Posted by Peter H on December 25, 2005 at 20:41:04 from 86.130.130.160 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: Lofting and AR posted by Dave Thewlis on December 25, 2005 at 17:19:07:
Dave - yes, worth a try - many thanks.
Ed - Again, this is a personal view, but I hope any further editions of the AR book in question (PD, I think?) replace that word. An alternative phrase would not make the slightest difference to the story. Perhaps the Ransome literary executors should be asked to come up with a replacement which fits. I would apply the same test as Christopher Lofting, and imagine what AR would say. I am sure that if he were still alive, and realised that offence would be given by the word, he'd take it out at once.
There's been a similar argument in the UK recently over the remake of the 'Dambusters' film (concerning the wartime bombing raid on dams in Germany). In the original film, the leader of the raid, Guy Gibson, had a black labrador called N***** (as he did in real life). In a recent TV showing of the film, the word was bleeped out. The makers of the new film propose to rename the dog, and I hope they do. This would be a courteous and considerate gesture, and once again it won't make an atom of difference to the story - the word comes in more or less accidentally. It is different in eg Mark Twain, where the word is part of the cultural context of the stories.