zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
I'd be interested in hearing the most credible/reputable sources speaking out in favor of these changes. I've exclusively seen commentators dunking on this (rightfully so), across the political spectrum. To be clear: I'm wondering if we can find specific people speaking up for this, not an analysis of whose side of the culture war is most culpable for it.

>>tptace+aH
I'm neither credible nor reputable, but I'm in favor of a weak version of this. When reading older books to my young child, I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work. One day soon he'll be able to read, and at that point I'll wish that books that were a product of their time would have been updated for the current time, so that he could just read the book, without us having to have a conversation about how things were different then.

>>bla3+Hb1
Right I really don't get why people are so offended by these changes

If a work of fiction is changed to not imply women are meant to stay at home and men are meant to go to work, doesn't that show that, to those offended, on some level those implications are core to what makes that work that work?

None of these changes drastically affect the storylines, character arcs, unique characteristics, etc of the stories. If the a book saying the N word despite it not being central to the story is so important to you then it doesn't seem like you care about the book so much as you care about saying the N word

>>culi+Gj1
> If a work of fiction is changed to not imply women are meant to stay at home and men are meant to go to work, doesn't that show that, to those offended, on some level those implications are core to what makes that work that work?

The problem is that Dahl’s work isn’t an essay, or a treatise. It’s whimsical. It’s art! The words chosen, were chosen because they were the words that worked.

Say these two extracts out loud:

> “You mean Prince Pondicherry?” said Grandpa Joe, and he began chuckling with laughter. “Completely dotty, said Grandpa George. “But very rich,” said Grandma Georgina

> “You mean Prince Puducherry?” said Grandpa Joe, and he began chuckling with laughter

They mean essentially the same thing, but they feel quite different. The rhythm of “Prince Pondicherry” has a bounce to it, “Prince Puducherry” is more like walking down hill.

You might make the argument that this trade of is worth making, but it is in fact a trade of.

>>bitcur+Kl1
OK, but how does an Indian child feel reading that, who has their name mispronounced every day (sometimes carelessly, sometimes with profuse apologies, sometimes deliberately), and knowing that Pondicherry could never be the name of an Indian prince?

>>lozeng+YH1
How do children of any specific minority feel when they read historical accounts of racial injustice against their people? Probably really terrible, and maybe even scared. Should they not learn about that history because it makes them feel horrible? That would be extremely unwise since the mistakes of history tend happen again once society forgets.

Old works of fiction also belong in historical narrative because it helps give us a window into popular culture at the time.

(Not that this should matter since my argument should stand on its own, but I’m not white. I just want to preempt any accusations.)