zlacker

> I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work

I totally agree - my kids had Berenstain Bear's books (as random gifts and such) and I would avoid reading them because in particular the way they portrayed Papa Bear as a bumbling fool grated on my nerves. He's like a Homer Simpson without the heart. I'm certain mothers also don't appreciate the way Mama Bear is portrayed as always in the kitchen and the ultimate authority figure.

If these books were updated to modern sensibilities I wouldn't have a problem reading them to my kids. As it stands, I skipped them and they weren't a part of my children's upbringing. I don't mind.

>>bentco+(OP)
I've taken the "Oh no! Sorry. That book was accidentally destroyed maliciously," approach before.

(Interestingly, my own parents took that approach with the Berenstain Bears for exactly the reason you describe.)

But I'd prefer to either read something to my kids as originally written or not read it all. Or as they get older, read the original but with a parental aside on how it was a product of its time. (Might as well make it an opportunity for a brief history lesson.)

I'm definitely not a fan of this "force push" approach to updating established older works.

>>bentco+(OP)
Why not explain the historical context of these books instead? (That’s I what do with my children.) My children appreciate the transparency and extra discussion. That leads to a better longer term outcome for society than with the ease and convenience that censorship provides. History’s mistakes tend to repeat when society forgets them. We can’t rely on educational institutions doing our job for us since the same trend of censorship is happening in their realm.

>>chaost+UA
Fair enough, and I applaud your approach, but IMO there's a time and place, and bedtime wasn't one of those times or places I wanted to get into these kinds of discussions.

>>chaost+UA
Because there are enough (a veritable deluge of) alternatives that do not require extra work on my part.

Which is probably why the Dahl copyright holders are doing this(1). Not to appease some sort of modern sensibilities, but to make money. Apparently they think the investment will pay off.

(1) a less money-focused reason could be because they truly believe these stories deserve to be shared in the future, and see the things they changed as barriers to that goal while of little import to the message. But again, they think this step will "pay off" - in continued popularity / enduring part of culture then.

>>Beldin+4e1
Maybe read other books instead of helping destroy classics?

Yeah, I agree that the copyright holders are acting rationally, but long term this will destroy our democracies. A key premise of Fahrenheit 451 is that they end up with sanctioned book burnings because of something boring like political correctness.

>>bentco+uc1
Maybe read other books instead of helping destroy classics and advancing societal censorship?