@@NUFAN1313 no, it is history - literary history in fact, just like Dracula, Shakespeare and Hercules are all fictional literary historic characters! (history doesn’t have to have been an event, it can also be works of art, literature or even geographical places 🤣)
@@nonyabizness.original i mean, they needed stories to scare them into not going places they were going to be eaten by wolves.... so ya know.... parents today would be upset if kids were sitting down watching horror movies, and it's basically the same thing
@@theadventuresofzoomandbettie no, letting a kid watch horror movies is basically the OPPOSITE thing from reading fairytales to them. your comment shows you know nothing about the imagination, reading, or fairytales. einstein never advised parents to let kids watch horror movies, but he did say “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairytales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairytales.” but hey, what did that guy know about intelligence, right?
@@nonyabizness.original they were the horror stories of the eras to those children, just the stories had "morals" as such to them: ie, go into the forest alone, and a witch might get you. Think about the grimm fairytales era. They were shockingly scary by todays standards. And they were meant to scare the kids to behave in certain ways. My response doesn't conflict with einsteins quote you've got there (though I'd never seen that before), but your comment shows you didn't understand my point at all. The jab at me saying einstein never told parents to show their kids horror movies a is pretty ridiculous stretch to try to form a point. I bet he never recommended a lot of things that aren't detracted from because they never got a mention from him. It was completely irrelevant to my point. When we speak of grimm fairy tales they were put together in books in the early 1800's, but the stories were from much earlier on than that - and that was where I was comparing something of this day, to that day. Not to einsteins world of the early to mid 1900s. Some fairy tales on record go back thousands of years. Again, it's not a terrible comparison to say stories that were meant to scare people, in an era long before film, could be the equivalent of today's scary movies. After all this, I still have no idea how you decided not only was I wrong, but that it was in fact the complete opposite. That makes no sense. Unless your version of fairy tales are the disney versions in your head.
this works for kids of the years where they have critical thinking skills, but probably would fly over the heads of young primary aged kids as a teaching tool
exactly. I read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn as a kid, some things felt out of place but I saw that as a snap shot of the time in which it was written. It helps give perspective, it helps one learn.
The saddest part of all this is that the changes are being masked in the conversation about some Culture War, when in reality it's the same problem the rest of the entertainment industry has. They want an inbuilt guaranteed profitable audience by purchasing established IP and churning out endless adaptions and reboots. There's a reason these changes were never enacted before Netflix purchased the Roald Dahl Story Company. The books are tangential merchandise and marketing tools for the upcoming Netflix shows. Their history of programming choices proves they don't care if something's controversial, as long as the controversy doesn't harm profit. This isn't a moral decision. It's a marketing ploy. But we all seem to buy into the disingenuous framing and rant at each other about Left Wing Censors and Right Wing Bigots instead of realising we're all being played by an amoral corporation that doesn't care about art or history beyond how well it lines their pockets.
I think you're reading to much into it. It was most likely just the decision of a few editors that didn't think it would matter and that it would be better. I think the new words steal the emotion and impact from the authors words and are just bland. There's nothing wrong with the original book, and if there was then that is something educational in that itself. Still I have no issue with Netflix, if they make something new they can do what they want with it. It's not some big conspiracy, companies are just trying to be inclusive and make money.
No, this analysis nails it. Feigning morality or care about hot button topics is a very effective way of manipulating people to increase sales. Corporations only care about shareholders because that's all they're mandated to care about. Money is the end goal.
Says the person with the username 'Mac Amhlaoibh' but an avatar with a family crest saying 'McAuliffe'. Somebody changed (in this case anglicised) the words, that's monstrous. I demand you change your avatar at once in the face of this obvious monstrosity. /s
Your username is missing the 'ḃ' and the 'ṁ' from Gaelic type, having substituted 'bh' and 'mh' from Latin type instead. This changing of your surname's author's words is monstruous. How dare you perpetuate this monstrosity, you better contact the BDM and demand they put the dots back at once. /s
I would say that practically the big difference here would be copyright. Nobody has a copyright on the bible so anybody can come out and distribute their own version, but with modern culture intellectual properties are owned by various sizes of companies who get to decide what versions should be commercially available. Of course there's also some people who are 'upset' just because they see this as more ammo for the culture wars or what have you... There are people who love being able to complain about 'political correctness gone mad' even if this is just a low-effort financially motivated move by a publisher to dust off and sell more of a IP that they own rather than taking a risk and coming out with something new. I'm probably just being overly cynical, but I don't know if I would be all that surprised if someone at the publisher had actually considered the controversy that this might stir up and had actually thought that that might make for good publicity: a minority of people getting upset over this and making noise about books that people otherwise wouldn't be talking about.
yeah, because sheltering childhood from everything that adults don't understand, or misunderstand, or don't agree with, or know nothing about, or are too fragile to deal with, or are ashamed of, or are guilty of, or are offended by, or have a personal distaste for, will allow children to grow up.... just like them.
