The CBB
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

Should publishers edit CS/other classic children's books?
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4692

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Should publishers edit CS/other classic children's books?

Hi, I'm a publishing MA student (and chalet school fan!) currently researching my dissertation about whether publishers should edit classic children's books for political correctness/ethical concerns.

Our course recently had a speaker who was involved in editing the newest editions of the chalet school: she mentioned that they edited out some words/sentences. I'd really, really appreciate any views you could give me on this topic (CS or other books if it's allowed!).

For example,

1. Would you be in favour of publishers removing certain words from classic children's books if they are nowadays viewed as offensive (e.g. 'nigger')?
2. Would you be in favour of publishers removing chapters if they are nowadays viewed as offensive?
3. If you have children, would you give them an edited version with 'offensive' details removed, or the original?

Thank you!

Author:  Jennie [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

A far as I'm concerned, younger children should not be given books that use words such as 'N****r' or 'D****e' because they are offensive, not because I'm in favour of political correctness.

However, when said children are old enough to cope, then they can read the originals and put them into perspective as products of their time.

ETA: I think this ought to be moved into Anything Else, whichis perhaps a better place for this sort of discussion. And if I remember correctly, we've already had a lively discussion on this topic.

Author:  RroseSelavy [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi Becky,

The archived discussion are here under 'critical discussions':
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=28

Personally, I would prefer some offensive words/phrases to be edited out in editions aimed at younger children. However, I wouldn't want to see the originals become unavailable - the books and the attitudes contained in them are products of their time and a part of social history.

But deciding what to edit out could be problematic - do we want to edit out offensive words in order to prevent kids picking up on them and using them, or do we want to remove any views that don't fit in with our current ideas? e.g. if we remove the n-word from CS books, do we also edit out Bill saying that a woman's primary duty is to look after her husband (in Camp)? If we went down the latter route, some books would end up bearing very little resemblance to their original incarnation.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thank you for your help! Would you prefer me to re-post in 'Anything Else'? I'm afraid I was a bit unsure as to area to use... :?

Author:  LizzieC [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Becky-MA student wrote:
Thank you for your help! Would you prefer me to re-post in 'Anything Else'? I'm afraid I was a bit unsure as to area to use... :?


It's probably easiest to PM a mod and ask them to move the topic :)

Author:  Alison H [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi Becky, and welcome to the CBB. I've moved this into Anything Else - hope that that's OK.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

RroseSelavy wrote:
if we remove the n-word from CS books, do we also edit out Bill saying that a woman's primary duty is to look after her husband (in Camp)? If we went down the latter route, some books would end up bearing very little resemblance to their original incarnation.


Interestingly, the editor mentioned to us that they removed any mention of Jo smoking...

Author:  Sugar [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Who was the Editor? I'm sure the GGBP reperints are intended to be left as EBD wrote them exactly, apart from the correction of typographical errors.

Author:  Kate [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Some of the Armada editions definitely have edited out Jo's smoking. I haven't noticed edits in GGBP.

I don't agree with books being edited on principle, but I wouldn't like children reading certain words either. I suppose I would advocate that the adults in the child's life know what they're reading and can discuss the context with the child as they're reading. But as that is quite idealistic and wouldn't happen for a lot of children, I guess I agree with Jennie - an edited version for younger children who can graduate to the unabridged version later. It would need to be done very carefully, though, editors seem to get very happy crossing things out!

Author:  Pado [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

As much as I do a double-take every time I run across one of those formerly acceptable words when I'm reading, I have to say I'm appalled at some of the editing that's done for political correctness. The digital removal of cigarettes from author's photos is one level; digitally removing Ben Franklin's fur collar from his image on the $100 bill because now "we don't approve of fur" is another. Seems like an Orwellian rewrite of history to me...

The NY Times had a lovely op-ed piece parodying this trend that pointed out all of the things that would need to be removed in the classic picture book "Goodnight Moon" (e.g. the bunny is not wearing flame retardant pajamas etc.).

Any child whose interest in reading extends to older literature most likely has either the common sense to realize that language has changed or to go talk to a responsible adult about it.

Author:  linda [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

I really object to the editing of any books for the sake of political correctness. Once this starts where to you draw the line? Should Long John Silver be edited out of Treasure Island as being a negative portrayal of disability?

I have always been very annoy about the removal of the gollywogs from Enid Blyton's Noddy Books. I read these as a child and never, ever thought of gollys as people, they were just toys which could, of course, come to life when no one was looking! :lol: :lol:

Even young children need to be taught to realise that books are a product of the time in which they were written and that sometimes people's ideas of what is right and wrong change, so that things which were once acceptable are no longer OK.

Author:  jennifer [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:57 am ]
Post subject: 

I think it depends on the nature of the change, and the audience to which it is aimed. (with the caveat that, in general, I hate abridged versions).

For example, I don't have a problem with changing a phrase like "Working like a nigger" to "working really hard" in books being published for young children. Basically, the word is currently considered extremely offensive, and is much like including the F word in a kids book. I also don't think editing that word takes away from the story. On the other hand, I would have a problem with, say, changing "crippled" to "physically challenged" or "Indian" to "First Nations" because the second word in both cases is out of period for the book.

I do have a problem with editing out more social/cultural things that are part of the story. I don't think that editors should remove things like references to smoking, or wearing fur, or women's roles, or proper ladylike behaviour, because they are part of the story. For something like a gollywog - I didn't know what the cultural meaning behind a gollywog was as a kid, I just knew them as a doll.

As a kid, I loved reading older kids literature *because* of the cultural differences. When I would read comments about smoking, or proper roles and behaviour for a young girl, it drove home that the way things are now is not the way things have always been, which I think is an important lesson for kids to learn.

In general, for my own kids, I would prefer to give them unabridged versions when they are at an appropriate age to read them.

GGB books I see, due to the publishing model and the price, as being aimed more at adult readers of the literature than at kids, and therefore should be completely unabridged.

Author:  Theresa [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:41 am ]
Post subject: 

linda wrote:
I have always been very annoy about the removal of the gollywogs from Enid Blyton's Noddy Books. I read these as a child and never, ever thought of gollys as people, they were just toys which could, of course, come to life when no one was looking! :lol: :lol:


I never understood how changing gollywog--a word that just means a type of doll--to scallywag--a word that actually means someone who's poorly behaved--was somehow a less offensive way of referring to a doll designed to look like someone who is black. It's not like gollywog is used as a slur against anyone.

On another note, I would give a child (of mine) a book that said "working like a nigger" or "her hair was frizzy as a nigger's". Books that contain that kind of language contain attitudes, especially about women, I wouldn't want my child reading about without discussing, so I'd be talking to the child about the book anyway. Not much of a stretch to include language in the talk I'd have to have with them. I wouldn't, however, be comfortable giving a book like that to someone else's child, not knowing whether anyone would talk to them about what it contains, both in terms of language and attitude, so I guess I can't really complain too much about abridged versions.

Author:  Travellers Joy [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:39 am ]
Post subject: 

Becky-MA student wrote:
RroseSelavy wrote:
if we remove the n-word from CS books, do we also edit out Bill saying that a woman's primary duty is to look after her husband (in Camp)? If we went down the latter route, some books would end up bearing very little resemblance to their original incarnation.


Interestingly, the editor mentioned to us that they removed any mention of Jo smoking...


I'd be interested to know which editor and which publisher since GGBP, the current copyright owners and publishers of the books, certainly don't edit out such things. And the appendix at the back of books tells us what changes have been made. There has never been any mention of editing out smoking or anything else. I remember there was such a problem with the Nancy books (Dorita Fiarlie Bruce) because the family, who owned the rights, insisted on those changes being made (ie nigger, cripple), but I felt it actually drew more attention to them because they had to be referenced as being changed than if they'd been left alone.


