[HPFGU-OTChatter] Editing literature to conform to current custom

[Mary Jennings]

Elkins, quoting Amanda:

> > > This alteration offends me because it changes the words the
> > > author chose.

Elkins replied:

> > One thing to keep in mind about "Just So Stories" is that
> > it is a children's book.  It was written for children (as
> > well as for adults), and it is read by children (as well as
> > by adults).  Many of the currently available editions of
> > this book are marketted specifically for children.

To which Amanda replied:

>So revisionism is okay for children's books. Just children's books? How
>young a child? Where do you draw the line?

IMO there are strong points on both sides of the argument.  I'm going to do 
my customary thing, which is wimp out and suggest a compromise.

A child who can read Kipling is probably old enough to understand the basics 
of the concept of "race" and discrimination.  On that basis, it would make 
sense to (a) keep the text true to the original and include 
footnotes/endnotes explaining that e.g. "nigger" was an acceptable term when 
Kipling wrote his stuff but that this term is now highly offensive, or (b) 
change the now-offensive words and include footnotes/endnotes explaining 
what the original words were and why they have been changed.  If the child 
is still confused, he/she can approach the parents for an explanation.

While I agree with Amanda that any type of change to the original text is 
akin to the rape of a virgin, Elkins is right in stating that many kids 
wouldn't understand the offensiveness of a lot of the old terms.  My young 
daughter came home from MIL's some months ago and sprouted the word 
"darkies".  It's a term MIL Dearest uses with relish, not because she's that 
much of a redneck (only somewhat so), but because she fails to see that 
though "darkies" was common 50 years ago it's an offensive term today 
(translation:  she's bloody ignorant).  I took Beth aside and explained that 
it's *not* a nice word to use and I didn't want her using it, even if Nanny 
did.  It goes without saying that I was livid at MIL.  Beth, of course, had 
no idea that it was an offensive term; she was simply repeating what she had 
heard.

Cindy also has a good point in regards to the differing translations of the 
Bible, but I would argue that translations are *always* iffy.  Kipling, 
however, wrote in modern English, which is why this situation is different 
from the Bible scenario.

See?  No flames anywhere ;)

Mary Ann
(who's impressed with her post as she hasn't had caffiene yet)

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com