Editing literature to conform to current custom

[naamagatus]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:

<snip>

> Mary Ann:
> 
> > 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.
>  
> Naama added:
> 
> > Paul wrote in Greek. So, ALL English versions of his writings are 
> >in  any case translations of the original.
> 
> 
<snip> 
> Then, to make the point that we already *do* tolerate changes to 
> authors' original words in other contexts, I suggested that no one 
> objects to the many modern translations of the Bible that are done 
> primarily to make it more accessible to the readers of today.  
> 
> Mary Ann responds that these translations are always iffy.  Yes, 
> they are.  So if it is OK to flat-out change the language of the 
> Bible (something that is already iffy before we start tinkering 
with 
> it to make it accessible), how can anyone maintain that it is 
> indefensible to delete a wicked racial slur from Kipling?  Indeed, 
> the reasons to delete what I consider to be the most heinous, 
> offensive, ugly racial slur that exists from "Just So Stories" 
> strike me as far more compelling than the reasons to change an 
> arcane phrase in the Bible like "Verily I say unto thee" to "Listen 
> up, this part is important."
> 
> Naama points out that Paul wrote portions of the Bible in Greek, so 
> we are already translating his words.  I think this is rather 
beside 
> the point.  If the only appropriate policy is not to change the 
> original words of the author, the logical conclusion is that Paul's 
> writings should only be offered up in the original *Greek.*  I 
think 
> that's rather silly, but that is where you wind up if you take the 
> position that the author's words should *never* be changed.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. You seem to equate 'translation' 
with 'changing the original words of the author'? If so, then I just 
flat out disagree with that equation. Translating Paul's Greek to 
English is not changing Paul's words, since it is presented *as* a 
translation. The problem of originality arises only when a text 
presents itself as the original. If the text is presented *as* a 
translation (or as abridged, or as otherwise different from the 
original), I have no problem with it. 

> In fact, there's ample precedent for changing literature to make it 
> more accessible *for kids.*  There are many English-language 
> versions of the Bible *for kids* where the text has been 
drastically 
> altered and simplified.  

Exactly. These texts most clearly do not presume to be the Bible, but 
merely a retelling of Bible stories in simplified language. 

 
> Naama:
>  
> > Kipling's text in English, however, is the original text that 
> >Kipling wrote. Changing words in his stories is problematic since 
> >the stories  are presented to the reader as the original Kipling 
> >stories (or so I  assume. Are the books marked as "sanitized" in 
> some way?).
> 
> This sounds like just a truth in advertising-type argument.  
Sure, 
> go ahead and add something to the title page explaining that 
> offensive racial slurs have been deleted.  I don't object to that; 
> it may already have been done with the work in question.  That 
> argument really doesn't get to the core issue:  should the deletion 
> of the N-word have been made in the first place?

For me the core issue is respect for the original text. If a text is 
not presented as the original text, then whatever changes have been 
put there are *not* changes to the text itself. The reader is (or can 
be) aware that the words he reads are different from the words the 
author wrote. If s/he cares about such things, s/he can go look up 
the original text. It's the same principle that guides the proper 
rules of quotation. Would you consider it a trivial matter if I 
presented something you wrote as a direct quotation when it's really 
a paraphrase? It's a form of violation, isn't it?

> 
> As for the argument that Kipling's words shouldn't be changed 
> because he originally wrote in English, it doesn't bear up well 
> under scrutiny.  If Kipling had written the book in French with the 
> same exact racial slur, and it had then been translated to English, 
> would it then be OK to delete the N-word?  That seems like an odd 
> place to draw a bright line.

I'd say that the same rule applies. It wouldn't be OK to just delete 
the N-word. The translation should be as close to the original as it 
possibly can. If the word is deleted in the translation, then, again, 
the text should be presented as "sanitized" (I don't know what term 
to use here. 'Abridged' is not it, right?).

> 
> Having a blanket policy that the author's original words are sacred 
> and can never be changed is unnecessarily extreme and leads to 
> rather silly results, IMHO.  

Well, that was precisely the kind of attitude that preserved the 
Hebrew Bible for so long. The differences between the Hebrew Bible I 
have at home and 1000 year old Bibles (and even, I think, the bits 
found in Qumran) are extroadinarily slight. Mutations were not 
permitted to creep in because every bit of the text was deemed holy - 
down to the punctuation marks. In principle, an entire Bible 
(manuscript) will be rejected for a single wrong letter. 
It's a problem that modern technology seems to have largely dispensed 
with. But ... the question of originality should never be treated 
lightly, IMO. 

<snip>
> 
>If you delete the N-word, 
> however, people like Amanda are still free to explain the whole 
> thing to their children, even to the point of explaining that she 
> won't tolerate anyone uttering the N-word in her home.  Doesn't 
that 
> indicate that the better policy might be to delete the slur in this 
> particular case?

But Amanda is a certified L.O.O.N (and also happened to have read the 
unedited text). What about people who have no idea that the N-word 
had been deleted? That choice just doesn't exist for them.

I'm with Amy on this issue. The offensive terms should be left in the 
text and footnotes added to clarify their meanings and connotations - 
past and present. 


Naama