Rewriting books is doubleplusungood

[HarryT]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

For whatever reasons (slavery?), the word "nigger" has exceptionally unpleasant cultural overtones in the United States. This book, which is an American classic, makes extensive use of the word, which I can see might cause issues should one wish to have the book in, say, a school library. Would this be a book that you'd be comfortable in giving a child to read? Especially a black child?

So, you basically have 4 options as I see it:

1. Allow free and uncontrolled access to the original book.
2. Remove the book from all school libraries.
3. Allow only controlled access to the book, in an environment where its cultural context can be explained.
4. Rewrite the book, thus preserving a good story, but removing the context that is culturally unacceptable.

One could argue for and against all these options. I can personally see benefits of a mixture of 3 and 4 for schools: have a "sanitised" version of the book in the library to allow children to read a wonderful story, while preserving the original for English lessons where its cultural context can be properly explained.

Of course all adults should have free and unrestricted access to the original.

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

1. Allow free and uncontrolled access to the original book.
2. Remove the book from all school libraries.
3. Allow only controlled access to the book, in an environment where its cultural context can be explained.
4. Rewrite the book, thus preserving a good story, but removing the context that is culturally unacceptable.

2 and 3 aren't acceptable in a free society. 4 isn't an option either, as removing the "culturally unacceptable material" arguably does NOT preserve the story. That's the whole point...

Besides, rewriting a book is a complete no-no as far as I'm concerned: once something is published, it should become uneditable. If editing was allowed, the very base of our culture would become shaky, as you could never trust what you read.

Imagine if a text published a certain year didn't quite match another with the same title, same ISBN and same author but published another year! That's what happens when Winston constantly rewrites historical records to fit the political situation du jour in 1984. My head spins just thinking about it. If I couldn't trust what I read, I think I'd go peculiar.

There's actually a perfectly acceptable 5th option: those who insist on cleaning up Huck Finn should create a new edition entitled "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - the corny edition" or something, add the revisionist's name on the cover alongside Mark Twain's, give the book a new ISBN number and market it to delicate people, the same way Cleanflicks sells sanitized movies, claiming they give added value. That way, it becomes a new literary work - an exegesis of Mark Twain's work as it were - that leave the original work untouched and available to those who want to read it as-is.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fastolfe

There's actually a perfectly acceptable 5th option: those who insist on cleaning up Huck Finn should create a new edition entitled "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - the corny edition" or something, add the revisionist's name on the cover alongside Mark Twain's, give the book a new ISBN number and market it to delicate people, the same way Cleanflicks sells sanitized movies, claiming they give added value. That way, it becomes a new literary work - an exegesis of Mark Twain's work as it were - that leave the original work untouched and available to those who want to read it as-is.

That's precisely what I meant by a "sanitised" version. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that it should be presented in any other way. I apologise for not making that clear.

You say that removing such books from school libraries is not an option in a free society, but I believe that it has in fact happened in more than one place already, and I have to say that I can understand why. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

[screwballl]

In a book I am reading, Tony Blair told George Bush "In the War of 1812 when the British burned the White House... sorry about that."

So do we need to sanitize every single piece of "bad" history that happened or do we learn from it to prevent it from happening again? Sad part is that so much is already happening again, we are reliving the late 40s all over again.

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You say that removing such books from school libraries is not an option in a free society, but I believe that it has in fact happened in more than one place already

I never said we lived in a totally free society My definition of a free society is one in which anyone can say anything, everything they want, including the most outrageous lies without fearing either the government, or corporate think-of-the-children-style censorship. There aren't very many countries that come close to providing that sort of freedom.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

There's nothing wrong with that part, they don't want to print out the word, the word is not used in polite society.

There is, actually. The word is not used in polite society, and rightly so, except when actually talking about that very word. There's nothing wrong with saying "we don't say nigger any more".

There is nothing wrong with being politically correct now, it shows some manners. Don't try to confuse the absurdity of applying it retroactively with the ideal of not using hateful language in the now.

So my use of the dreaded n-word above was impolite? Hateful, even? Live & learn.

Originally Posted by HarryT

One could argue for and against all these options. I can personally see benefits of a mixture of 3 and 4 for schools: have a "sanitised" version of the book in the library to allow children to read a wonderful story, while preserving the original for English lessons where its cultural context can be properly explained.

Make it an annotated edition. Explain in a preface, or the occasional footnote if your prefer, of how that word didn't have the exact meaning it has acquired since then.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Make it an annotated edition. Explain in a preface, or the occasional footnote if your prefer, of how that word didn't have the exact meaning it has acquired since then.

That's certainly an alternative. I was thinking more, though, of a version that would be appropriate for children to read on their own.

Children's editions of classics are pretty common, especially when a book contains material that a child may find upsetting. Eg, there's a "Junior Edition" of Verne's "Around the World in 80 Days" here at PG.

