Image Credit: Paul Wood via Cartoon Stock.
Who dares erase the past? A damned fool, that is who. One who wants to rewrite history, or literature, in a context they judge to be palatable to the masses.
It is offensive to be considered a member of the masses, who apparently lack the ability to read literature in the context of the time it was written, and who must take offence at outdated terminology and opinions, and to have 'woke' members of society edit and alter original texts on our behalf. These people take it upon themselves to be judge and jury of our morals (as if they were Nazis at a book burning) and alter original published texts written, sometimes, over a century ago, without the permission of a long dead author.
The result of such puritanical vandalism is to subdue, even negate, the original voice of the author. It takes the words right out of his or her mouth. It removes the historic attitudes of the time in which it is written, whereby the modern-day reader is denied insight into the mores of the times in which the text was embedded. It is, thus, denying history and, as the saying goes, "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
What is most appalling about this 'editing' is that the majority of people are appalled by it and yet publishing houses that should have ethics, not yellow streaks running down their spines, are the ones taking part in the vandalism for fear of the 'woke' brigade. The 'woke' brigade will include schools who have thrown themselves headfirst into the ocean of political correctness to protect the tender young minds in their care (over whom they refuse to exert discipline for fear of being sued), to protect their sensitivities and ensure they don't learn archaic discriminatory words or gender discrimination from Enid Blyton (author of Noddy) or Roald Dahl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory).
Okay, when it comes to children's books, I'm more on their side. Frankly, the Noddy and Big Ears books creeped me out and, if I really wanted to erase some children's stories completely, it would be the Brothers Grimm fairy tales. In my mind they were simply not fit for children. Loathe them as I do, I would not erase them. They represent their times and the attitudes of those times. While I would read neither author children, I would leave the texts untouched because you CAN'T CHANGE HISTORY. They are testament to their times.
However, when it comes to adult fiction, leave it alone. For heaven's sake, the James Bond books by Ian Fleming are in the 'woke's' sights. In this case, however, it is the publisher entrusted to the books' future imprints that has taken an initiative to not offend modern readers as they (and obviously the blockbuster movies) have managed to reinvent Bond by allowing him to change with the times.
"Ian Fleming Publications Ltd, the company that owns the literary rights to the 007 series, hired sensitivity readers to review the classic books ahead of the reissue. The Telegraph said the new versions would feature a disclaimer: "This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set."
BY PUBLISHED
In this case, the editing is to keep the character of Bond up with the times and ensure both the novels and the movies remain relevant to the present generation. If, however, let us imagine, a publisher decided to edit Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", to appeal to modern sensibilities. What would your thoughts on that be? Mine would be horror. One of the beauties of Austen's works are that they take us back to the moral and mores of a past time. Her characters are works of fiction that give us a glimpse into history and the workings of the society and attitudes of her day. We can see the role of women in society at a time when marriage was considered the only option available to them. Young women of today, reading about the limited options available to their gender in that era, can revel, be grateful for and be vigilant to ensure that their sex is never placed in this abominable situation again thanks to authors such as Austen's, albeit, fictional account of women's lives in the past.
Would we rather edit that history out so we are not appalled by it, or be aware of what society is capable of and be on guard should it ever repeat itself?
Theara Coleman in her article in The Week US also states:
" Modern publishers often enlist sensitivity readers to help to screen literature for potentially offensive material, especially for children's books. While some argue that the practice is a form of extreme censorship, others say it promotes diversity in publishing. Though it's more common for publishers to use sensitivity readers for future work, some have utilized their services to help identify published books that might need edits."
It's one thing entirely for a publisher to pre-edit a manuscript it has accepted responsibility for publishing, it is quite another to edit a published book (even one of their own imprints) that is decades, even a century or more, old. I believe that is because they are taking away something quintessentially part of the original publication and that is its signature, if you will, in time.
It's not just literature that is making historical alterations. I was somewhat surprised a year or two ago when I began seeing trailers for a show set in Regency England. It was obviously a costume drama set in a Jane Austen type setting involving the Upper Middle Class and, I presume, some aristocracy. I was a tad confused by coloured actors playing some of the titled characters. I have nothing against this BUT it is a show appealing to a young (late teens to twenties onwards) demographic. Again, fictional it may be, but in no way is it reflective of the era. It would be lovely to imagine English people of that time being as egalitarian as we are today; that people of African descent weren't instead used as slaves and, if free, never allowed to rise up the social ladder. I just hope the young viewers will not end up with a skewed view of history. History was cruel. It is better they learn the truth and see how much better we have become, than to hide the truth. That is because there is reason for shame, and it should not be whitewashed. Perhaps the show's producers feel that presenting this altered version of history will ensure youth will imagine society was always so egalitarian and so will continue to be, but I really think that is a bit of an odd way to go about it.
There is a word we should all become familiar with in this age of 'woke' editing: Bowdlerism. It's definition: A policy of Bowdlerization, or censorship of removing what is considered indecent. This kind of editing has happened previously in history.
According to Nicholas A. Basbanes in "Every Book Its Reader: The Power of the Printed Word to Stir the World":
"Long before the British physician Thomas W. Bowdler (1754-1825) and his sister, Henrietta Bowdler (1754-1830), took it upon themselves to make the plays of William Shakespeare 'safe' for innocent eyes, the wholesale editing of another author's writing so that it might be more palatable to prudish tastes was known as 'castration' to some, 'winnowing' by others. But with the publication of the first edition of the Family Shakespeare in 1807, the world of letters got a new verb—bowdlerize—to identify the process of literary expurgation."
And so, even Shakespeare isn't safe from the prudes of history. Certainly, let people make blander versions for their own spurious enjoyment. Just let's be sure to keep the original texts intact for posterity and to appreciate their genius.
END.
No comments:
Post a Comment