They rewrote the bible many times. Took stuff out. Added words they prefered. No, dont edit the source. If you want to buy a copy and edit it, your choice.
@@ListenToPumpkinMusic Don't worry I won't. But it isn't that simple as publishing the redacted version violates the authenticity of the work/ revises history and people will read the new version unaware of how much things have changed
I heard this and bought them second hand before they were changed. It was a good reminder. I found nothing wrong with them as a kid. If you take away every hurtful word, a new hurtful word will take it's place. It's not about the words it's about how you use them, I have no issue telling myself I'm fat and I need to excercise more. When I read the book as a kid it just reminded me to eat healthy and excercise. People are being too silly, if you don't like the words, just change them when you read them to the kids. Don't change the reality of what was written. Even if it was a bad book by todays standards, reading it will give us insight on the past. If you forget the past, you're doomed to repeat it.
Censorship, plain and simple. Every decade or two society seems to swing back and forth like a pendulum between wanting total freedom of expression and thought, and then pearl clutching prudishness, moral outrage and censorship. Currently we're in the latter phase. Remember the past when violence in movies would supposedly turn everyone violent? Then it was video games. Now it's unsanitised language. Certain geoups think we need to shield everyone from anything remotely negative. It strips creativity and artistic lisence from the world. And remember, if it's not to your liking then it's probably not meant for you anyway.
Yes. Absolutely. If it's so old that the copyright has expired, then you can make a new version. Just like Sherlock Holmes or the Grimm fairy tales or the legend of King Arthur. Who cares.
Those who can write write, those who can’t do revisions of writers work. What next, rewrite Mein Kampf to avoid offending? Seriously, change is the only constant but that doesn’t mean changing the past, it means to change and evolve with the times. Some works; statues, books, art, become dated and social and moral attitudes evolve to leave them in their past., as is should. We cannot learn from the past if we sanitize it, surely we’ve learned that by now!
and how do you feel about the fact the bibles language has been updated a multitude of times throughout the years, to push whatever agenda the people of the time wanted?
Who is the one that decides that these books are written for children? After all do you truly believe that Nursery Rhymes were written for children? If so you might be missing the true meaning of the Rhymes.
What an absolute joke. Rewriting classic novels to suit the sensibilities of a fragile minority is insanely dumb. How is it possible to shelter the next generation more than they already are.
if it was just a fragile few, they wouldn't do it. They are 100% watching out for their bottom line, which means ensuring they get as many sales as possible, and if the reading tastes of new generations aren't buying those books anymore, then publishers either have to just let those books go from print, or figure out ways to attract modern audiences. societies move on as time progress, they always have. you could be having this same discussion about older books 50-100 years ago. the bible has had it's language updated a multitude of times over the years
Yes. Sure. Let people rewrite them. Just put it on the cover to make it clear that it's a rewrite pertaining to a particular time, i.e. "Book Title ('23 edit)" and be done with it. I believe very strongly in the death of the author. Once a work has entered the public consciousness it comes alive within us and the author may retain a copyright, but not a right over the dreams and hopes their works may have inspired, which may well lead to changes to the original work, frequently after the author's death. These edits aren't being taken lightly, they are made after careful thoughts with nothing but love for the original work and made in the desire to keep it alive and shared with the world. All these people here saying that books are a static work that should forever remain the same seem to be too young to understand that the contexts in which media is consumed changes all the time. Even if you don't believe in the death of the author I don't think it's the will of any author to see their work unchanged until the heat death of the universe. They want their work to not be a dead tree, they want it to remain talked about, to remain in the minds and mouths of future generations, and static works don't do that. Abridged versions exist. Changes in illustrations or printing take place all the time. New typography can liven up a work. Edits can make a book more accessible, the first Harry Potter book even had two different titles. Erratas are fundamental to any good textbook. Translations are a fundamental part of publishing, and that includes translations from Old and Middle and even older Modern English. You are watching this video not through a black-and-white television. The best thing we can do is to ensure that the original works are preserved and accessible. That is fundamental. Nobody should ever touch the original work and the original work must remain accessible (one compromise might be to maybe include an errata at the back of the new edition of the book, together with an explanatory text as to why it changed). But then, separate to that, build on what we have. If we have a work, the spirit and text of which is about how to express your care or your love, then it should change in slight ways if the ways in which we express care and our love changes too. It's either that or the work will fall into irrelevance and be replaced with works more reflective of the times. I may not like what J. K. Rowling or Scott Orson Card have to say these days but their books will always be some of my favourites and if I didn't believe in the death of the author it would be hard to do that. I don't want to spend my days thinking about whether I'm allowed to read Harry Potter because J. K. said something horrifyingly transphobic again, and I'm not going to think twice if a Roald Dahl books shows up with maybe five adjectives changed. All this is just irrelevant interruptions when you're trying to fall into the most amazing literary universes.
