narabdela
who?
Off topic, I know...but thank you for that Jez. You've just brightened up my morning.
Sexist, racist language in classic literature.
- Thread starter PaulMB
- Start date
Off topic, I know...but thank you for that Jez. You've just brightened up my morning.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I guess if one is a straight male one can have little of interest/relvance to add to the debate.
There's an interesting example of just how complicated these issues can become here in Bristol; the Mayor wants to ban strip clubs and eliminate prostitution, two moves which you would expect to have support from feminists. But there's very vocal opposition from some feminists, who argue that a) sex work is work and that b) cracking down on prostitution actually makes prostitutes less safe.
Part of the problem is social media, Twitter in particular, which encourages polarised, 'soundbite' reactions and works against reasoned debate. But there are irreconcilable differences here, and it's not clear how they can be resolved.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
Everyone's just too hot under the collar. However, there is a difference between offence and abuse and that line can be very hard to draw. So much is dependent upon context, who is saying it and who it is being said to. Freedom of speech is just like any other freedom, it comes with responsibility to yourselves and others, and many could do well to remember that.
....Unless, of course, you get a kick out of winding up all sorts of irrational dogmatists, in which case, fill your boots.
....Unless, of course, you get a kick out of winding up all sorts of irrational dogmatists, in which case, fill your boots.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
I think you will find far more problematic language in the works of Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh than in those of George Macdonald Fraser.
miktec
retired
Noting the sense of outrage that comes from the very thought of censoring the sacred word, I wonder if any have concrete examples of this actually happening? (to return to the OP's question)
I know that some of Blyton's Noddy books were significantly changed by the publishers to ameliorate an alleged racism that attracted a lot of criticism - but this was back in the '70s and is to a certain extent understandable given that the books are aimed at impressionable children. I've not heard of any proposals or actual cases of any of the works aimed at adults and cited in this thread (for instance) either being subjected to, or proposed for, censorship.
Or is it another case of 'Council bans Christmas' and other such fairy tales?
I know that some of Blyton's Noddy books were significantly changed by the publishers to ameliorate an alleged racism that attracted a lot of criticism - but this was back in the '70s and is to a certain extent understandable given that the books are aimed at impressionable children. I've not heard of any proposals or actual cases of any of the works aimed at adults and cited in this thread (for instance) either being subjected to, or proposed for, censorship.
Or is it another case of 'Council bans Christmas' and other such fairy tales?
miktec
retired
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
I think the string of asterisks is self explanatory on that score
The point is / was, it's the only 'grown-ups' book I could find evidence of revision; most relate to children's books (eg Enid Blyton, Mark Twain).
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think we can safely ignore Blyton's oeuvre in a thread about classic literature.
Nothing wrong with women choosing those lines of work provided they genuinely choose and are not forced into it. The 'cracking down' should only be on pimps.
Make all such things legal and take the fear and crime out of it.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Indeed. Laws, and legality, should be related to harm. In the case of prostitution, and drugs, the harm comes mostly from the exploitation, not the product.
Cav
pfm Member
The first title change was to Ten Little Indians.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
That title was used only in the US for the original publication.
The UK went from the original title to "And Then..." in 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None#The_title
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I think it's the latter.
Of course, books have often been censored in the past, as mentioned above; for example someone re-wrote King Lear in the 18th century to give it a happy ending, and the play was banned from the stage entirely during the reign of George III as it portrayed a mad king. Some books originally written for adults have been amended to make them suitable for children (eg Gulliver's Travels, Robinson Crusoe), and authors have revised their own books for various reasons, but not, AFAIK, to make them more pc.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
A timely article on the BBC website:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59703257
Dame Maureen Lipman has said comedy is in danger of being "wiped out" due to fears over being cancelled.
She told the BBC she believes comedians are now so worried about offending, "a revolution" is taking place.
"It's in the balance whether we will ever be funny again," she said.
Her comments come as more than half of Britons say they have stopped themselves from expressing political and social views for fear of being judged.
A YouGov poll seen exclusively by the BBC found 57% of those asked said they censor themselves on issues including immigration and trans rights, particularly if their views are deemed at the less politically correct end of the spectrum.'
Amusingly, Russell Kane, who disagrees with Maureen Lipman on this, 'does think he and his fellow comedians worry about being cancelled for things they might have said in the past which have since become less acceptable. "I signed up for a website called TweetDelete and all my posts that are older than six months have gone. It's a bit of self-protection."' So, having said that there's no such thing as 'cancel culture', he goes ahead and does a bit of pre-emptive cancelling!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59703257
Dame Maureen Lipman has said comedy is in danger of being "wiped out" due to fears over being cancelled.
She told the BBC she believes comedians are now so worried about offending, "a revolution" is taking place.
"It's in the balance whether we will ever be funny again," she said.
Her comments come as more than half of Britons say they have stopped themselves from expressing political and social views for fear of being judged.
