|
Post by cromagnonman on Sept 1, 2020 12:24:08 GMT
On the topic of expurgation, I was just using the "Look Inside" function at you-know-where to check out the contents for the BL Weird Woods collection and spotted this on the copyright page, immediately after the usual "Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders..." statement - These stories are presented as they were originally published and as such contain language in common usage at the time of their writing. Neither the publisher nor the editor endorses any language that would now be considered xenophobic or offensive.I don't think I have ever seen this before, and it isn't in any of the other BL Tales of The Weird books I have. Not sure if there's something especially problematic lurking in the woods, or if it's just how some publishers are now choosing to deal with the issue in general. Either way, I'd say it's the right approach to take. Now you see my attitude would be that that is a weasley caveat. The publisher seems to be saying, yes we want to make money out of this but don't blame us if you tissue skinned millennials find anything offensive or objectionable in it. That is a position wholly without courage or conviction. If a publisher identifies some socio-political issue with vintage material then don't publish it. But trying to straddle two stools of commerciality and non accountability is singularly pathetic. Personally I find this modern imperative for either qualifying or apologising for the attitudes and mores of the past profoundly patronising. Although it ill behoves me on principle to agree with ST Joshi on anything he was quite right to point out how arrogant it is for anyone now to believe that we have achieved some sort of ethical perfection in our own times and that the people of the future wont find cause to hold our own attitudes to account the same way some now delight in sanctimoniously vilifying the past.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Sept 1, 2020 13:31:12 GMT
These stories are presented as they were originally published and as such contain language in common usage at the time of their writing. Neither the publisher nor the editor endorses any language that would now be considered xenophobic or offensive. Now you see my attitude would be that that is a weasley caveat. The publisher seems to be saying, yes we want to make money out of this but don't blame us if you tissue skinned millennials find anything offensive or objectionable in it. That is a position wholly without courage or conviction. If a publisher identifies some socio-political issue with vintage material then don't publish it. But trying to straddle two stools of commerciality and non accountability is singularly pathetic. Personally I find this modern imperative for either qualifying or apologising for the attitudes and mores of the past profoundly patronising. Although it ill behoves me on principle to agree with ST Joshi on anything he was quite right to point out how arrogant it is for anyone now to believe that we have achieved some sort of ethical perfection in our own times and that the people of the future wont find cause to hold our own attitudes to account the same way some now delight in sanctimoniously vilifying the past. I get what you are saying, though there's some of it that I don't entirely agree with. It is definitely a caveat (in the sense of a warning), but I don't see how it shows a lack of conviction - they are saying they have decided to publish the stories in their original, when they could have done otherwise. If they have identified an actual or potential "issue", then I think that's better than if they couldn't see it, and am surprised that you say you'd rather they didn't publish the story. And given the conversation here about the Conan stories, isn't it a plus to know that you're not getting a bowlderized version? I guess it could be taken as patronizing - though there's something ironic about being offended by a warning telling you that you might be offended. Or it might just be good business sense - who knows, some people might buy it in the hope of being offended. Personally, I am somewhat curious to find out if there is anything specific in the book that has led to this. I don't get the Joshi thing though - was he really arguing that we should only criticize the attitudes of the past when we've achieved ethical perfection ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Sept 1, 2020 15:14:15 GMT
Now you see my attitude would be that that is a weasley caveat. The publisher seems to be saying, yes we want to make money out of this but don't blame us if you tissue skinned millennials find anything offensive or objectionable in it. That is a position wholly without courage or conviction. If a publisher identifies some socio-political issue with vintage material then don't publish it. But trying to straddle two stools of commerciality and non accountability is singularly pathetic. Personally I find this modern imperative for either qualifying or apologising for the attitudes and mores of the past profoundly patronising. Although it ill behoves me on principle to agree with ST Joshi on anything he was quite right to point out how arrogant it is for anyone now to believe that we have achieved some sort of ethical perfection in our own times and that the people of the future wont find cause to hold our own attitudes to account the same way some now delight in sanctimoniously vilifying the past. I get what you are saying, though there's some of it that I don't entirely agree with. It is definitely a caveat (in the sense of a warning), but I don't think it shows a lack of conviction - they are saying they have decided to publish the stories in their original, when they could have done otherwise. If they have identified an actual or potential "issue", that's better than if they couldn't see it. I'm surprised that you seem to say you'd rather they didn't publish them at all. And given the conversation here about the Conan stories, isn't it a plus to know that you're not getting a bowlderized version? I guess it could be taken as patronizing - though there's some irony about being offended by a warning telling you that you might be offended. Or it might just be good business sense - who knows, some people might buy it in the hope of being offended. Personally, I am somewhat curious to find out if there is anything specific in the book that has led to this. I don't get the Joshi thing though - was he really arguing that we should only criticize the attitudes of the past if we've achieved ethical perfection ourselves? Unedited texts accompanied by a qualification are preferable to sneakily bowdlerized versions masquerading as full texts certainly. But I don't think it says much about the critical mental fibre prevailing today that books have to be qualified at all. Are people today really so mentally fragile that they have to be forewarned and protected against challenging sentiments or ideas? The conflict in confronting opposing thoughts to our own is what helps shape our critical faculties. Or at least that used to be the case. But now the view seems to be that people need to be insulated from anything that clashes with prevailing mores. I'm not offended by this practice. I just think its absurd. But if it were to prove a stepping stone to cinema style certification then it wouldn't surprise me in the least: this book is rated SSA - Safe Space Advisory.