Absolutely not!!!, children of today hear more bad language at home and at school, these books are a snap shot of history, we are lucky to have them!
If we do not know where we came from, we cannot tell how far we've come. Rewriting classic books is rewriting history.
no not unless your rewriting the history books like the republicans in America are trying to do
Except it's not rewriting history. It's rewriting literal fiction and it's ok to adapt it to suit the current era.
@@NUFAN1313 no, it is history - literary history in fact, just like Dracula, Shakespeare and Hercules are all fictional literary historic characters! (history doesn’t have to have been an event, it can also be works of art, literature or even geographical places 🤣)
Should classic children's books be rewritten to return to the original Grimm endings?
Yes!
oh my, kids who were read the original versions, over hundreds of years, grew up to be... just fine.
@@nonyabizness.original i mean, they needed stories to scare them into not going places they were going to be eaten by wolves.... so ya know.... parents today would be upset if kids were sitting down watching horror movies, and it's basically the same thing
@@theadventuresofzoomandbettie no, letting a kid watch horror movies is basically the OPPOSITE thing from reading fairytales to them. your comment shows you know nothing about the imagination, reading, or fairytales.
einstein never advised parents to let kids watch horror movies, but he did say “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairytales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairytales.”
but hey, what did that guy know about intelligence, right?
@@nonyabizness.original they were the horror stories of the eras to those children, just the stories had "morals" as such to them: ie, go into the forest alone, and a witch might get you. Think about the grimm fairytales era. They were shockingly scary by todays standards. And they were meant to scare the kids to behave in certain ways. My response doesn't conflict with einsteins quote you've got there (though I'd never seen that before), but your comment shows you didn't understand my point at all. The jab at me saying einstein never told parents to show their kids horror movies a is pretty ridiculous stretch to try to form a point. I bet he never recommended a lot of things that aren't detracted from because they never got a mention from him. It was completely irrelevant to my point. When we speak of grimm fairy tales they were put together in books in the early 1800's, but the stories were from much earlier on than that - and that was where I was comparing something of this day, to that day. Not to einsteins world of the early to mid 1900s. Some fairy tales on record go back thousands of years. Again, it's not a terrible comparison to say stories that were meant to scare people, in an era long before film, could be the equivalent of today's scary movies. After all this, I still have no idea how you decided not only was I wrong, but that it was in fact the complete opposite. That makes no sense. Unless your version of fairy tales are the disney versions in your head.
As a teacher, I would use the language as a teaching moment, rather than just editing out something someone else wrote ages ago. Just my opinion.
That would be a smart move ey it's a shame
this works for kids of the years where they have critical thinking skills, but probably would fly over the heads of young primary aged kids as a teaching tool
exactly. I read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn as a kid, some things felt out of place but I saw that as a snap shot of the time in which it was written.
It helps give perspective, it helps one learn.
@@theadventuresofzoomandbettie no it wouldn't fly over primary school kids heads, don't treat them as stupid, kids are quite smart.
Books lead to teachable moments!
Books absolutely should not be rewritten!
This is crazy!!!
The saddest part of all this is that the changes are being masked in the conversation about some Culture War, when in reality it's the same problem the rest of the entertainment industry has. They want an inbuilt guaranteed profitable audience by purchasing established IP and churning out endless adaptions and reboots. There's a reason these changes were never enacted before Netflix purchased the Roald Dahl Story Company. The books are tangential merchandise and marketing tools for the upcoming Netflix shows. Their history of programming choices proves they don't care if something's controversial, as long as the controversy doesn't harm profit. This isn't a moral decision. It's a marketing ploy.