[luqmaninbmore]

The HP Lovecraft Historical Society's adaptation of the "Call of Cthulhu" did not make the Cthulhu cultists raided by Inspector Legrasse of African descent as described in the story. They recognized that this bit of gratuitous racism only detracted from the power and value of the original story. While I think it would be wrong to go back and censor the original, I have no problem with adaptations that are explicitly identified as such, even if the medium of the adaptation is the same as that of the original (i.e. a novel adaptation of a novel, comic adaptation of a comic, etc.).

[Kali Yuga]

Like it or not, such is the power of the public domain.

Books are not merely "free of charge," they are also "free of control." You can protest textual changes until you are blue in the face, and you may even have excellent points for maintaining the integrity of the original (and should continue to express them openly). Unfortunately, if the rewriters do not accept your arguments or respond to your pressure, you can't stop them from issuing it.

Further, this is not always such a straight-forward issue. Some people hate the idea of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Some think it's hilarious. Who's right?

And surely if someone rewrote the book from scratch and set it in the year 2010, you would not require the rewriter to use terms we would now call racist or derogatory?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Like it or not, such is the power of the public domain.

Books are not merely "free of charge," they are also "free of control." You can protest textual changes until you are blue in the face, and you may even have excellent points for maintaining the integrity of the original (and should continue to express them openly). Unfortunately, if the rewriters do not accept your arguments or respond to your pressure, you can't stop them from issuing it.

Yes, but distributing it an misleading people about what the text contains seems to fall under other laws. Also isn't the non-commercial copyright in effect event of a work is in the public domain?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, but distributing it an misleading people about what the text contains seems to fall under other laws.

They may be legally required to say "Edited by...." or "Edited Edition," I don't know. I expect that's all it would take to avoid any claims of "misleading" anyone.

Originally Posted by tompe

Also isn't the non-commercial copyright in effect event of a work is in the public domain?

Nope.

There is absolutely no question that anyone can commercialize or sell a copy of a public domain work, for any price, for any reason. That's how PD works. It's only with digital distribution that anyone can afford to give away digital copies at no cost.

Similarly, anyone can create a derivative work of a public domain book for commercial purposes -- e.g. Wicked was derived from The Wizard of Oz, which is in the public domain.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There is absolutely no question that anyone can commercialize or sell a copy of a public domain work, for any price, for any reason. That's how PD works. It's only with digital distribution that anyone can afford to give away digital copies at no cost.

Yes, but that is example of were the commercial copyright would have been relevant. But maybe this is a Swedish thing (I cannot find the corresponding term and examples):

Non-Economic Rights

By copyright law, the artist or originator has the right to be associated by name with the artistic work. Furthermore, the artist possesses "the right to respect for the work," which stipulates that the work cannot be changed or distributed to the public in a manner that is "damaging to the originator's literary or artistic reputation or distinctive character."

I have always thought that these non-economic rights was forever. At least the part of the name being associated with the work.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There is absolutely no question that anyone can commercialize or sell a copy of a public domain work, for any price, for any reason.

That's true, of course. The original author still has a right to be identified as author, though (so you musn't claim to have written it yourself), and anything but the most minor changes (think typos) must be clearly identified as such. But apart from that: Go wild.

Originally Posted by tompe

I have always thought that these non-economic rights was forever. At least the part of the name being associated with the work.

They do. But these are "just" moral rights.

[Madam Broshkina]

I am looking forward to reading Moby Richard.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I can see both sides of the argument here.

For whatever reasons (slavery?), the word "nigger" has exceptionally unpleasant cultural overtones in the United States.

Not because of slavery, but because the bigotry that allowed slavery didn't end with the practice. Full legal equality for people of color in the US is very recent, and was fought at every step; the people who fought that, and who still fight against social and cultural equality, still use the word.

1. Allow free and uncontrolled access to the original book.
2. Remove the book from all school libraries.
3. Allow only controlled access to the book, in an environment where its cultural context can be explained.
4. Rewrite the book, thus preserving a good story, but removing the context that is culturally unacceptable.

1) Gutenberg has it. So do plenty of other ebook sites. While that's not entirely free-and-uncontrolled access, it's as close as anyone's going to get--it's available to anyone who seeks it, who has a modicum of modern resources. There may be schoolchildren who don't even have access to a library computer, but those school districts are likely to be so impoverished that the new reprint isn't going to be purchased anyway.

2 & 3) aren't going to happen in the US. However, it can be *limited* to those school libraries that either are comfortable with bigotry (it's a big country; there are many), or those that are ready to explain its history and discuss the ramifications thereof.

4) Rewriting the book implies that the bigotry is in the past, and no longer happens today, which is why those terms are so offensive today. It's implying that the story, if translated to today, wouldn't be laden with bigotry and stereotypes. It's a way of saying, "it USED to be okay to say those awful things, but it's not now, so we've removed them"--which would be reasonable, if it weren't now.

Since plenty of people, including elected officials, celebrities, comedians, and teachers, still promote those stereotypes, removing them from the book says "this is about an icky time in the past; it's not about issues people face today."

And, aside from the ethics of that, if it's not about issues people face today, the book loses pretty much all relevance as an educational tool. It's just another boy's-adventure, coming-of-age story, and any school should be able to find some of those that don't need to be "rewritten" to be useful.