Last week, I told you about the censorship of Roald Dahl’s booksamong which we find Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I saw it as a turning point in the publishing world.
The “sensibility readers” hired to strip the manuscripts of today and tomorrow of any commentary that might offend “minorities” are now turning to the works of the past to be rewritten and also erased.
I announced that other works would happen there. We’re already there.
censorship
The Telegraph teaches us that it’s Ian Fleming’s turn to get there. And especially the novels in the James Bond series, which now need to be purged of their racist rhetoric against black people – but not about Asians, who knows why.
Likewise, comments that offend homosexuals are maintained.
We should understand: According to what criteria should we describe a work?
Which identity groups are protected and which are not? And why does this rule change from author to author? And should we be content with deleting the passages that annoy us, or should we rewrite them to fully adapt them to the present day?
Do we have to rewrite Mordecai Richler’s books tomorrow where he threw up on Quebecers? Let it be known in advance that I would be against it.
subjects
More specifically, why was Roald Dahl’s rewrite specifically designed to challenge the negative portrayal of obesity and change his vision of women?
Why is Ian Fleming more focused on skin color?
Shouldn’t just common sense lead us to the conclusion that we must accept a work as it is, with its bumps of yesterday, that we have no right to alter it at our whim, and that the reader of our time this can do sense of things when reading?