Jennifer wrote:
GGB books I see, due to the publishing model and the price, as being aimed more at adult readers of the literature than at kids, and therefore should be completely unabridged.


The title page of the GGBP books tells us they are unabridged. It sounds to me as though Becky has had a publisher from Collins, discussing what they did with the Armada paperbacks when they were still publishing them, rather than what is actually happening to the Chalet books now.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 

Travellers Joy wrote:

I'd be interested to know which editor and which publisher since GGBP, the current copyright owners and publishers of the books, certainly don't edit out such things.


I'd probably better not say, as she didn't specifically give me permission to name her... But they were published early-mid nineties. It's interesting that you mention the power of the estate holders, because apparently the Narnia books were also up for revision, but the estate holders were very much against it.

As a slight aside, have any of you read the orginal vs the abridged Dr Dolittle? Lots of changes there...

Author:  patmac [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I always have a problem with the question. On the one hand, I wouldn't want children thinking that nigger is an acceptable word or that smoking is lauded as a Good Thing because a character in a book smoked . . . but on the other hand, I've lived through most of the changes in acceptability that we are talking about here and I can see that there will be more changes as time goes on and we become more and more 'politically correct'.

BTW, I wish we could find a better phrase than PC! It doesn't have anything to do with politics per se but is more related to equality or acceptance of differences and respect for them.

To get back on topic, I do think the key to editing children's books is the age of the audience. I started reading CS books when I was about 8 or so when Black people were referred to as niggers, disabled people were called cripples, smoking was cool (though cool was not a word I had heard of :wink: ) and I grew up through the changes. I wouldn't want to risk a child today thinking any of those things were right but where does one stop? Obesity is being cited as a big threat to health so should we cut out the 'featherbeds of cream' on the coffee or the episode where Erica squirted cream out of her eclair? How about a risk assessment before the girls were allowed on a walk up the mountain which ended up with an involuntary overnight in a shepherds hut? There'd be some pretty thin books out there!

I think today's children would see the CS books as being historical in much the same way as we would think of Frances Hodgson Burnett or Louisa May Alcott and treat the language as such.

Author:  JS [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

The revised Drina books, if I recall correctly, had the ballerina Catherine Colby wearing a 'fun fur' jacket - I'm pretty sure it was fur in the original. In my view the use of 'fun fur' totally dates it as it's not a phrase we'd tend to use now, although I see the point of not promoting the wearing of actual fur.

Be interesting to go through a book that's been revised several times at different periods to see what the preoccupations were at each time. Can anyone think of an example?

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

JS wrote:
Be interesting to go through a book that's been revised several times at different periods to see what the preoccupations were at each time. Can anyone think of an example?


Ooo good question. Most of the ones I've looked at have only been edited once or twice, or else have gone out print. Here's an interesting article by Anne Fine suggesting that editing is better than letting books go out of circulation.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2065349.ece

Author:  Theresa [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I kind of agree with that. I might be comfortable giving a book with dated and potentially offensive language and themes to any hypothetical children I might have, but enough people aren't that realistically, books are just going to go out of print if they don't get abridged. I'd rather see the books easily accessible to children in an abridged form, so that interested readers will make the effort to acquire an older print, than only available second-hand, in which case the target audience isn't going to bother with the thing at all.

On the other hand, books are only one part of the society a child grows up in. When I read Tintin at 7 or Blyton's golliwog stories at 4, I had a context where those attitudes weren't appropriate -- they were funny examples of how weird people used to be. I sometimes wonder if editing like this is an extension of people expecting other people to raise their children. Teachers are so often blamed for poorly behaved children, I guess it's not such a stretch to blame publishers too. I'd still rather see these stories abridged than completely gone, though.

Author:  patmac [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks for the link, Becky. It was interesting to hear what a 'real' author felt about the subject.

I was pondering what people of the future would say about today's acceptable habits and eating meat was one I thought of - it is considered barbaric in some science fiction novels set in the future!

Author:  jennifer [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think that it is a good point that by the time a child is able to read the books, they do have a historical context in which to view the books. A ten year old today, for example, probably knows that smoking is frowned upon, and what words they aren't supposed to use.

I know that reading the Little House books as a child of about eight or so, I was startled by the "only good Indian is a dead Indian" sentiments expressed by Ma.

Interestingly, my mom tells a story of my uncle as a small child (probably the early 1950s). She took him and his friend out to the movies, and his friend referred to someone they saw as a nigger. My uncle sat down on the pavement and refused to move because his friend 'said a swear'. So even then, the word was not acceptable in some areas.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

patmac wrote:
I was pondering what people of the future would say about today's acceptable habits and eating meat was one I thought of - it is considered barbaric in some science fiction novels set in the future!


I've read a few articles suggesting that we should be wary about publishing books that encourage bad environmental practice, as well as one that suggests that Roald Dahl should be approached with caution because his 'baddie' characters are ugly.

Theresa wrote:
I sometimes wonder if editing like this is an extension of people expecting other people to raise their children


As a history graduate, I also wonder about the Santayana quote which says that we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it. And also about whether books are sometimes edited because we want to believe those prejudices no longer exist. But then, of course, you can switch the argument around by suggesting that if we don't have a language for racism, etc, then it will die out.

Ho hum.

Author:  Travellers Joy [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Becky-MA student wrote:
Travellers Joy wrote:

I'd be interested to know which editor and which publisher since GGBP, the current copyright owners and publishers of the books, certainly don't edit out such things.


I'd probably better not say, as she didn't specifically give me permission to name her... But they were published early-mid nineties. It's interesting that you mention the power of the estate holders, because apparently the Narnia books were also up for revision, but the estate holders were very much against it.


Well, that answers enough of my query anyway and means that I'm really only objecting to your original statement that this person was referring to the 'newest editions' since she was actually talking about books produced 10+ years ago, not the latest editions at all. I do wonder if your editor herself used that term or if it's your interpretation. Either way it's putting out misleading information, suggesting that the GGB editions are edited for PCness, which they aren't.

Setting that aside and going back to the original question, I personally prefer to read the original stories, but sometimes the books are inaccessible - through language or concept perhaps - to different audiences. So I don't have a problem with a book being made accessible to new readers, as long as the publishers clearly indicate that it hasn't used the original text, whether it's abridged, edited, or reworded for a younger audience or whatever; and I would prefer that the original books still be available as well. I was so disappointed to learn recently that all my life I'd only ever had access to a 'sanitised' version of Little Women! I can imagine how my mother would have reacted if I'd tried to emulate Jo's 'aint's etc, but even so I wish I'd had the original text or at least known that what I had wasn't the way it had originally been written. And I'm quite sure I'd have loved the original Nancy Drews if I'd had access to them but I grew up with the revised 1970s versions and they rather spoiled my appreciation of the originals.

Author:  CBW [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
As a history graduate, I also wonder about the Santayana quote which says that we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it. And also about whether books are sometimes edited because we want to believe those prejudices no longer exist. But then, of course, you can switch the argument around by suggesting that if we don't have a language for racism, etc, then it will die out.
unquote

You can't change history and trying to re-write it is dangerous. If a child is reading a book written many years before they were born then they really do have to understand that they are dealing with perceptions that are likely to be different from their own.

