Copyright is already too restrictive. I’d prefer seeing works enter the public domain twenty-some years after creation.
I’d legitimately have no problem with that. It’s how history works. And if you have to change a couple of paragraphs in something I wrote because the audiences in 2123 mightn’t like it, what that means is that I’m being read in 2123! Go ahead, change a few words, thanks for the follow, future readers of mine!
And to say that capitalism has nothing to do with art when you referenced a mans estate who announced some changes in a couple of books as to boost their goodwill (a balance sheet issue) is funny, funny, funny.
That’d be great, definitely.
OK, that’s a consistent approach, even if I disagree both in principle, and with your statement that it’s how history works.
Perhaps you’ll be fine with the 2123 rewriting of your works. Perhaps the next one will not have a single word in common with what you wrote, but still have your name on it.
As far as I’m concerned, sensitivity readers are no better than the right-wing trolls who demand some books be banned because they offend their precious sensibilities. It’s easier to hide, ban, mutilate or destroy what one doesn’t like than to take a step back and think.
In 2123, I fully expect to be dead. If my child wants to change my books so she can keep the gravy train rolling, more power to her. I love my child.
It’s not like we live in a world without versions.
Fair enough.
Not all writers feel this way, though.
I guess that’s where we differ. I don’t see trans affirming care as child abuse.
Not completely irrelevant. Just far less relevant than actual citable facts.
Right, he is angry because he has no agency of his own to make his own choices.
Really? It’s just one form of editing. People voluntarily ask for others to read their works to see if there is anything in them that would upset or offend their potential audience. They are not mandatory, they are just looking for feedback from another perspective before they make their work public.
It’s no different from a focus group to tell if the newest design of a laundry detergent box label will be more attractive to consumers.
See, that’s one of the reasons why it’s useful to explain what exactly it is that you have problems with. Now that you know that there is no one " judging what can and what cannot be said and rewriting novels", do you feel differently about that? A little lease unease, maybe?
I really don’t agree with your opinion that reading something and giving your opinion on how it will be received by your target audience checks any much less all of those boxes, and I have to admit to being curious as to what misinformation you have been exposed to to give you such animosity to a very common and long accepted peer review process?
Except that they are not demanding books be banned because they offend their precious sensibilities. That would be the difference that I see.
Some may choose not to see that rather distinct difference, and instead insist that they are the same thing. They would be wrong.
my bolding
john T, you might be fine with people re-writing your books. But your books probably aren’t being taught as English Literature. Great literature is read because it shows us human emotions and human history in context.
Shakespeare presents some pretty despicable characters. Let’s cancel him, okay.? And then there’s the classic example which I assume moonrise is referring to-- Huckleberry Finn. Yes it uses shocking language–and that is a GREAT way to teach critical thinking…Have the kids write an essay about how blacks were treated back then, and how Huck dares to be different, and how much times have changed.
Don’t censor . Teach.
Left wing Wokeness is just as much about censorship as the right wing anti-wokeness is.
Is that something that has happened? Or is it something you think will happen, based on your feelings about “wokeness”?
I doubt that was what @moonrise was referring to. What they were most likely referring to is that a small number of YA authors have asked for feedback on their works before publishing them, to see if there is anything that may upset or offend their audience. They do this because they specifically want to market their books towards a LGBTQ audience.
With Huck Finn having already been published, it’s unlikely that Twain is seeking out peer review at this point.
And is Huck Finn censored or banned? No, it is not. So, once again, something that should allow some to loosen their grip on their pearls.
That’s generally what does happen. What is your point here?
Ah, now we get back to the subject of the thread. Could you please define Left wing Wokeness? Please try to use examples of actual left wing acts or arguments, rather than the right wing caricatures that have so far been used in this thread.
As a Christian, I technically use as my religious guide a book which has been revised by at least 3 councils, written by God knows who (literally), and to which the (multiple) authors original wording (and, possibly, intent) are lost to time.
I mean, rewording happens all the time.
(Emphasis added.)
To repeat, don’t be so sensitive to what others do with art. If an artist (or whoever owns the rights to it) wants to make changes to their works, that’s their decision.
Those works are in the public domain. Anyone can do anything they want with them. That includes teachers.
How about In a law school?–where you would hope critical discussion is allowed
Law professor asks students to analyze the case of an employee seeking redress because her co-workers called her an n-word and a b-word… But the law school was too woke to teach law,—they censored and fired the professor…
You literally backtracked from Shakespeare to a single example of a low-rent law school administration, using an article which itself didn’t reveal the controversial question or how it was worded?
OK!
More context found here:
How much of the “anti-woke” rhetoric demonizing the term is just playing to a minority comprising the “base” of the right wingers? I haven’t seen this recent poll mentioned here:
Have I missed the post(s) where someone on the right actually gives their definition of “woke”?
Yeah, that’s how it always seems to play out.
It’s kept vague because they know that any examples they give will be shown to be without any merit.
They call it “nitpicking”, I call it investigation into a claim. Something that supposedly they were for. Until, you know, it turns up things that contradict their narrative.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the anti-woke movement claims victim…
… after victim …
… after victim:
While literally whining about a trump fanboy who got himself worked up in 2020 and started feeling that his ‘right’ to be an overprivileged asshole was under attack, so he decided to fight back while at work.
Agreed.
No. He’s angry because the people who promised to help him let him down the very
second his voluntary change of heart didn’t fit their narrative anymore.
I don’t have an objection with peer reviewing new literary works before publishing them to ensure that they don’t offend 2023 sensibilities.
I do object to people deciding they have the authority to rewrite dead authors’ works.
Banning books and rewriting them is not exactly the same thing, I’ll grant you that. It proceeds however from the same desire to decide what can and what cannot be read, taught and ultimately thought.
And why should my sensibilities be ignored* ?
Not being religious, Art is the closest thing I have to sacred. Give me the real deal and let me make up my mind about it. Discussion is more than warmly welcome. Arguments of authority and censorship, soft or hard, not so much.
*Rethorical question, may contain traces of sarcasm.
Ouch (bolding mine).
Why ? Because students need to be revealed the One and Only Truth ? Give them the real text and teach them how to think critically ! That’s the hill I die on.
I may suggest that your problem be better solved with a lawyer because the right to produce derivative works falls to the copyright holder(s):
Not too sure who you would sue or where you can argue standing, but that goes to my first sentence…
The whole point of free speech is that everybody gets to talk and nobody has to listen. You can go make and partake of the art you want to. And you can tell us your preferences in doing so. And other people can make and partake of the art they want to. And then tell you what their preferences are in doing so.
Why? Because teachers have the expertise to decide what pedagogy works best for their own students.
Yeah, a lot of complaints about publishing (or not) and editing (or not) are based on our copyright system. Which, in mine opinion, is far too restrictive for the public good.