Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rjsterry

Amending books is fine. Not sure I can see a huge improvement in the examples I have seen but don't see a big issue. I do think we don't give children enough credit for being able to think critically about what they are reading. A spot on Today and asking the PM for his views, though? Really?

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

Amending books is fine. Not sure I can see a huge improvement in the examples I have seen but don't see a big issue. I do think we don't give children enough credit for being able to think critically about what they are reading. A spot on Today and asking the PM for his views, though? Really?

I assume the PM said that it was none of his business what a private company did with its intellectual property, on the grounds of free speech.

Jezyboy

I realise two wrongs don't make a right, but I find it interesting how parents are concerned with instances of Roald Dahl's slightly of it's time language. Given that in a few years time, those same children will get exposed to Andrew Tate (or whatever the equivalent becomes).

Especially given that the books are likely to be read with the parents.

rjsterry

There's been a few comparisons with Walliams's books (which obviously haven't been re-edited). Not read many of them, but bits of Gangster Granny are just littered with lazy stereotypes of the kind that even Little Britain would have thought a bit crass.

monkimark

The changes I have seen seem pretty minor, I'm sure more aggressive editing is done to most books between writing and publication.
If they could cut out all the boring car maintenance stuff out of Danny the Champion Of The World, my kids would certainly appreciate it.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Amending books is fine. Not sure I can see a huge improvement in the examples I have seen but don't see a big issue. I do think we don't give children enough credit for being able to think critically about what they are reading. A spot on Today and asking the PM for his views, though? Really?

I don't think books should be amended beyond typos. I don't understand the Great Expectation discussion beyond people thinking it could have been better.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Amending books is fine. Not sure I can see a huge improvement in the examples I have seen but don't see a big issue. I do think we don't give children enough credit for being able to think critically about what they are reading. A spot on Today and asking the PM for his views, though? Really?

I don't think books should be amended beyond typos. I don't understand the Great Expectation discussion beyond people thinking it could have been better.

Are you suggesting that it didn't meet their grand expectations? 😉

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Amending books is fine. Not sure I can see a huge improvement in the examples I have seen but don't see a big issue. I do think we don't give children enough credit for being able to think critically about what they are reading. A spot on Today and asking the PM for his views, though? Really?

I don't think books should be amended beyond typos. I don't understand the Great Expectation discussion beyond people thinking it could have been better.

Are you suggesting that it didn't meet their grand expectations? 😉

A last minute Hollywood sub from Dickens meant it wasn't sufficiently miserable for the connoisseurs.

rick_chasey

Haha, it's just another version of "we're bringing up our children differently, don't take it personally" that everyone has with their parents when they become grandparents etc.

"I read your Roald Dahl as a kid and you turned out OK". Mmmm did I?

Jezyboy

Meh, I should imagine most of my fellow millennial friends would also find it incredibly stupid.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Amending books is fine. Not sure I can see a huge improvement in the examples I have seen but don't see a big issue. I do think we don't give children enough credit for being able to think critically about what they are reading. A spot on Today and asking the PM for his views, though? Really?

I don't think books should be amended beyond typos. I don't understand the Great Expectation discussion beyond people thinking it could have been better.

Books are edited before publication as a matter of routine. This is just another edit. I'm not sure it was needed - seriously there are far more objectionable children's books, but it should barely make the trade press, let alone national news/PM asked for comment.

kingstongraham

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

pinno

monkimark said:

The changes I have seen seem pretty minor, I'm sure more aggressive editing is done to most books between writing and publication.
If they could cut out all the boring car maintenance stuff out of Danny the Champion Of The World, my kids would certainly appreciate it.

All those pheasants in 1 pram...

monkimark

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

briantrumpet

monkimark said:

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

I was having a conversation with a pupil (who's learning 'Consider Yourself') about the problematic representation of Fagin in the 60's film (hooked nose and all), and similarly Shakespeare's Shylock is more than a little 'awkward' now.

I've no idea what the answer is.

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

monkimark said:

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

I was having a conversation with a pupil (who's learning 'Consider Yourself') about the problematic representation of Fagin in the 60's film (hooked nose and all), and similarly Shakespeare's Shylock is more than a little 'awkward' now.

I've no idea what the answer is.

There's only two answers. Blot them out and pretend that they never happened.
Or acknowledge they happened, point out the errors and how we've moved on.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

monkimark said:

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

I was having a conversation with a pupil (who's learning 'Consider Yourself') about the problematic representation of Fagin in the 60's film (hooked nose and all), and similarly Shakespeare's Shylock is more than a little 'awkward' now.

I've no idea what the answer is.

There's only two answers. Blot them out and pretend that they never happened.
Or acknowledge they happened, point out the errors and how we've moved on.

Or there's a muddle somewhere in between, on a case-by-case basis.

I must admit that the whole Jewish thing passed me by for years, not least as I had no idea which people in the public eye were Jewish until some news item cropped up that involved it (e.g. Leon Brittan - up to that point, I'd not even thought about it), or if it was an important part of their public identity (e.g. David Baddiel, or Maureen Lipman). My ignorance makes me entirely unqualified to make any pronouncements, I suspect.

monkimark

I had no concept about anti Jewish prejudice until I read the merchant of Venice at school.