I have more problems with Enid Blyton on the grounds of literary merit than I do subject matter. No girl who reads The Famous Five really believes that she can't do the same things as her brothers merely because she is a girl. She accepts the story line as a product of its time and moves on with her life. (and then grows up and finds out that it was all true but that is a different discussion)

I think that it is important that literature is taken as whole rather than edited to reflect currant values. We lose too much otherwise.

Anyone want to have a go at editing the Anti-Semitism out of The Merchant of Venice?

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

Travellers Joy wrote:
Either way it's putting out misleading information, suggesting that the GGB editions are edited for PCness, which they aren't.


You're right, that was badly phrased; apologies!

CBW wrote:
Anyone want to have a go at editing the Anti-Semitism out of The Merchant of Venice?


An uneviable task, indeed! I guess maybe part of the question is when do children acquire the critical ability to assess what they are reading...?

Author:  Lolly [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Travellers Joy wrote:
Well, that answers enough of my query anyway and means that I'm really only objecting to your original statement that this person was referring to the 'newest editions' since she was actually talking about books produced 10+ years ago, not the latest editions at all. I do wonder if your editor herself used that term or if it's your interpretation. Either way it's putting out misleading information, suggesting that the GGB editions are edited for PCness, which they aren't.


Am I then wrong in thinking that 'edition' refers to the text only and not the publishers? I thought that the GGBP books are technically 'reprints' as they've reproduced the original text and the Armada editions were in fact the last 'editions' to be produced.

Author:  JayB [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Anyone want to have a go at editing the Anti-Semitism out of The Merchant of Venice?


Um - isn't the anti-Semitism of some of the characters the point of The Merchant of Venice? Take that out and Shylock's 'Hath not a Jew eyes?' speech loses a lot of its impact.

Author:  Travellers Joy [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lolly wrote:
Travellers Joy wrote:
Well, that answers enough of my query anyway and means that I'm really only objecting to your original statement that this person was referring to the 'newest editions' since she was actually talking about books produced 10+ years ago, not the latest editions at all. I do wonder if your editor herself used that term or if it's your interpretation. Either way it's putting out misleading information, suggesting that the GGB editions are edited for PCness, which they aren't.


Am I then wrong in thinking that 'edition' refers to the text only and not the publishers? I thought that the GGBP books are technically 'reprints' as they've reproduced the original text and the Armada editions were in fact the last 'editions' to be produced.


A new edition can use the same text as the previous one but be completely reset - eg new font, pagination, illustrations, etc. If you look at the Abbey books, most of the Seagulls say 'printed in this edition ...' but the text hasn't been changed. However, most readers are not going to make that distinction anyway. Tell them the 'newest editions are edited' and many, if not most, will automatically think that the reference is to GGB books.

Author:  Sugar [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

As far as I'm concerned the latest reprint of any book is the latest ediition which is what had confused me.

Maybe getting the opinion of the owners of GGBP might add an additional viewpoint

Just out of interest how are our responses and opinions being used in your academic thesis?

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sugar wrote:
As far as I'm concerned the latest reprint of any book is the latest ediition which is what had confused me.

Maybe getting the opinion of the owners of GGBP might add an additional viewpoint

Just out of interest how are our responses and opinions being used in your academic thesis?


Again, I'm sorry about any confusion re editions: that was ill-thought through of me...

I really just wanted opinions at the start of my research; I obviously wouldn't use anything from this board without permission. (Although I think the chances of anyone but my tutor/moderator seeing it are minimal!) My dissertation is going to focus on the ethical concerns which arise from classic books, and also commercial concerns (ie would books sell better unedited or edited). I was going to write a long bumpf about it at the beginning of the thread, but I thought people might find it rather boring!

I'm more than willing to send it to anyone who wants to read it- if they have the time/inclination! :)

Author:  Sunglass [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

I entirely understand why people are loath to give children texts that perpetuate prejudicial language, but as someone who was an obsessive child reader in a household where no one ever talked about what I was reading with me (high level of functional illiteracy in our house), I was still at a very young age, able to divorce the text and its attitudes from my world. I don't think I was a particularly exceptional child, either. I'd argue for retainin the original text and trusting the sophistication of the child reader.

Author:  Cel [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sunglass wrote:
I entirely understand why people are loath to give children texts that perpetuate prejudicial language, but as someone who was an obsessive child reader in a household where no one ever talked about what I was reading with me (high level of functional illiteracy in our house), I was still at a very young age, able to divorce the text and its attitudes from my world. I don't think I was a particularly exceptional child, either. I'd argue for retainin the original text and trusting the sophistication of the child reader.


I'd agree with this. Despite being an avid reader from a very young age, often of books containing material that would seem very un-PC now (from the Famous Five to Agatha Christie), I don't think I picked up either bad attitudes or inappropriate language from them. I think children who read will generally gravitate towards reading material they're ready for, if that makes sense - young children don't tend to struggle on with a book that doesn't make sense to them, and I think if they're mature enough to enjoy the book they'll generally have a fair grasp of its context.

In general, I really don't like editing for PC-ness, there's nothing more jarring in a book than a word or phrase that's totally anachronistic and has clearly just been put in to avoid offence. And beyond that, in some situations removing language really detracts from the message of the story - I know in the US at least there are frequent calls to ban To Kill A Mockingbird from schools due to its use of the word 'nigger', which seems nonsensical - is it a case of either removing the word, which would make the story far less powerful or realistic, or removing the book altogether, which would be a huge loss to literature?

Author:  Mel [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think it's acceptable to change text with the author's approval, as with Anne Fine and possibly if words are changed which do not affect the story. For instance the nigger word is not essential in EBD but in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' it certainly is. But children's intelligence should be respected and nothing should be changed because 'kids today wouldn't understand.' For very young children I can see why parents would worry, but are older children's books so carefully vetted by parents today? When I was a child I just read and wouldn't have liked to have been presented with books that were deemed worthy.

Author:  Theresa [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Goodness, To Kill A Mockingbird. I first read it at 7 because our copy had a really pretty drawing of a colourful birdie on the front. I read the whole thing and understood next to nothing--where did the mockingbirds fit in?! What is a mockingbird?!

Author:  Dreaming Marianne [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:53 am ]
Post subject: 

I on't really have anything terribly original to add Becky, except to say what an interesting idea. And also to comment that when GGBP started re-publishing the CS books, I asked the children's librarian to consider stocking them, as they would be able to collect the entire unabridhes series thus making them available to a new generation. Her answer was no, on the grounds that they were not acceptable by today's standards. :roll:

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 

Dreaming Marianne wrote:
I asked the children's librarian to consider stocking them, as they would be able to collect the entire unabridhes series thus making them available to a new generation. Her answer was no, on the grounds that they were not acceptable by today's standards. :roll:


Hmmm, maybe I need to find some librarians to interview!

Author:  Travellers Joy [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Dreaming Marianne wrote:
I asked the children's librarian to consider stocking them, as they would be able to collect the entire unabridhes series thus making them available to a new generation. Her answer was no, on the grounds that they were not acceptable by today's standards. :roll:


In what way are they 'unacceptable'? Just that they're not modern? Or do they have some other objection to the books? (And has the librarian actually read them??)

Author:  Aquabird [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I started reading Enid Blyton (mostly 1970s versions) when I was about 8 or 9, which was the late 90s, and things like boys being expected to look after girls, having a pocket knife that has a tin opener and ginger beer bottle opener attached, having pet dogs and monkeys and parrots that acted like humans, gallivanting all over the country with the eldest in the group only being about 12, staying at farms with people you've never met before - all the things that would seem totally un-PC now - was the main reason I read them! They portrayed a way of life that was completely alien to me, and therefore fascinated me. I guess I just had enough common sense to know that they were a product of their time, and that there were certain attitudes and expressions in them that are not acceptable by today's standards. It certainly didn't occur to me to use them myself.
I recently read an updated version of a St Clare's book, and things like 'five bob' being changed to a 'fiver' really jarred. I wanted to yell "NO! NO! NO! You've ruined them!" I went scuttling back to my nice worn old (unedited) copy pronto.

