- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Okay, I just bought another copy (fuck ebooks).
YABookgate
- Thread starter Puddleduck
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
I don't think I've ever read any of her children's books. Very weird how this stuff is all coming out at once, though.
Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books
archive.ph
Literary Executor Theo Downes-Le Guin on What That Means For Readers, Past and Future
In a 1973 letter to the editor of The Horn Book Magazine, my mother, Ursula K. Le Guin, took Roald Dahl’s books to task. While acknowledging her own “feelings of unease” about Dahl’s work, she remarked that “…kids are very tough. What they find for themselves they should be able to read for themselves.” I had this in mind as I read about wording changes in new editions of Dahl.
Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books
Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’…
archived 14 Mar 2023 02:46:40 UTC
Literary Executor Theo Downes-Le Guin on What That Means For Readers, Past and Future
In a 1973 letter to the editor of The Horn Book Magazine, my mother, Ursula K. Le Guin, took Roald Dahl’s books to task. While acknowledging her own “feelings of unease” about Dahl’s work, she remarked that “…kids are very tough. What they find for themselves they should be able to read for themselves.” I had this in mind as I read about wording changes in new editions of Dahl.
As Ursula’s literary executor, I recently faced a similar decision. My mother, known for her young adult and adult novels, also wrote several children’s books. A multigenerational fan base has kept her Catwings books in print in the US since the 1980s. I was excited to move the books to a new publisher last year.
As we began work on the new editions, I received an unexpected note from the editor: “I’m writing to propose several minor changes to the language… to remove words that now have a different connotation than when the books were originally published.” The words in question were “lame,” “queer,” “dumb,” and “stupid,” a total of seven instances across three books.
Ursula revised herself throughout her career, notably The Left Hand of Darkness, which takes place on a planet where sex and gender are fluid. Years after publication, during a later wave of feminism, she received criticism for the novel’s use of “he” as default personal pronoun. After some defensiveness, Ursula demonstrated, through essays and revisions of the text, how she might have approached things differently.
My job is to bring my mother’s work to new generations of readers, not to revise it. People who adore a book are often eager to transform it, through screen adaptation, fan fiction or critical reinterpretation. Sometimes this works well; often it doesn’t. I tend to start from the position that Ursula’s words are sacred, so my initial reaction to the editor’s request was that of a strict constructivist.
After deep breaths, and with Ursula’s own revisionism in mind, I contacted a disability rights attorney, a youth literature consultant, a racial educator, and some kids. My advisory group leaned toward change but was not in consensus. I genuinely didn’t know what my mother would have decided. But she left me a clue: a note over her desk asking, “Is it true? Is it necessary or at least useful? Is it compassionate or at least unharmful?”
I like to think that truth and compassion are immutable even as the language we use to express them changes. But cultural constructs of harm are mutable; we frequently revise our definition of what’s harmful to whom, how it is spoken of, and who gets to do the speaking. My mother’s note tipped me toward changing her words. I found substitutes that would retain the original meaning and cadence, and stipulated to the publisher that the new editions would note that the text had been revised.
People who don’t share my sensibilities about artistic freedom seem to prefer to ban or burn books, usually without having read them.
Criticism of changes to Dahl’s books can just as well be leveled at my own decision. Closest to my anxiety is the reaction of Susanne Nossel, of PEN America, who counsels us to “consider how the power to rewrite books might be used in the hands of those who do not share their values and sensibilities.” Although this haunts me, people who don’t share my sensibilities about artistic freedom seem to prefer to ban or burn books, usually without having read them.
Most of the criticism regarding changes to Dahl’s words is of the “slippery slope” variety, which in itself tends to be reductive. The decision to revise a book need not create a prescription for all books or all writers at all times. It may pay heed to who is being revised, the reasons for the proposed revisions, the extent of change, and especially who is doing the revising—for example, a corporation that controls the rights vs. the author or an heir. These factors all determine when we shift from revision to wholesale rewriting.
Dahl and my mother could not be more different as writers and as humans, but they had in common a profound trust and affection for their child readers. Consistent with that posture, I would say that kids intuit and accept better than adults that language is constantly in flux, as are human sensibilities. Not condescending to young readers also means trusting that they can glean meaning from a textual whole, not just from specific words.
As we began work on the new editions, I received an unexpected note from the editor: “I’m writing to propose several minor changes to the language… to remove words that now have a different connotation than when the books were originally published.” The words in question were “lame,” “queer,” “dumb,” and “stupid,” a total of seven instances across three books.
Ursula revised herself throughout her career, notably The Left Hand of Darkness, which takes place on a planet where sex and gender are fluid. Years after publication, during a later wave of feminism, she received criticism for the novel’s use of “he” as default personal pronoun. After some defensiveness, Ursula demonstrated, through essays and revisions of the text, how she might have approached things differently.