But we all seem to buy into the disingenuous framing and rant at each other about Left Wing Censors and Right Wing Bigots instead of realising we're all being played by an amoral corporation that doesn't care about art or history beyond how well it lines their pockets.
I think you're reading to much into it. It was most likely just the decision of a few editors that didn't think it would matter and that it would be better.
I think the new words steal the emotion and impact from the authors words and are just bland. There's nothing wrong with the original book, and if there was then that is something educational in that itself.
Still I have no issue with Netflix, if they make something new they can do what they want with it. It's not some big conspiracy, companies are just trying to be inclusive and make money.
No, this analysis nails it. Feigning morality or care about hot button topics is a very effective way of manipulating people to increase sales. Corporations only care about shareholders because that's all they're mandated to care about. Money is the end goal.
Changing an author's words is monstrous.
Violation to d writer! It should be enjoyed as it is otherwise skip it. There's so many other books...
Says the person with the username 'Mac Amhlaoibh' but an avatar with a family crest saying 'McAuliffe'. Somebody changed (in this case anglicised) the words, that's monstrous. I demand you change your avatar at once in the face of this obvious monstrosity. /s
Your username is missing the 'ḃ' and the 'ṁ' from Gaelic type, having substituted 'bh' and 'mh' from Latin type instead. This changing of your surname's author's words is monstruous. How dare you perpetuate this monstrosity, you better contact the BDM and demand they put the dots back at once. /s
No leave them alone. What is wrong with these people.
I heard more bad language back in school than I do now as an adult, and I'm not exactly old...
Sounds like 1984…. Y’all should read it….
Why are people getting upset about this? The bible has been re-written over and over again.
I would say that practically the big difference here would be copyright. Nobody has a copyright on the bible so anybody can come out and distribute their own version, but with modern culture intellectual properties are owned by various sizes of companies who get to decide what versions should be commercially available.
Of course there's also some people who are 'upset' just because they see this as more ammo for the culture wars or what have you... There are people who love being able to complain about 'political correctness gone mad' even if this is just a low-effort financially motivated move by a publisher to dust off and sell more of a IP that they own rather than taking a risk and coming out with something new.
I'm probably just being overly cynical, but I don't know if I would be all that surprised if someone at the publisher had actually considered the controversy that this might stir up and had actually thought that that might make for good publicity: a minority of people getting upset over this and making noise about books that people otherwise wouldn't be talking about.
Let me fix that title for you:
Should history be rewritten to remove offensive language?
its fiction, not history in your opinion we should find books that have had the n-word removed and add it back in
Just put a sensitive section next to the tissue box in the library and move on
imagine being offended by Roald Dahl, what a joke
yeah, because sheltering childhood from everything that adults don't understand, or misunderstand, or don't agree with, or know nothing about, or are too fragile to deal with, or are ashamed of, or are guilty of, or are offended by, or have a personal distaste for, will allow children to grow up.... just like them.
They rewrote the bible many times. Took stuff out. Added words they prefered. No, dont edit the source. If you want to buy a copy and edit it, your choice.
It isn't ok. If you don't like them. Don't read them
Same applies to newer editions. If you don't like them, don't read them. You have decades of older editions to read instead.
@@ListenToPumpkinMusic Don't worry I won't. But it isn't that simple as publishing the redacted version violates the authenticity of the work/ revises history and people will read the new version unaware of how much things have changed
NO!!
I heard this and bought them second hand before they were changed. It was a good reminder. I found nothing wrong with them as a kid.
If you take away every hurtful word, a new hurtful word will take it's place.
It's not about the words it's about how you use them, I have no issue telling myself I'm fat and I need to excercise more.
When I read the book as a kid it just reminded me to eat healthy and excercise.
People are being too silly, if you don't like the words, just change them when you read them to the kids. Don't change the reality of what was written.
Even if it was a bad book by todays standards, reading it will give us insight on the past.
If you forget the past, you're doomed to repeat it.
Absolutely NOT!
Censorship, plain and simple. Every decade or two society seems to swing back and forth like a pendulum between wanting total freedom of expression and thought, and then pearl clutching prudishness, moral outrage and censorship. Currently we're in the latter phase. Remember the past when violence in movies would supposedly turn everyone violent? Then it was video games. Now it's unsanitised language. Certain geoups think we need to shield everyone from anything remotely negative. It strips creativity and artistic lisence from the world. And remember, if it's not to your liking then it's probably not meant for you anyway.