Author:  Fidra [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hello,

I just thought I'd drop in and explain to people that Becky is in fact a student who came to us for 5 weeks earlier this year as one of her work placements and is very interested in and knowledgeable about children's lit, although I think the fandom aspect attached to some of the books that we all love surprised her! Becky did some excellent work for us and we're hoping that she'll be back this summer - only this time we'll pay her!

As far as Fidra is concerned, as Becky already knows, we don't edit as such but have removed some words that we consider offensive. I haven't removed Bunkle's mother's smoking but did remove 'nigger' from a couple of books, with the agreement of the authors or their estates.

I work on the basis that one of my aims is to enable a new generation of children to enjoy these books - if we don't share them then they will die out - and although children are quite capable of understanding that the books are set in a different time with different habits and attitudes, I don't want my 8 year old son having to ask me what a nigger is.

Author:  CBW [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I asked the children's librarian to consider stocking them, as they would be able to collect the entire unabridhes series thus making them available to a new generation. Her answer was no, on the grounds that they were not acceptable by today's standards.


libraries have always run a sort of unofficial censorship of childrens books. My local one wouldn't stock Enid Blyton books when I was a child (Loony Left London borough in the 70s)

its like all the fuss about harry potter being unhealthy when it first came out. Someone will always disaprove.

Author:  Róisín [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fidra wrote:
... we don't edit as such but have removed some words that we consider offensive. I haven't removed Bunkle's mother's smoking but did remove 'nigger' from a couple of books, with the agreement of the authors or their estates.

I work on the basis that one of my aims is to enable a new generation of children to enjoy these books - if we don't share them then they will die out - and although children are quite capable of understanding that the books are set in a different time with different habits and attitudes, I don't want my 8 year old son having to ask me what a nigger is.


Out of interest, is this made clear on the dustjacket of the book, or somewhere inside the book, that these changes have been made?

Author:  Catherine [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

My grandfather's cottage used to have all sorts of kids books read by Dad or various others of his five siblings and one of the books was 'Little Black Sambo', I think, which I loved! But I do vaguely remember being told that I wasn't allowed to mention 'gollywogs' or 'niggers' outside of the family as it was rude to black people or something like that and that the book was old and when it was written, people did say that sort of thing.

I don't object to the odd word being changed to reflect cultural differences etc. and I can see that the inclusion of smoking in modern kids books needs to be done carefully so that there is no danger of being seen to encourage anyone to smoke. So far as books like the CS go, I think smoking was fairly common at the time they were written and it wasn't frowned upon, so I see no reason to remove the references but equally it wouldn't bother me if they were, as for the most part, they're an aside to the storyline. If I had a child, I wouldn't refrain from giving them a book that had smoking in it and I think I agree with Jennie that I would only give a child a book with 'nigger' in it once they were old enough to understand that the word could be offensive in some quarters and therefore shouldn't be repeated.

Incidentally, if you were writing a fill in, would you have your characters smoking?


Becky - welcome to the board! :D I hope that in time, you'll find your way round the rest of it. Good luck with your dissertation - hope all the comments are of use to you and feel free to keep asking questions if we can help! :D

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Catherine wrote:
My grandfather's cottage used to have all sorts of kids books read by Dad or various others of his five siblings and one of the books was 'Little Black Sambo', I think, which I loved!


Funny you mention Little Black Sambo, because I thought it was completely unavailable nowadays, but quite by chance I saw it a gift shop a few weeks ago....

Catherine wrote:
Becky - welcome to the board! :D I hope that in time, you'll find your way round the rest of it. Good luck with your dissertation - hope all the comments are of use to you and feel free to keep asking questions if we can help! :D


Thank you! I will indeed explore the rest of the board when I can finish reading about research methodologies (sigh). My favourite CS book is The CS Reunion, because you get a lot of the old characters reappearing (although I remember feeling that Grizel was married off rather precipitously!).

Author:  Mia [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi Becky, welcome to the CBB.

I am in two minds about this: it does jar my c21st sensibilities to see certain words in the text. I don't think they add anything special to the books. I know there is an argument that people didn't consider them offensive at the time, but I believe some sections of society did. However, I also see the argument for the books being products of their time and I do lean to the anti-censorship side generally. Perhaps footnotes are the answer :wink:

I agree with the point about it being better they be edited than not printed at all. I suppose if Armada hadn't published, with edits as they thought appropriate, the fanbase as it is would be far fewer. I think I know the editions your editor was referring to - the holiday stories that were the last to be printed by HarperCollins in the early 1990s - with the smoking paragraph being cut from Joey Goes to the Oberland? How fascinating to hear her speak - I'm quite envious!

Theresa wrote:
It's not like gollywog is used as a slur against anyone.


It is - rather topical, actually! Telegraph article here.

Author:  Cel [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've just read the Anne Fine article on this topic, and while there are some good points made about revising potentially offensive words and phrases (although I'm still firmly on the anti-censorship side), it's things like the following that really bother me:

"Writers for children routinely bring amounts of money up to date in new editions. “I need two and sixpence for school,” does not have much of a ring. Sometimes you have to step in to stop a copy editor suggesting things like “4.567 metres away” when you’ve talked of a few yards ... And it can usually be done with grace. “A few steps away” is the obvious solution."

What's wrong with children getting a flavour of a different time or place in their reading?! Even if the word 'yard' or the concept of pre-decimalisation money is unfamiliar to the child, would it really be so bad if he were to go off and wonder about these things, or if it sparked off a discussion with a parent about the different ways we measured things in 'olden days'? Surely children's reading should broaden their horizons, not narrow them.

(Sorry if that was a bit ranty, I just REALLY hate dumbing down for kids, and the above strikes me as totally ridiculous).

Author:  Billie [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree. I agree with removing certain words that would be offensive, but the changing of "two shillings" to "two pounds" annoys me no end. I know in one of the most recent editions of a Malory Towers book someone loses a two pound coin which really jars, as they are such a recent coin.

I remember being shocked the first time I read about Jo smoking when I was a kid. And the "N" word always jars in Joey Goes - I wonder why they left that in, after cutting the smoking reference.

Author:  JayB [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have an 'updated' copy of A Dream of Sadler's Wells in which the shillings and pence have been decimalised but the 1950 prices kept, which is nonsense. 50p a day to hire a pony, for example. And since the references to the Blitz, Brief Encounter and Eileen Joyce are left in, they might as well have left the money alone too.

The smoking is left in, too, but taking it out would require rewriting a large chunk of Veronica's first meeting with Sebastian, so there wasn't much to be done about that.

Author:  Lesley [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Catherine wrote:
Incidentally, if you were writing a fill in, would you have your characters smoking?


That was one thing I had to think about for a long time - I felt it had to be mentioned as Hilda Annersley and Nell Wilson both smoked in the books - so I deliberately made one off-hand reference to it.

Author:  lizarfau [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Does having a character in a book smoking really encourage kids to smoke? I do wonder about that. When I was a kid, Anne from the Famous Five bought Mr Roland a packet of cigarettes for Christmas, Joey Maynard and co. smoked like troopers, on the telly a horse called Craven A won the Benson and Hedges Grand Prix, in real life my teachers and my nan and grandad smoked ... but my mates didn't smoke. So I never smoked. But I knew people who didn't read or watch showjumping who smoked because their mates did.