My job is to bring my mother’s work to new generations of readers, not to revise it. People who adore a book are often eager to transform it, through screen adaptation, fan fiction or critical reinterpretation. Sometimes this works well; often it doesn’t. I tend to start from the position that Ursula’s words are sacred, so my initial reaction to the editor’s request was that of a strict constructivist.
After deep breaths, and with Ursula’s own revisionism in mind, I contacted a disability rights attorney, a youth literature consultant, a racial educator, and some kids. My advisory group leaned toward change but was not in consensus. I genuinely didn’t know what my mother would have decided. But she left me a clue: a note over her desk asking, “Is it true? Is it necessary or at least useful? Is it compassionate or at least unharmful?”
I like to think that truth and compassion are immutable even as the language we use to express them changes. But cultural constructs of harm are mutable; we frequently revise our definition of what’s harmful to whom, how it is spoken of, and who gets to do the speaking. My mother’s note tipped me toward changing her words. I found substitutes that would retain the original meaning and cadence, and stipulated to the publisher that the new editions would note that the text had been revised.
People who don’t share my sensibilities about artistic freedom seem to prefer to ban or burn books, usually without having read them.
Criticism of changes to Dahl’s books can just as well be leveled at my own decision. Closest to my anxiety is the reaction of Susanne Nossel, of PEN America, who counsels us to “consider how the power to rewrite books might be used in the hands of those who do not share their values and sensibilities.” Although this haunts me, people who don’t share my sensibilities about artistic freedom seem to prefer to ban or burn books, usually without having read them.
Most of the criticism regarding changes to Dahl’s words is of the “slippery slope” variety, which in itself tends to be reductive. The decision to revise a book need not create a prescription for all books or all writers at all times. It may pay heed to who is being revised, the reasons for the proposed revisions, the extent of change, and especially who is doing the revising—for example, a corporation that controls the rights vs. the author or an heir. These factors all determine when we shift from revision to wholesale rewriting.
Dahl and my mother could not be more different as writers and as humans, but they had in common a profound trust and affection for their child readers. Consistent with that posture, I would say that kids intuit and accept better than adults that language is constantly in flux, as are human sensibilities. Not condescending to young readers also means trusting that they can glean meaning from a textual whole, not just from specific words.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Yeah, nobody in the 400+ years of Shakespeare has ever thought to change a single dot of Shakespeare and yet here we are with the changes coming faster and faster, also lame changing connotations? I still say a situation is lame all the time and I think kids still do today.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
On the one hand, I'm against the editing of books on principle.
On the other hand, Le Guin was such a lefty there is some satisfaction in savoring the revolution she sponsored now eating her.
On the other hand, Le Guin was such a lefty there is some satisfaction in savoring the revolution she sponsored now eating her.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
"An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion..."
Simply a matter of enough momentum having been built up to cause an avalanche effect. One work gets edited and plastered all over the place as an example of progress. Than another one, as those people want in on the action, and so on and so on and so on...
Simply a matter of enough momentum having been built up to cause an avalanche effect. One work gets edited and plastered all over the place as an example of progress. Than another one, as those people want in on the action, and so on and so on and so on...
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
Not actually true. When Shakespeare was revived in the 19th century (he had kind of faded for a long while), many of his plays received new, badly written happy endings. Juliet wakes up in time for Romeo not to commit suicide, for instance. These happy endings were the price for getting the plays back into the public consciousness, but of course they were complete disfiguration of the work. The original endings were obviously restored, and quite a long time ago, so hopefully someone will wake up and reverse course on all this new bowdlerization.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
I have a vague sense it was actually German scholars who pushed Shakespeare as a great of literature, at the start of the 19th century. And that until that point the English speaking world kind of viewed him with disdain. This whole business is briefly mentioned in From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, by Jacques Barzun. Wish it had gotten more than a brief mention.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
Aka her personal porn land, as demonstrated by somewhat more explicit thing set in the same setting she wrote later.
Between her, McCaffrey* and entire body of feminist writers I refuse to recall by name, are they able to write without rampant "magical realm"-ery?
*I think somebody actually told me they had book editions with all the dragonrape erased
Nobody can do worse than she herself done with books 4 and 5 of Earthsea. So it remains a trilogy to me, and most of her other stuff is meh.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2021
King Lear was one of those that was so overwhelmingly depressing that it was revised almost instantly in the 1600s. No one really wanted to bring back the original because it was considered impossible to bear live.
But were there any specific revisions to take out all the dick jokes? Because that would be beyond the pale.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
Macbeth also has a revision so antique -- added not long after Shakespeare died, I think -- that it's actually included in most publications of the text. (It's the weird, silly, almost-never-performed musical number performed by the witches). As for taking out dick jokes, you have to assume the censors actually understood them first.