Joshi was responding to the furore over the HPL effigy and the World Fantasy Awards. He was pointing out how absurd it was to apply modern censure to a man dead for eight decades when the people objecting were just as likely to find their own sanctimonious attitudes open to question eight decades hence.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Sept 1, 2020 15:31:33 GMT
Thanks Crom, and I do agree with all of that. And I'd also like to see a similar caveat used if bowlderized versions are published, maybe something like -
These stories are not presented as they were originally published, but have been altered to try to avoid causing offence. Neither the publisher nor the editor wants to have to deal with people being upset or offended by language that was in common usage at the time they were written.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Sept 1, 2020 15:49:23 GMT
(rofl)How perfectly put, Dr S. I've bored on about it before - and oh look I'm doing it again - but anyone who thinks they are living in an era when we have reached the peak of human understanding so that we can look down on the past and doesn't realise that their own views may look equally as 'wrong' in fifty years time is a bloody fool. Equally, in an unforgiving mood, I do wonder if anyone who doesn't have the ability to take any views or language used in old books or films in context is actually smart enough to be reading or watching.
Having said that, I do think the caveat is worth using. My reasoning being that by so doing, you are cutting off the prime complaint of idiots that they weren't expecting such material. It also saves endless explaining about why you might be issuing it, which if I was a publisher I would want to avoid like the plague when I could be doing something far more productive with my time.
Discovering stuff that you disagree with, and honing your arguments why, is part of the kind of analytical thought that seems to be disappearing fast in an age where if you can't write it on a placard or put it in a tweet then it's just too difficult to consider.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Sept 1, 2020 15:51:40 GMT
But I don't think it says much about the critical mental fibre prevailing today that books have to be qualified at all. Are people today really so mentally fragile that they have to be forewarned and protected against challenging sentiments or ideas? I guess if you live in a society where people sue because they think a movie-trailer is "misleading" or the accusation of creating a "toxic" environment at work can cost you your job I can understand that such a label is seen as a precaution. "You have been warned, so don't complain".
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 3, 2020 9:01:29 GMT
I think I shall skip the Del Rey Kull. And settle with my old Baen edition.
Someone complained that the Del Rey BRAN MAK MORN has fillers. But I don't know. I see that they have included Howard's horror tales of the little people in this edition. And somehow that seems very fitting. The little people belong most appropriately in that time era, from the early Roman times and through the Dark Ages, up until the Renaissance when the Christian church finally had total dominance over Europe and the pagan had to go into hiding.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Sept 3, 2020 12:24:26 GMT
Someone complained that the Del Rey BRAN MAK MORN has fillers. Yes, damned inconsiderate of Howard not to have written more Bran stories. The compilatory demands of a book published eight decades after his death should have been obvious to him.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 3, 2020 18:14:58 GMT
There be good filler and there be bad filler, as the pirates say of their quilt.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 4, 2020 11:13:07 GMT
Filler, or not, the Del Rey Bran Mak Morn doesn't have "The Gods of Bal-Sagoth" (included in Baen) or "The Grey God Passes".
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 4, 2020 11:27:32 GMT
Does anyone know if "Marchers of Valhalla" is available in an ebook? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Sept 4, 2020 13:50:01 GMT
Does anyone know if "The Marchers of Valhalla" is available in an ebook? Thanks! To the best of my knowledge it isn't, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Sept 4, 2020 17:11:07 GMT
Does anyone know if "The Marchers of Valhalla" is available in an ebook? Thanks! It can be read on archive org. (Which of course isn't the same.) The Berkley edition.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 4, 2020 17:32:20 GMT
Does anyone know if "The Marchers of Valhalla" is available in an ebook? Thanks! It can be read on archive org. (Which of course isn't the same.) The Berkley edition. Thanks! But as you say, that is not quite what I am looking for. I also have it on paper, in several different forms, including a Donald M Grant edition, and have read it many times. No, what I want now is to get it into my Kindles. I forget why this story is missing from so many "complete" collections. Is it because it was never published in Howard's lifetime? Does Grant own the copyright to it?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Sept 4, 2020 17:37:23 GMT
Filler, or not, the Del Rey Bran Mak Morn doesn't have "The Gods of Bal-Sagoth" (included in Baen) or "The Grey God Passes". Aside the Bean edition some foreign Bran editions include the "The Gods of Bal-Sagoth" but not "The Grey God Passes". Which is understandable as it is quite removed from the Roman Britain of the Bran stories. I always wondered why Bran merits his own book. You can count him of course as the fourth major fantasy hero - Conan, Kull, Kane and Bran -, of Howard, but he is only the protagonist of two stories. James Allison has three.
|
|