Posted by Alex Forbes on August 01, 2009 at 15:26:21 user Pitsligo.
In Reply to: Re: Bowdlerisation (was Profound disagreement (was Thoughts on ) posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett on August 01, 2009 at 11:13:57:
My personal favorite: Should we change Titty's name to Mavis?
Look, both sides here have good points, but why not simply use these few examples of evolving language/social mores as my father did: as a good excuse for a discussion of how times and language change? Yes, nig ger, picanninny, ML's Chinglish, are all offensive. Yes, I would probably ask someone to leave my house if they used such language in my presence (without a darn good reason). However, as it was pointed out to me, at a very early age, and as I think all those involved in this discussion can admit, they *are* what AR wrote, and, in context, are nothing more than artifacts of the conventions of his own time.
I probably first read PD when I was age seven, by which time I knew that yes, folks used to use the word nig ger fairly commonly, but that it is now considered unacceptable. Times change. Kids understand that --and a proper verbal dressing-down should do the trick in case they miss the point the first time and dare to use "nig ger" conversationally.
Censorship is far, far too slippery a slope to venture out on for such petty disagreements as verbiage. Should we change AR's writing so that it no longer gives the misinformation to put butter on burns? Or to rub snow on frostbite? Both were conventional wisdom of the time, and are (arguably) downright dangerous advice today. Should we change the fog signals they give, since those fog signals are no longer the standard and could get them into trouble in case they should ever need to use them? Should we re-write Dick's scene in WH, rescuing the crag-fast sheep, so that he has a proper belay? These are the things that will make a difference when kids go out to reenact S&A for themselves; should we change them so that kids learn safer, updated information? Don't be ridiculous.
A kid might (one hopes) be offended when he encounters the word nig ger in a story. It will not (one hopes!) cause him any grievous or enduring damage. Any child who throws a book --written 70 years ago-- across the room because they find hidden within its story a single offensive word needs a better grasp of context and the fluidity of social conventions.
Certainly change the words as you read aloud; that's between you and your kids. Re-set the book's type? Absolutely not. Any such censorship pandering to ever-mutable social convention is inexcusable.
Alex