Should be a teaching moment just like we look at mien kumph and use it as a teaching moment
Not for little kids we don't.
no they should not
No they shouldn’t be edited, what is seen as incorrect now, we will probably scoff at in years to come 😂
I think I would rather have it clearly say it's a revised version (or based apon the story by such and such author.... )
No.
Yes. Absolutely. If it's so old that the copyright has expired, then you can make a new version. Just like Sherlock Holmes or the Grimm fairy tales or the legend of King Arthur. Who cares.
Those who can write write, those who can’t do revisions of writers work. What next, rewrite Mein Kampf to avoid offending? Seriously, change is the only constant but that doesn’t mean changing the past, it means to change and evolve with the times. Some works; statues, books, art, become dated and social and moral attitudes evolve to leave them in their past., as is should. We cannot learn from the past if we sanitize it, surely we’ve learned that by now!
and how do you feel about the fact the bibles language has been updated a multitude of times throughout the years, to push whatever agenda the people of the time wanted?
Our generation turned out all good, why wouldn't theirs 🤷♂️
Censorship is wrong at all costs
How about we band politicians from coffee shops etc
NO !!!
I hope that they won't rewrite the Sideways Stories from Wayside School series of books.... or censor the Wayside cartoon....
Who is the one that decides that these books are written for children? After all do you truly believe that Nursery Rhymes were written for children? If so you might be missing the true meaning of the Rhymes.
What an absolute joke. Rewriting classic novels to suit the sensibilities of a fragile minority is insanely dumb. How is it possible to shelter the next generation more than they already are.
😂😂😂
It's called business. I thought you conservative boomers loved the idea of business running the world...oh sorry, only when it suits you?
if it was just a fragile few, they wouldn't do it. They are 100% watching out for their bottom line, which means ensuring they get as many sales as possible, and if the reading tastes of new generations aren't buying those books anymore, then publishers either have to just let those books go from print, or figure out ways to attract modern audiences. societies move on as time progress, they always have. you could be having this same discussion about older books 50-100 years ago. the bible has had it's language updated a multitude of times over the years
definately NOT
Definately not
No kids books do not not need to be redone
Does this mean we also need to rewrite movie scripts and most songs
NO NEVER!
Omg wtf is wrong with people,political correctness strikes again
Ridiculous
NOOOOOOO!
Elon have you got a spare ticket? I need to get off this planet..
Yes. Sure. Let people rewrite them. Just put it on the cover to make it clear that it's a rewrite pertaining to a particular time, i.e. "Book Title ('23 edit)" and be done with it. I believe very strongly in the death of the author. Once a work has entered the public consciousness it comes alive within us and the author may retain a copyright, but not a right over the dreams and hopes their works may have inspired, which may well lead to changes to the original work, frequently after the author's death. These edits aren't being taken lightly, they are made after careful thoughts with nothing but love for the original work and made in the desire to keep it alive and shared with the world.
All these people here saying that books are a static work that should forever remain the same seem to be too young to understand that the contexts in which media is consumed changes all the time. Even if you don't believe in the death of the author I don't think it's the will of any author to see their work unchanged until the heat death of the universe. They want their work to not be a dead tree, they want it to remain talked about, to remain in the minds and mouths of future generations, and static works don't do that. Abridged versions exist. Changes in illustrations or printing take place all the time. New typography can liven up a work. Edits can make a book more accessible, the first Harry Potter book even had two different titles. Erratas are fundamental to any good textbook. Translations are a fundamental part of publishing, and that includes translations from Old and Middle and even older Modern English. You are watching this video not through a black-and-white television.
The best thing we can do is to ensure that the original works are preserved and accessible. That is fundamental. Nobody should ever touch the original work and the original work must remain accessible (one compromise might be to maybe include an errata at the back of the new edition of the book, together with an explanatory text as to why it changed). But then, separate to that, build on what we have. If we have a work, the spirit and text of which is about how to express your care or your love, then it should change in slight ways if the ways in which we express care and our love changes too. It's either that or the work will fall into irrelevance and be replaced with works more reflective of the times. I may not like what J. K. Rowling or Scott Orson Card have to say these days but their books will always be some of my favourites and if I didn't believe in the death of the author it would be hard to do that. I don't want to spend my days thinking about whether I'm allowed to read Harry Potter because J. K. said something horrifyingly transphobic again, and I'm not going to think twice if a Roald Dahl books shows up with maybe five adjectives changed. All this is just irrelevant interruptions when you're trying to fall into the most amazing literary universes.
Are you insane....?
Kids don't read books LOL
@Michelle Emm their parents read to them
No
no no no no
1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual
No
No.