I really struggle with the political correctness thing in books - and not just in the revision of old books. I have concerns about the inclusion of quotas that is creeping in to children's books - i.e. a certain percentage of characters must be black, Asian, disabled, and so on. This sounds great, but, being practical, how many writers can carry this off knowledgably? And, in the end, I'm a firm believer that characters are characters - they come out the way they are, and if you have to change them to something else, they just don't work well.

I think the next great taboo will probably be certain foods - that chocolate etc won't be allowed to be eaten in kids' books because of obesity concerns and so on. Or, worse, only bad characters will be able to eat chocolate.

Author:  Kate [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 

lizarfau wrote:
I really struggle with the political correctness thing in books - and not just in the revision of old books. I have concerns about the inclusion of quotas that is creeping in to children's books - i.e. a certain percentage of characters must be black, Asian, disabled, and so on. This sounds great, but, being practical, how many writers can carry this off knowledgably?


That's a very good point. I was wondering about that lately: if I was to write a story with diverse characters, I'm not at all sure I could carry that off convincingly. Of course, everyone writes a lot about things of which they haven't first hand experience, but are there things which are too sensitive to do that? Would it be patronising of me to assume I can understand/imagine a person who faces such different challenges to me? Would I create stereotypes because of this? Or is excluding minorities worse? Am I stereotyping because I'm assuming the challenges are more different than they are? It all just goes around and around and I really have no answers...

Author:  kramerkaren [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 am ]
Post subject: 

Has anyone seen the ET movie, 20 year anniversary edition? its just come out. Anyway - in the new movie the scene where the kids smoke has been editted out, the part where the big brother calls the little one "P@#$% breath" (insert male organ), has been left in. Just a strange judgement call, and an interesting reflection on what is appropriate or not in our times, in my opinion....

Author:  Lesley [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:00 am ]
Post subject: 

lizarfau wrote:
I think the next great taboo will probably be certain foods - that chocolate etc won't be allowed to be eaten in kids' books because of obesity concerns and so on. Or, worse, only bad characters will be able to eat chocolate.


I'm a baaaaaaad character! :lol:

Agree with you, Liz, the books I read all had people smoking, my parents both smoked - at least until I was about 13, my best friend smoked - not me. I know some research has shown that if your parents smoke you are more likely to but I don't think it's as simple as just children copying. A lot of it is the 'thrill' of doing something that's considered illicit and 'bad', a rite of passage as a teenager. And let's face it smoking is enjoyable to those that smoke. I wonder sometimes if being so PC as to omit smoking when editing books or when showing films or making TV programmes of the past we're actually doing ourselves and our children a disservice - censoring history.

Author:  abbeybufo [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:07 am ]
Post subject: 

On purely observational, empirical and therefore potentially biassed evidence [ :wink: ] I would say that if people's parents smoke[ed], they don't, and vice versa - it certainly seems on both sides of my extended family, that alternate generations are smokers/non-smokers, & I've noticed a similar trend among friends and their families.

Author:  JS [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:52 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I remember being shocked the first time I read about Jo smoking when I was a kid. And the "N" word always jars in Joey Goes - I wonder why they left that in, after cutting the smoking reference



They took the N word out of Barbara in the paperback (also referring to Carlotta). I noticed it when reading the hb for the first time this week, so checked the pb and it isn't there. Not sure whether the Barbara or Oberland pb came out first, but suspect it was probably Barbara, which makes it even odder that it was kept in Joey Goes (I haven't read that in pb, by the way - was the N word kept in referring to Carlotta or just the kids messing themselves up at the beginning?)

Author:  JayB [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:24 am ]
Post subject: 

lizarfau wrote:
I really struggle with the political correctness thing in books - and not just in the revision of old books. I have concerns about the inclusion of quotas that is creeping in to children's books - i.e. a certain percentage of characters must be black, Asian, disabled, and so on. This sounds great, but, being practical, how many writers can carry this off knowledgably?


And in a non-visual medium, it's not that easy to make it clear that a character is black or disabled in a way that sounds natural.

Quote:
I think the next great taboo will probably be certain foods - that chocolate etc won't be allowed to be eaten in kids' books because of obesity concerns and so on.


Haven't there already been complaints about the unhealthy meals served at Hogwarts? I can see future editions:

"Harry, Ron and Hermione sat down to the beginning of term feast of low fat cottage cheese, organic lettuce and carrot juice."

Yes, that's going to appeal to ten year old boys!

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:25 am ]
Post subject: 

lizarfau wrote:
I have concerns about the inclusion of quotas that is creeping in to children's books - i.e. a certain percentage of characters must be black, Asian, disabled, and so on. This sounds great, but, being practical, how many writers can carry this off knowledgably?


There's also a lot of debate about whether white authors should write about non-white characters full stop (or, indeed, vice versa).

I've just read this article on the subject http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_n1_v32/ai_20610470.

It's rather long-winded, but the conclusion is that writing can never be authentic unless written by someone with the same racial experience...

Author:  Mona [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:48 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
It's rather long-winded, but the conclusion is that writing can never be authentic unless written by someone with the same racial experience...

Isn't there an argument that whatever your race (thinking purely about books based in eg: modern day Britain here),part of your racial experience will involve interacting with people of other races to yourself? In that case, how can any author who wishes to portray an accurate picture avoid writing characters of other races without limiting themselves severely?

Author:  alicat [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 

sorry that is sooo wrong IMO - because by logical extension you can never accept that men can write novels putting a female POV or vice versa, when there are thousands of authors who have done so extremely successfully

I too am against editing - even for words like 'nigger' and definitly for money etc. surely the way to deal with it is thru a front flyleaf declaration that
'some of the words/phrases/sentiments and/or opinions expressed by characters in this work of fiction are consistent with those in use in ???? (date) when the book was written and are not considered acceptable in modern everyday usage and thinking. They have been retained in this edition in order to ensure its historical accuracy and sense of period'??? or something similar???

I think it should not be up to publishers, librarians or teachers to censor what children read but parents - if you are concerned then read the books yourself and make decisions about what you want your child to read/not read - that way everyone has room for their own POV. if you think your child is too young to read a book, don't let them and explain your POV to them - I don't see this as censorship but as positive parenting - would you let your 11 yr old watch an 18 certificate film??? then why let them read the equivalent text???

there does come a time when you have to accept they are 'adult' enough to read anything and everything, at which point you have to hope you have given them good basics and they will not be overly upset (some books are after all meant to have an emotional impact, such as The Boy in Striped Pajamas??) and that they will have good basic values and not be influenced 'the wrong way'

sorry if this sounds like a rant - but I believe so strongly that literature, good and bad, should be left to be read as the author wrote it. sometimes I think we over analyse things (which is of course what I've just been doing....)

Author:  Emma A [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 

Theresa wrote:
Goodness, To Kill A Mockingbird. I first read it at 7 because our copy had a really pretty drawing of a colourful birdie on the front. I read the whole thing and understood next to nothing--where did the mockingbirds fit in?! What is a mockingbird?!

Calpurnia mentions to Scout in the book that "it's a sin to kill a mockingbird", because they sing for the pleasure of all, and don't damage crops or cause nuisance. So therefore "to kill a mockingbird" is a sin - basically causing harm to something that only gives joy.

