The Dr. Seuss issue

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It seems reasonable to think that the foundation have found themselves on the end of a bit of pressure and some bad publicity, have looked at the sales of the books in question and decided that they just aren't worth the hassle, and that they can turn it around and get some good publicity by making their decision public.

I think that is probably the best summary of how things likely unfolded.

[DiapDealer]

The only issue I have is that I don't see a lot of difference between some people's "outside pressure was put" and "convinced them that it was in everyone's best interest."

I don't see the need to draw a distinct line in the sand where it's either "There arms were bent behind their backs until they caved" or "they voluntarily made this decision completely of their own, with no outside influence". It doesn't have to be black or white (and rarely is). For instance: I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that even if some outside influence was exerted over the years, a foundation such as this could ultimately be convinced it was the right thing to do.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It seems reasonable to think that the foundation have found themselves on the end of a bit of pressure and some bad publicity, have looked at the sales of the books in question and decided that they just aren't worth the hassle, and that they can turn it around and get some good publicity by making their decision public.

I would add to that my news media "conspiracy theory" that the news media often leaves out potentially useful or relevant information because leaving it in would make it a boring story.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The only issue I have is that I don't see a lot of difference between some people's "outside pressure was put" and "convinced them that it was in everyone's best interest."

Seems quite reasonable given the available evidence. My main issue is with people who don't seem recognize that any outside pressure was applied.

[DiapDealer]

I would call it influence, myself. So I'm not going to pretend that external forces didn't influence their decision in any way. I just don't think it rises to the levels of bullying or negation that most of those who are foaming about censorship, nazis, and cancel-culture want (or need) it to be.

Not that I think you were in that group.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by hildea

[*]The Swedish publishers of Pippi Longstocking wanted to change the word "negro" in one of the books. Astrid Lindgren was alive, so they asked her, and she was in favour of the change. Just like in this case, there was a flurry of panic among the usual suspects, dishonestly claiming that this was an example of censorship from the government. (I can't find out when this happened, but Lindgren died in 2002.)

Again, removing the word "negro" is clearly censorship. This is a very obvious. The issue is not whether it is censorship; the issue is whether the censorship is desirable or not.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would call it influence, myself. So I'm not going to pretend that external forces didn't influence their decision in any way. I just don't think it rises to the levels of bullying or negation that most of those who are foaming about censorship, nazis, and cancel-culture want (or need) it to be.

Yes, there do seem to be those with agendas on both sides of the divide deliberately fanning the flames. Unfortunate as it is mainly the children who will suffer.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Again, removing the word "negro" is clearly censorship. This is a very obvious. The issue is not whether it is censorship; the issue is whether the censorship is desirable or not.

Hmmm...I don't see where the government forced Astrid Lindgren (or even *asked* her) to remove the word. Her publisher asked her to, and she consented.

It is definitely a change to the book, but since the author herself authorized the change, it is not censorship. It is, rather, an edit to the text of the book. If the author or copyright holder were *forced* to make the change, then that would be censorship.

Or are you trying to say that all changes suggested to authors by publishers are censorship?

Shari

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by shalym

It is definitely a change to the book, but since the author herself authorized the change, it is not censorship.

I agree.

It doesn't change how anyone would interpret the message of her book. So I wouldn't see it as book suppression, even if done by heirs.

Tweaking Seuss would be much more difficult because he was against diversity (instead being a complete integrationist).

A comparable case, although in film rather than literature, may be Al Jolson:

https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=...60&p=AONE&sw=w

[Quoth]

If the author or copyright holder were *forced* to make the change, then that would be censorship.

It can be subtle, self-censorship when an author makes a change. Even at the draft stage.
The howling on so called social media can be hard to ignore. Sometimes they are right and often wrong.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sure. I help all kinds of people here with various things. If you don't know this, it probably just means that you only tend to use Mobileread in a fairly limited way. Step out of the General and News forums every now and then and you might know this.

And seriously??? Someone frothing at "intellectuals" about "frothing intellectuals" doesn't deserve a little snark thrown their way? Please.

Plus it's not as if you ever tend embrace criticism of your own preferred polemic.

Jot down the users I tend to snark at sometime. You might be surprised at how small a group that it actually is.

As a moderator should you be snarking at any poster? I'm not a moderator, of course, I also don't go out of my way to insult other posters. I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference between being insulting and defending a position. One can defend a position without being insulting.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

What's important is that you feel it is true.

Are you being ironic or is that your actual position?

[DrNefario]

Some people complained years ago. Some of it will have been justified - or is it impossible for any children's books to be bad? - some of it won't. The Seuss Foundation took the time to evaluate their library - there's no particular evidence that this was in response to the complaints rather than a regular business exercise - consulting with experts, and made a decision to stop printing six of their books.

Did they make the wrong decisions? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's their mistake to make.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It can be subtle, self-censorship when an author makes a change. Even at the draft stage.

Deciding not to reprint an old book something is not censorship, "self-" or otherwise. There's no looming threat to have the rights-holders and publishers disappeared should they reprint. They were free to print or not print as they saw fit. Others were free to critique their decision one way or the other.

Please stop using "self-censorship" in this context. It's just wildly incorrect.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It can be subtle, self-censorship when an author makes a change. Even at the draft stage.
The howling on so called social media can be hard to ignore. Sometimes they are right and often wrong.

Certainly, people have different definitions of the word censor. The back and forth between the editor/publisher and the author is a form of censorship. I don't really have an issue with a publisher censoring books he or she publishes in that regard.

With regard to Pippi, negro was the politically correct term when the book was first published. The last of that series was published in the late 40's. I'm pretty sure that changing negro to whatever doesn't bring the book up to modern sensibilities, but that's between the author and the publisher. In general, it's about where an author wants to draw the line.

The howling group on social media really isn't all that different that the small group of people fixated on communism during the McCarthy period. They will keep misbehaving until someone firmly smacks them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. So far, we haven't hit the tipping point that McCarthy hit when he was asked if he had no decency. I would like to think we will hit that point.