A YouGov poll seen exclusively by the BBC found 57% of those asked said they censor themselves on issues including immigration and trans rights, particularly if their views are deemed at the less politically correct end of the spectrum.'
Amusingly, Russell Kane, who disagrees with Maureen Lipman on this, 'does think he and his fellow comedians worry about being cancelled for things they might have said in the past which have since become less acceptable. "I signed up for a website called TweetDelete and all my posts that are older than six months have gone. It's a bit of self-protection."' So, having said that there's no such thing as 'cancel culture', he goes ahead and does a bit of pre-emptive cancelling!
miktec
retired
Prescient indeed (read it this morning) but a bit behind the times - that discussion has been going on for some time now in comedy circles with opinions (predictably) sharply divided.
Does prompt a much more interesting discussion directly related to this thread though - i.e. whether the hyper-critical times we find ourselves in are causing writers to be over-cautious about topics they include in upcoming novels, etc. or how they deal with them and thereby possibly impoverishing the potential stock of future literary 'classics'
miktec
retired
She is mildly amusing in 'Celebrity Gogglebox' - parrying the razor sharp wit of Gyles Brandreth
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Maureen Lipman in the news today saying that cancel culture and censorship and "forced" self censorship is ruining comedy and may yet kill it... It was discussed on Jeremy Vine show as well. Most agreed with her, as do I.
It's all gone way too far IMHO... "PC gone mad" as they say... If someone is making death threats against a "minority" or encouraging hate crimes against them, or trying to get others to discriminate against them in a meaningful way then that's obviously right out of order and should be dealt with firmly... by the police even when appropriate... (oh I see Mr hutch has just posted on Lipman as I type!)
However one should have the freedom of speech to politely disagree with a particular "minority" without fear of "cancelling" reprisals.
There is also the question of widely, hugely, disparate degrees of "don't go there" afforded to different "minorities"! I could have a right go at "fat bstards" for example and it may offend the overweight (of which I am one!) but there would be no come back, but things have become so hysterical in regard to certain "minorities" that any comment that came across as less than 100% positive towards them could land one in hot water!
The simple fact that so much of our communication and expression happens on-line on social meja these days is one of the main drivers of all this of course.... In real life I can say whatever the hell I like, within reason, and if someone doesn't like it, tough. They have a brain and a gob same as me and can counter argue the point as vociferously as they choose... however, they can't "switch me off", ban me, turn the sound off, share the "tweet" with my boss etc etc!
It's all gone way too far IMHO... "PC gone mad" as they say... If someone is making death threats against a "minority" or encouraging hate crimes against them, or trying to get others to discriminate against them in a meaningful way then that's obviously right out of order and should be dealt with firmly... by the police even when appropriate... (oh I see Mr hutch has just posted on Lipman as I type!)
However one should have the freedom of speech to politely disagree with a particular "minority" without fear of "cancelling" reprisals.
There is also the question of widely, hugely, disparate degrees of "don't go there" afforded to different "minorities"! I could have a right go at "fat bstards" for example and it may offend the overweight (of which I am one!) but there would be no come back, but things have become so hysterical in regard to certain "minorities" that any comment that came across as less than 100% positive towards them could land one in hot water!
The simple fact that so much of our communication and expression happens on-line on social meja these days is one of the main drivers of all this of course.... In real life I can say whatever the hell I like, within reason, and if someone doesn't like it, tough. They have a brain and a gob same as me and can counter argue the point as vociferously as they choose... however, they can't "switch me off", ban me, turn the sound off, share the "tweet" with my boss etc etc!
Nobody is stopping you saying what you want, because to be honest, nobody gives a shit what you say — or what I say. we don’t have millions of people watching what we do, and no kid in the playground tomorrow is going to parrot what I write on a hi-fi forum. Low level of consequences, high levels of freedom.
When you’re facing a wide audience, yeah, you do have a responsibility not to be a dickhead. It sucks, and maybe some would say it’s a diminution of a public figure’s freedom to be constrained in what they can say, but hey: I don’t get to swear at my employer’s customers to their face, and sometimes I find that to be a serious curtailment of my personal rights. If they weren’t paying me in return for this restraint, I’d be up in arms. But they are, so I sacrifice some of my rights in exchange for something of benefit.
People who think they can use their well-paid public platforms to say whatever the hell they want without consequence have not grasped that simple equation. Rights exist with Responsibilities.
When you’re facing a wide audience, yeah, you do have a responsibility not to be a dickhead. It sucks, and maybe some would say it’s a diminution of a public figure’s freedom to be constrained in what they can say, but hey: I don’t get to swear at my employer’s customers to their face, and sometimes I find that to be a serious curtailment of my personal rights. If they weren’t paying me in return for this restraint, I’d be up in arms. But they are, so I sacrifice some of my rights in exchange for something of benefit.
People who think they can use their well-paid public platforms to say whatever the hell they want without consequence have not grasped that simple equation. Rights exist with Responsibilities.