To go back to the main discussion - there's a very interesting book by Nat Hentoff called "The Day They Came To Arrest The Book", which is all about censorship of books in schools. The book in question is Twain's Huckleberry Finn, which has been set as required reading for an English class; the argument starts because one of the black students objects to the continual use of the n-word. From then it goes into a general discussion of all censorship, and is very thought-provoking.

In general, I'm against all editing for words or attitudes we now find offensive: as Hentoff points out in the novel mentioned above, there are worse things in the Bible, which is routinely given to many children for study (though probably only selected stories)! Children should understand that life and attitudes have changed, and I think that one shouldn't give them a santised view of the world in their reading matter.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Emma A wrote:
there's a very interesting book by Nat Hentoff called "The Day They Came To Arrest The Book", which is all about censorship of books in schools.


*Adds to reading list*. Thanks!

Author:  Lolly [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

alicat wrote:
sorry that is sooo wrong IMO - because by logical extension you can never accept that men can write novels putting a female POV or vice versa, when there are thousands of authors who have done so extremely successfully


I'd argue that thousand of authors do so, but very, very few do so successfully or indeed convincingly. And even putting aside my feminist bias (not something I often suggest :lol: ) I would say that it is extraordinarily rare to find a male author writing convincingly with a female voice, although less so the other way round.

Bizarrely, because I don't rate the man much as a writer, Stephen King's Dolores Claiborne was, to me, one of the most successful attempts that I have ever read.

Author:  RroseSelavy [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

alicat wrote:
sorry that is sooo wrong IMO - because by logical extension you can never accept that men can write novels putting a female POV or vice versa, when there are thousands of authors who have done so extremely successfully


Clearly, everyone should only write about their own experiences. For example, JRR Tolkein was not a hobbit and presumably never had to escape from an elf-king's hall in a barrel. His interpretation of the experience is clearly biased and encourages human-centric views of hobbit society.

Honestly, I do wonder if some people understand the idea of 'fiction'...

Author:  Lolly [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Of course the difference there is that a) JRR Tolkien wrote about the hobbit, not in his voice , and b) nobody else had ever written about escaping from the halls of the elf king on a barrel either (incidentally Bilbo was on top, it was the dwarves who were inside). So in the absence of a real hobbit's autobiographical experiences to compare the two it is impossible to say whether his observations were accurate or not... :lol:

Seriously, though, I don't think anyone is suggesting that writers should only write about what they know, but when an author does attempt to write about, or as if they were, a different gender, differently abled, or an ethnic origin other than their own, their work usually doesn't stand up to those that are authentic - even if fictitious. For example, I find Sebastian Faulks' Birdsong very artificial (and ludicrously overrated actually), in comparison to All Quiet on the Western Front. Both fiction - the difference being - one author was a soldier who experienced WW1, the other, a civilian who had no experience of war at all.

In my view, people write better fiction when they base it on circumstances which they know. Or else pure fantasy. That's good too!

Author:  jennifer [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 

Becky-MA student wrote:

There's also a lot of debate about whether white authors should write about non-white characters full stop (or, indeed, vice versa).


I do think there is a difference when an author writes a point of view that is internal (from their own experience) vs external. However, that applies not just to race, but to gender, age, religion, time period, personality, political beliefs and location. If you only write about people like yourself, you get 1940s science fiction, populated by steely jawed, white male scientist/explorers, with all other races or genders being cardboard cutouts if at all present.

However, that doesn't mean that an author is constrained to write only about characters who match their own experience - that's autobiographical writing, not fiction. An author can research, both by reading and by talking to people in a particular group. They can have beta-readers who can comment on the tone or vocabulary, or accuracy of experiences.

I think that the inclusion of a variety of characters, even periphially, is useful. For example, in the Harry Potter books, there are students with obviously Indian and Asian names (Pavarati, Chang, etc). Even without a deep exploration into their race and experiences, it gives a better match to a modern school experience that having a student population entirely composed of people with names like Potter or Granger.

I get the feeling that some people have trouble recognizing a set of experiences that is different from their own as being valid. So if they read a female character that has an experience different than their own, it must be a bad portrayal, not just a different one.

Author:  CBW [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:38 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
There's also a lot of debate about whether white authors should write about non-white characters full stop (or, indeed, vice versa).


surely this has more to do with the talant of the author. If he/she is good at their job then they can create a believable world in their stories. If they are not then the background doesn't ring true.

its the same theory with actors. Suggesting that an actor could only protray what they themselves have experienced would be ridiculous.

Author:  Kate [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:28 am ]
Post subject: 

CBW wrote:
its the same theory with actors. Suggesting that an actor could only protray what they themselves have experienced would be ridiculous.


It would in most areas, but race can be a more sensitive issue. For example, there was uproar when Angelina Jolie played Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart because she is a different race (despite the fact that Mariane Pearl personally chose her). I think most people agreed that Jolie did a good job of the role, but there is still the question whether she should have done it at all.

Author:  Lesley [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:55 am ]
Post subject: 

But surely that would mean that any black actor would only be able to play Caliban in Shakespeare, and only someone who was Jewish play Shylock?

Author:  Kate [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

By the way, just to clarify, that's not *my* opinion, I was just saying that it's an opinion that exists. ;)

Author:  CBW [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
But surely that would mean that any black actor would only be able to play Caliban in Shakespeare, and only someone who was Jewish play Shylock?


and Olivier would never have been able to play an authentic King Lear.

I think this is where policical corectness gets its bad name from. the theory is well and good as a theory but taken to its logical conclusion it becomes a farce.

Author:  Róisín [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

CBW wrote:
I think this is where policical corectness gets its bad name from. the theory is well and good as a theory but taken to its logical conclusion it becomes a farce.


Political correctness isn't a theory. It's a phrase that (as we know it) evolved from communist China (where it meant that people's public and private thoughts should be the same ie what the government thought), as well as from other similar situations around that time, and has been used mostly in perjorative senses since then.

I don't think that anyone really disagrees with the idea that we should try not to cause offense to those sections of society who have historically been marginalised. The issue of the topic in hand here is whether the promotion of this idea should be applied retroactively, eg editing words such as 'nigger' from the Chalet School books.

Author:  CBW [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I don't think that anyone really disagrees with the idea that we should try not to cause offense to those sections of society who have historically been marginalised. The issue of the topic in hand here is whether the promotion of this idea should be applied retroactively, eg editing words such as 'nigger' from the Chalet School books


I'm not sure there is much difference between the two ideas. The world the chalet school inhabited doesn't exist any more and no amount of updating unfashonable words is going to turn it into a 21st century story but, if you keep snipping away at bits of the stories because they reflect ideas that are no longer acceptible then you stand a good chance of taking away whole character of the books.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Róisín wrote:
Political correctness isn't a theory. It's a phrase that (as we know it) evolved from communist China (where it meant that people's public and private thoughts should be the same ie what the government thought), as well as from other similar situations around that time, and has been used mostly in perjorative senses since then.


I'm trying to find a less prejorative way to phrase it: the closest I can come is 'contemporary ethical concerns', but that sounds extremely pompous!

Author:  CBW [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Becky-MAstudent wrote:
I'm trying to find a less prejorative way to phrase it: the closest I can come is 'contemporary ethical concerns', but that sounds extremely pompous!


why bother? the phrase sums the concept perfectly:

Definitions of Political correctness on the Web:

using terms more acceptable and less hurtful than more direct or outdated language (eg "mentally challenged" instead of "mentally ...

http://www.appsci.queensu.ca/courses/engineeringcommunications/resources/Glossary.php

A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal.
http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html

is the alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense. The term most often appears in the form politically correct or PC, and is generally used mockingly or disparagingly. ...

www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Politcal-correctness

Suppressing the expression of certain attitudes and the use of certain terms in the belief that they are too offensive or controversial.
www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm

(Edited to adjust page width - Alison :D)

Author:  Róisín [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Becky-MA student wrote:
Róisín wrote:
Political correctness isn't a theory. It's a phrase that (as we know it) evolved from communist China (where it meant that people's public and private thoughts should be the same ie what the government thought), as well as from other similar situations around that time, and has been used mostly in perjorative senses since then.


