libraries.
As I said earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
Like arjaybe wrote a couple of pages back, this is a commercial decision. That doesn't mean it can't be criticized, of course, I'm all for demanding that businesses act ethically even if that would hurt their profits. But don't act as if these changes are caused by grass root pressure. |
I don't like Scholastic's choice here, and applaud the Tokuda-Hall for standing firm. I'm not in the market for picture books, but will check out her YA. "The Mermaid, the Witch, and the Sea" looks interesting.