The cunt jokes are funnier anyway.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
I've come across a version of Macbeth with the sex jokes taken out. The script just has it replaced with "..." like the character just suddenly loses his train of thought.
Mellorine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2015
According to the Leaving Eden podcast, some Duggar-esque Baptists still use Thomas Bowdler's Family Shakespeare, an early 19th century version that takes out all the swearing and suicides and such.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Tor manages to spoil a trite and boring story before the reader even reads the first word of the story, all to virtue signal.
Kiwisee
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2021
A nameless trool
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2020
Both authors are like in rookie numbers.
There is always Clive Barker.
He started a trilogy with "The Great and Secret Show" in 1989, wrote book 2 in 1994 (Everville) and still has to publish book 3.
Also has a YA quintology called Abarat (book 1 in 2002, book 2 in 2004, book 3 in 2012, the rest are still to come out)
He spent 12 years shilling his 1000+ page epic sequel to Hellraiser, until a wet fart of a book landed in 2015 at something like 360 pages and at the end So yeah, both Martin and Rothfuss are jokes.
Martin is somewhere close to Barker sales-wise, he had a hit TV show and a successful series (while Barker was selling Stephen King numbers in the 90s) but Rothfus is a guy who published a Harry Potter meets Game of Thrones book at the right time, then an overlong sequel that had a Steven Seagul worthy protagonist doing amazing stuff and very little plot.
Book 3 has a lot to cover unless it ends on a "so, this is how my story ends, now wait for 10 more years before the first book in the next trilogy kicks in"
I have read some. I was burned by the endless wandering in most trad fantasy epics and I was enjoying the video game loop of "do quest-get new powers-do more quests" so I found this combination of RPG elements and actually read a book interesting, but I am not too fast to read more.
However I was blown away by Will Wights Cradle series (anime based fantasy) and I went through all the books in a breeze because it scratched that clear level up itch and had an actual story and characters behind it.
Last edited:
Flaming Carrot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
To be fair, Barker has had numerous health problems including throat cancer and being in a coma. I have also persistent rumors he's being manipulated by assistants who have glommed on to him since his health problems started. I really wish he would finish those sequels, but who knows if we'll ever see them. Most people are convinced that The Scarlet Gospels was ghostwritten except for the first chapter, so even if they do come out they might not be any good.
Martin famously does not plot out his stories so I think it was probably a bad idea to try to write a massive fantasy series without doing a lot of planning beforehand. I don't think he's intentionally trying to screw over his publisher, but they should have known a guy who mostly wrote short stories and relatively slender novels was not going to be able to handle a series bigger than Lord of the Rings.
Rothfuss seems like a con artist. He claimed beforehand he had the third book already written when he sold his series. He's clearly just goofing around playing games on Twitch. I think DAW should have sued him.
A nameless trool
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2020
I would say that first 100 pages of Scarlet Gospels might have been Barker because they read like a good horror author wrote them. Then it felt like the rest was either compiled by a ghost-writer from notes or were hastily written by Barker himself . Mr B. Gone was also as badly written so it may just be Barker ngaf or affected by his health problems and winging it to get some money.
My guess is that Martin had a set begining and ending for ASoIaF and it is the one we saw in the show, but the plot went to a lot of extra places while writing it and he has problems bringing it together in a satisfying way - or wants to change, after we saw the series ending, but he is both too slow and too busy with TV projects.
To my mind, he had written up to the "Hold the Door" scene because that was the final part in the series that felt like a GRRM novel.
Rothfuss... I really don't care that much about the guy. According to Jim Bitcher (who is his friend and also a great author) his problem is that "he cares too much about the books" so I can think he is in some sort of hyperautistic ADHD analysis-paralysis. He was that guy who never left college before publishing NotW so it fits never finishing anything
My guess is that Martin had a set begining and ending for ASoIaF and it is the one we saw in the show, but the plot went to a lot of extra places while writing it and he has problems bringing it together in a satisfying way - or wants to change, after we saw the series ending, but he is both too slow and too busy with TV projects.
To my mind, he had written up to the "Hold the Door" scene because that was the final part in the series that felt like a GRRM novel.
Rothfuss... I really don't care that much about the guy. According to Jim Bitcher (who is his friend and also a great author) his problem is that "he cares too much about the books" so I can think he is in some sort of hyperautistic ADHD analysis-paralysis. He was that guy who never left college before publishing NotW so it fits never finishing anything
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Isnt Clive Barker a literal faggot?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2020
Also Barker and Martin both have the cleared-cheque profit share $ not the amazon series option $...
I can see how it's annoying if you're waiting for series closure, but ageing + health issues + financially stable is a fair enough reason to quit a long term work project.
and Barker really can't write longer than (excellent) short stories and Martin should probably look more than 100 pages ahead
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Brandon Sanderson Is Your God
He’s the biggest fantasy writer in the world. He’s also very Mormon. These things are profoundly related.