I'm trying to find a less prejorative way to phrase it: the closest I can come is 'contemporary ethical concerns', but that sounds extremely pompous!


I didn't mean to fire an attack in your direction :lol: just to throw a thought into the thread (sorry if it came across as the former). For what it's worth, I think that because this is your MA thesis, you need to use language and phrases that explain absolutely what you mean. If you're unsure about that, follow the lead of an author in this field. Have you seen the CBB bibliography? It's here - you should be able to find lots of relevant references there.

This is a very interesting topic, and I'd highly recommend that you take this thread in conjunction with the previous, archived discussion, as having read through both myself last night, there are different ideas brought up in each. It wouldn't be a bad idea to summarise the for and againsts in a list - I'll try and do this later on today myself if I find the time, as it would be nice to see the debate in bullet points (I think).

Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

CBW wrote:
I'm not sure there is much difference between the two ideas. The world the chalet school inhabited doesn't exist any more and no amount of updating unfashonable words is going to turn it into a 21st century story but, if you keep snipping away at bits of the stories because they reflect ideas that are no longer acceptible then you stand a good chance of taking away whole character of the books.


Indeed. I, personally, would find the Swallows and Amazons books ruined if they took out all references to chocolate! But then - kids being allowed to camp on an island without an adult, or even being allowed to stay with adults to whom they were not related, and as for Dick being allowed to go into the shed with Mr Dixon and no other adult present... shock, horror! ;)

That's the trouble, isn't it - where do you draw the line? Some things that were acceptable as recently as twenty years ago (children having adult confidants, for instance) are no longer acceptable. Who is to say what will be acceptable in twenty years' time?

Author:  Mia [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

It might be interesting to examine why Armada/HC took out the racist terminology in the 1970s/80s paperbacks but left it in when they republished the five holiday stories in the mid-1990s (example, Carlotta the 'nigger'-baby). I'd love to know the reasoning behind that. I don't suppose your lecturer mentioned it..?
:)

Author:  Theresa [ Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Taking out characters smoking because it's going to encourage children to smoke just doesn't ring true to me. It's such a huge issue these days it's something that parents talk to their kids about. A lot. (Besides which, books are not exactly high on the list of references kids go to to find out what's cool.)

Also I'm surprised by that golliwog slur at Naomi Campbell! What is up with people? I've only ever heard one person say golliwog in reference to an actual black person, and the speaker was Samoan--it wasn't exactly a stinging racial slur.

Emma, I know why the book is called To Kill A Mockingbird. ;) I meant to imply that those were questions that confused me when I first read it as a small child.

I will also say, in reference to your post, that it is not always just select stories that small children are encouraged to read from the Bible. We used to read some stories, in my Catholic school, largely to get us interested in the history surrounding them. Mind you, we also had a huge Enid Blyton collection in the school library so I guess we were a bit behind the times.

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Róisín wrote:
I didn't mean to fire an attack in your direction :lol: just to throw a thought into the thread (sorry if it came across as the former). For what it's worth, I think that because this is your MA thesis, you need to use language and phrases that explain absolutely what you mean. If you're unsure about that, follow the lead of an author in this field. Have you seen the CBB bibliography? It's here - you should be able to find lots of relevant references there.


You absolutely weren't firing an attack- and I'm very grateful for everyone's help... I will definitely be following up all the leads you have given me :D I do actually have a list of bullet points, but I didn't want to stick it up, because I'm new here and I didn't want to be an thread-hogger and alienate you all!

Mia wrote:
It might be interesting to examine why Armada/HC took out the racist terminology in the 1970s/80s paperbacks but left it in when they republished the five holiday stories in the mid-1990s (example, Carlotta the 'nigger'-baby). I'd love to know the reasoning behind that. I don't suppose your lecturer mentioned it..?


Good question- sadly I don't know the answer! I tried to get her to agree to a recorded interview, but she didn't seem overly keen...

CBW wrote:
why bother? the phrase sums the concept perfectly.


Thanks for the links :D The problem is though, that the few people I've interviewed do seem to have an immediate reaction that it *is* a criticism....

Author:  Tor [ Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:57 am ]
Post subject: 

This is such an interesting debate! I have been thinking about how I behaved as a child when reading 'old' bookds like the CS, and I *think* I had a distinct attitude shift between (roughly) primary school age an senior school.

When I was that bit younger I didn't really critically read the books I had, beyond deciding whether i liked them or not. I am pretty sure I didn't even notice anything untoward in the famous five books etc (which in itself could be seen as worrying and pertinent to this debate). But I don't think it meant I was assimilating racist/sexist sentiments, I am just not sure I was emotionally or socially mature enough to pick up on much beyond the fact that I like the plot.

However, I do remember throwing aside books in disgust when I was a bit older because I found the use of words like 'nigger' upsetting. This would be in the earnest, teenage phase, where I was trying to express my developing liberalism, but with difficulty. I generally could not like a character if they were racist or sexist or otherwise behaving in a manner that I considered socially unacceptable.

Which brings me to the CS, which I read in paperback, mostly from the 90's armada additions. My peak reading age (started a bit younger, but wasn't that interested, and obv am still reading now) was 11-14, exactly in that transistion period. As, though I love the CS, I wouldn't put the CS up there as great works of literature, my main reason for becoming hooked on the series was because I wanted to immerse myself in CS-land and hear about the characters I loved. I wonder if I would have been able to love the characters as much if they had been using phrases I found abhorent, time context or otherwise?

By 14 or so I had become mature enough to deal with the context of the use of such words, and was well on the way to my current opinoin that censorship/freedom of speech is all important. However, had I not had the edited Cs versions, perhaps by then it would have been too late. the CS may have been lost to me :shock:

sorry for the long post (first after returning from honeymoon!!!): In summary, i think i am saying that my adult opinion/idealogy or whatever would put me in the anti-editing camp, but that maybe that adult perspective would result in the books being unpalatable to a whole generation of children. and perhaps the argument isn't *should* we edit for the sake of protecting children, but whether *should* we edit for the sake of the books survival.... Which many people have already covered in their posts!!! sorry!!!

Also, I loved the "little Black Sambo" books as a child. Never thought it a problem, being a white middle class girl, in a predominently white srea, I didn't realise that racial prejudice even exisited, let alone caused pain and upset to many people. To me it went alongside 'Little Red Riding Hood" etc etc and I didn't think twice. As I grew older, and realised the implications of such titles, I was mortified that I had had them read to me, but felt sad that these books would have to be lost to my children, as I wouldn't read them to them, though I loved the stories themselves.

Imagine my delight on finding a beautiful book in a shop called the story of Babaji...!!! the same story, with new illustrations, but with the names changed to give it an Indian twist. Brilliant! Bought it at once for a friends child, and they love it. Who wouldn't? Tiger into Ghee... sublime!!!! So that is an instance of when I do approve of such edits.