Our English teacher had to teach us what they were, then justify why Shakespeare had written it and then discuss why they were wrong and should be dismissed - which took us nicely back to where we started the lesson.

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

monkimark said:

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

I was having a conversation with a pupil (who's learning 'Consider Yourself') about the problematic representation of Fagin in the 60's film (hooked nose and all), and similarly Shakespeare's Shylock is more than a little 'awkward' now.

I've no idea what the answer is.

There's only two answers. Blot them out and pretend that they never happened.
Or acknowledge they happened, point out the errors and how we've moved on.

Or there's a muddle somewhere in between, on a case-by-case basis.

...

No doubt that's where we will end up as upsetting nobody is an impossible task when it comes to correctness. Imo a comprise is the worst of both ends and ruins the intent..

surrey_commuter

Having gone through these various books with my kids I have pondered why the classics like Robinson Crusoe, Tom Sawyer and Treasure Island have not been rewritten to make them more accessible to the modern day audience. This would involve updating the language and casual racism.

rick_chasey

Colleagues in different teams doing work for crypto firms.

Not really happy about it, can't do anything about it.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Colleagues in different teams doing work for crypto firms.

Not really happy about it, can't do anything about it.

we did a fair bit of work with crypto firms and I ended up on the front line of due diligence. I looked back and when FTX crossed my radar I flat rejected it as it had too many red flags. It baffles me that the likes of Softbank put money in when a clown with an internet connection could see it was dodgy.

Anyway, not all crypto firms are dodgy

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

monkimark said:

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

I was having a conversation with a pupil (who's learning 'Consider Yourself') about the problematic representation of Fagin in the 60's film (hooked nose and all), and similarly Shakespeare's Shylock is more than a little 'awkward' now.

I've no idea what the answer is.

There's only two answers. Blot them out and pretend that they never happened.
Or acknowledge they happened, point out the errors and how we've moved on.

Or there's a muddle somewhere in between, on a case-by-case basis.

...

No doubt that's where we will end up as upsetting nobody is an impossible task when it comes to correctness. Imo a comprise is the worst of both ends and ruins the intent..

I think people need to distinguish between reactionary grumbling about anything changing and, say, antisemitism. The test is not whether someone is 'upset'.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Having gone through these various books with my kids I have pondered why the classics like Robinson Crusoe, Tom Sawyer and Treasure Island have not been rewritten to make them more accessible to the modern day audience. This would involve updating the language and casual racism.

Just don’t read them and let them become a part of history. I don’t see the point in re-writing bits of books or remaking films to make them more palatable to modern sensibilities. Either let them stand or fall on their own merits or actively use them as an example of historic attitudes and why those attitudes needed to be changed.

Trying to change the past is ridiculous, far matter to use the mistakes as a warning to shape the future.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

monkimark said:

As long as they don't go all wokey dokey and stop calling Tiny Tim a cripple, I think that's probably OK.

kingstongraham said:

They'll be putting muppets into Dickens next.

I was having a conversation with a pupil (who's learning 'Consider Yourself') about the problematic representation of Fagin in the 60's film (hooked nose and all), and similarly Shakespeare's Shylock is more than a little 'awkward' now.

I've no idea what the answer is.

There's only two answers. Blot them out and pretend that they never happened.
Or acknowledge they happened, point out the errors and how we've moved on.

Or there's a muddle somewhere in between, on a case-by-case basis.

...

No doubt that's where we will end up as upsetting nobody is an impossible task when it comes to correctness. Imo a comprise is the worst of both ends and ruins the intent..

I think people need to distinguish between reactionary grumbling about anything changing and, say, antisemitism. The test is not whether someone is 'upset'.

As Pros says above...^^^

kingstongraham

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Having gone through these various books with my kids I have pondered why the classics like Robinson Crusoe, Tom Sawyer and Treasure Island have not been rewritten to make them more accessible to the modern day audience. This would involve updating the language and casual racism.

Just don’t read them and let them become a part of history. I don’t see the point in re-writing bits of books or remaking films to make them more palatable to modern sensibilities. Either let them stand or fall on their own merits or actively use them as an example of historic attitudes and why those attitudes needed to be changed.

Trying to change the past is ridiculous, far matter to use the mistakes as a warning to shape the future.

What if you are the rights owner, and want to continue making money out of them?

I imagine that the reason the above haven't been extensively rewritten is because there's no money in it for those books that are out of copyright.

Pross

The book is the book though. Edits in discussion with the original author are fine. If you want things changed they disagree with or they are dead just write a new book. Would it be OK, for example, to get a contemporary artist to make alterations to the Mona Lisa if someone decided the original had features that were classed offensive in today’s society?

laurentian

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Colleagues in different teams doing work for crypto firms.

Not really happy about it, can't do anything about it.

we did a fair bit of work with crypto firms and I ended up on the front line of due diligence. I looked back and when FTX crossed my radar I flat rejected it as it had too many red flags. It baffles me that the likes of Softbank put money in when a clown with an internet connection could see it was dodgy.

Anyway, not all crypto firms are dodgy

Not sure I believe that.

Liquidity seems to be provided exclusively by marks who will eventually lose it all.

orraloon

surrey_commuter said:

Anyway, not all crypto firms are dodgy

So which one isn't dodgy?