Phew... end of mammoth post. Well done if you read to the end

Author:  Emma A [ Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Going slightly off-topic here, but it is interesting that what is deemed socially unacceptable can vary so much. For example, I was reading an article on Wikipedia yesterday about the James Bond films: the latest films don't show Bond smoking at all (whereas in the books and stories by Fleming he was a very heavy smoker). Yet he's still allowed to shoot and kill people! Okay, so the point of a special agent licensed to kill would be rather lost if this trait was removed, but why not show him smoking anyway? If the actor doesn't want to smoke, then they can use herbal cigarettes (an actor friend does this for Noel Coward plays and so on). After all, Bond is not meant to be likeable. It's the double standard that repels, I think.

Author:  Kathy_S [ Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:43 am ]
Post subject: 

For many of the same reasons already given, I think that something like the N-word should definitely be removed from editions targeted to younger readers, though I'd still want to have the unabridged versions available for collectors, students of literature, etc.

Tor, I agree on Little Black Sambo. It must have been quite dreadful, given all that's been written about it, but absolutely the only thing I remember about the book from whatever edition I read (admittedly more than 40 years ago) was that the hero chased a tiger until it turned into butter. An edition that kept such a striking plot without the problematic parts would be a Good Thing.

Author:  Mel [ Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

I know they changed Agatha Christie's Ten Little Niggers into Ten Little Indians (is that acceptable?) But what about Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of the Narcissus - I think I might have seen it with quotation marks round the word ie The 'Nigger' of the Narcissus, but don't know if that was the author's intention or a later publisher's apology.

Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Little Black Sambo was a wonderfully rhythmic story - just the kind of story that children love, as they can learn it off by heart (I still can recite large chunks of it!). It's really only the names and the classic illustrations that are a problem - the story itself is lovely, and it ends with them all eating pancakes - the eponymous hero has one hundred and forty-seven! I am so glad to learn that it has been updated to make it acceptable to modern tastes.

As for the Agatha Christie book, it's current title is "And then there were none!" which can't possibly offend anybody, can it?

Author:  JS [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

I re-read Little Black Sambo and the Twins yesterday - very sweet, but illustrations of his dad in some sort of minstrel gear were a bit dodgy. Loved the idea of an eagle helping to rescue the twins from the bad monkeys in return for legs of mutton for the little eagle babies.

Not only did the Agatha Christie novel got a further makeover to And Then There Were None (as Mrs Redboots says) I seem to recall the little figurines became 10 little soldier boys (but I can't find it to check!)

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Kathy_S wrote:
Tor, I agree on Little Black Sambo. It must have been quite dreadful, given all that's been written about it, but absolutely the only thing I remember about the book from whatever edition I read (admittedly more than 40 years ago) was that the hero chased a tiger until it turned into butter. An edition that kept such a striking plot without the problematic parts would be a Good Thing.


I've found a few articles suggesting that it's become so offensive not only because of the content, but because 'Sambo' became a slang word for black people in the US... Not sure of the veracity of this, but it's definitely an interesting thought.

Author:  Alison H [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

That's quite possible: Sambo was a name often given to slaves by their "owners" and was also used a term of insult.

Not entirely sure if this is true or if it's just a local legend, but the use of the name Sambo for slaves by British and American slave traders is supposed to have come from a sailor called Sambo who got stranded in Morecambe (the seaside resort near Lancaster) when his ship sailed without him and, as the only black man in the area, met with a lot of prejudice from the local population. (Sorry for being irrelevant!)

Author:  Becky-MA student [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Alison H wrote:
(Sorry for being irrelevant!)


You're not being at all irrelevant, all very interesting! It's fascinating the way words can evolve depending on who uses them and how they are deployed...

Author:  Cel [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:44 am ]
Post subject: 

Tor wrote:
Also, I loved the "little Black Sambo" books as a child. Never thought it a problem, being a white middle class girl, in a predominently white srea, I didn't realise that racial prejudice even exisited, let alone caused pain and upset to many people. To me it went alongside 'Little Red Riding Hood" etc etc and I didn't think twice. As I grew older, and realised the implications of such titles, I was mortified that I had had them read to me, but felt sad that these books would have to be lost to my children, as I wouldn't read them to them, though I loved the stories themselves.

Imagine my delight on finding a beautiful book in a shop called the story of Babaji...!!! the same story, with new illustrations, but with the names changed to give it an Indian twist. Brilliant!


Why does just replacing one ethnicity with another make the book acceptable, though? Is it just the use of the phrase "Little Black" in the original that's offensive, or were the illustrations or other details particularly racist?

(I'm not trying to be argumentative, by the way - I'm just not familiar with the book so I'm not sure if it's just the title that's a problem or if there was more to it).

Author:  JayB [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:48 am ]
Post subject: 

The story and illustrations are online here:
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/sambo.htm

The story is actually set in India - tigers, jungles, bazaars and so on - Helen Bannerman lived there. It's the character names and the illustrations that make it appear otherwise.

Author:  Tor [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Why does just replacing one ethnicity with another make the book acceptable, though? Is it just the use of the phrase "Little Black" in the original that's offensive, or were the illustrations or other details particularly racist?


Well, the original pictures are rather offensive caricatures. And moreover seem to look like they are trying to portray africans... and any child interested in animals knows there are no Tigers in Africa (tigers are central to the plot).

Also, the author apparently wrote this book when visiting India, so that plus the mention of ghee and tigers make it seem clear that it is supposed to be set in India.

Thus, retelling the story with practically the same words but changing the names from "Little Black Sambo" to Babaji, "Little Black Mumbo" to Mamaji etc gives the book it's correct sense of place AND removes the terms that are offensive for the reasons people have stated above. And the new pics aren't racist, but lovely!

Links below to amazon.co.uk for pics of front cover to original version and new version:

Original:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Black-Sambo-Helen-Bannerman/dp/1857141261/ref=pd_sim_b?ie=UTF8&qid=1215781443&sr=8-1

New:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Little-Babaji-HB-0/dp/1857141385/ref=pd_sbs_b?ie=UTF8&qid=1215781443&sr=8-1

Anyway, the story is wonderful, and I am so pleased that this version makes it possible for me to enjoy it again....

On a lighter note - I just got back from India, and I saw Tigers in the jungle there. Rather insanely I had a green umbrella with me, so my Tiger encounter (from a jeep) made me smile a lot as I thought I saw the Tiger eyeing my umbrella rather covetously...

ETA: Jay B got there first! cross-posting!

Author:  Alison H [ Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Just been re-reading some of Enid Blyton's Adventure books, the ones with the talking parrot in them. In the copies I had as a kid, the parrot kept saying "God save the King". In the copies I've got now, published in the late 1980s, the parrot says "God save the Queen".

The books were published in the 1940s, i.e. during the reign of George VI, and it's clear from the level of technology, and in particular from specific references in The Valley of Adventure to the War only having been over for a few years, that they are not set in the 1980s when these editions were published, so why on earth was that changed :? ?

Author:  Lesley [ Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:57 am ]
Post subject: 

Because an idiot did the editing! If the text makes it obvious that the stories are set only a few years after the 2nd World War then it should be the King - they probably didn't read the whole text - just changed that bit to make it seem more modern! :roll:

Author:  Lizzie [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'd be very interested to know what prompted the massive cuts to Noel Langley's The Land of Green Ginger. I've never managed to track down an unedited version, but I'm told it's about 70 pages longer. It's such a shame, because although it's brilliant as it is, the old version is still thought to be better and so many people will never get a chance to read it because the old version stopped being in print in the 1960s (as far as I know, please, SOMEONE tell me I'm wrong!)

Author:  Catherine [ Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

In Tynemouth, there is a church, converted into a shopping centre, named the 'Land of Green Ginger' ... http://www.landof-greenginger.co.uk/index.html


Sorry ... I'll let you get back on topic now!! :D

All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/