Book News

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, DearEvette said:

Yeah, I probably should have said "many consider it bad form"  There has been discussion about it and a lot of authors have said that if they didn't like a book they simply wouldn't rate it at all. 

I also think it is a difference between a book you are reading for your own pleasure vs. a book you are blurbing.  It would seem weird to give a 3-star (which many authors see as 'meh' but in GR terms actually means you liked it) review on something you wrote about glowingly on the cover.

And from what I saw the legitimate reviews go into a lot of detail about what they liked/didn't like so the negative reviews -- at least the ones that came out a week or two ago based on ARCs -- are very detailed.  My takeway from the ones I've read is that the writing itself was problematic.  The one thing that seemed common was less a complaint about the trope expectations and more about the prose and it felt like it needed a few more drafts and some story construction.

A huge chunk of my time at work is reading professional book reviews.  I would expect most authors take the Booklist philosophy when posting reviews on any public platform--only review the books you liked versus the Kirkus approach of skewering the books they hated or the Publishers' Weekly approach of using adjectives to creatively express negative opinions while still giving authors and publisher something to work with.  Seriously, if you ever see a publisher using the PW review with an ellipses, then they cut out the negative adjective.  

It sounds like this is not the first manuscript to be rushed in order to capitalize on buzz and will not be the last.  I have read a few books over the years some from very well-known authors who's final manuscripts needed to bake a little bit longer.

[Minneapple]

I'm actually kind of curious to read Lightlark now, to see if it's really as bad as all the reviews say. I read quite a bit of YA and YA fantasy, to the point where a lot of the tropes make me roll my eyes (I'm so plain, she thought, as she brushed her long auburn locks away from her face, and then she went to put on the beautiful shimmering teal-colored gown that brought out the green flecks in her eyes). I had it on my Goodreads list because it was getting a ton of hype, I think I even got a Barnes and Noble email with the line about "August's most anticipated YA novel!" or something like that.

[tajamulhussain1]

Here I found some relevant news about New and half-price books;

half price books near me

half price books locations

[Bethany]

Roald Dahl’s Children’s Books to Republish With Offensive Language Removed

 

Quote

EAGLE-EYED READERS OF Roald Dahl might notice some small-but-significant changes within an upcoming republishing of the legendary author’s children’s books as some language has been changed to make it less offensive and more inclusive.

Dahl’s own literary estate approved of the edits, which include changing the description of Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory from “fat” to “enormous,” and replacing the word “female” throughout Matilda with “woman,” the Guardian reports.

 

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Roald Dahl’s Children’s Books to Republish With Offensive Language Removed

 

 

Okay that is just STUPID. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Okay that is just STUPID. 

Completely stupid.  I'm also thinking about how much money the publisher sunk into updating these books and how they could have spent it.  Instead of finding and publishing new authors who are writing the books kids today want to read, they are spending it modernizing offensive "classics."  

[Bethany]

What I don't understand is they give the example of changing the word fat to enormous.  How does that make any difference?  If we're making changes due to sensitivety issues I think I'd object just as strongly to someone calling me enormous as I would to someone calling me fat!   

[Spartan Girl]

You can’t and you shouldn’t change the past. Just do better TODAY.

[Haleth]

I heard about this on the news last night.  This is unacceptable.  Wow.

[Razzberry]

Shocking.  Dahl must be rolling over in his grave.

Critics blast 'absurd' rewrites to Roald Dahl's children's books

"Britain’s Telegraph newspaper first reported the changes Friday, laying out the hundreds of changes Puffin Books, a division of Penguin Random House, and the Roald Dahl Story Company made to the books since 2020, even adding paragraphs never written by the late Dahl.

Award-winning author Salman Rushdie called the changes “absurd censorship.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/roald-dahls-children-books-matilda-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-rcna71427

Edited February 20, 2023 by Razzberry

[Spartan Girl]

Dahl was an asshole, but that doesn’t mean they need to rewrite his books like that. Readers, especially young readers, are smarter than what these idiots take them for. You can enjoy the works of Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad without sharing their imperialist views. And while I loved Dahl’s books, I never assumed that all overweight people were terrible like Augustus Gloop or a woman wearing a wig wasn’t an evil witch. 

Know why?

Because MY PARENTS raised me right and taught me the difference between fiction and real life!

And if I ever have kids, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. It’s not fucking hard! 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Spartan Girl

[Irlandesa]

I'm somewhat torn on this issue but more because I don't think we should erase the realities of the past.

That said,  I think part of the "this language shouldn't bother readers" comes from a place of either not being a part of the denigrated group or having made it through to the adult side and discovered more pressing concerns.

But if I'm the publisher, I am asking myself if I want to sell the book as an artifact of its time--largely reduced to being read as an intellectual exercise where we examine the "of it's time" aspect of the book.  Or do I want to modernize the language so it can be read as a current/of the times book without the distraction of out-of-fashion language or damaging slurs that may keep the book inaccessible to a large portion of the potential audience?

If they think the story itself is timeless? Then yeah, I get why they'd update the language.  There's merit in reading the book in its original form.  But there's also merit in wanting to read a book that is meant to be fun without seeing slurs used unironically about people from your race, creed or ethnicity---especially if the original purpose of the story was fun.

Besides, the original versions aren't going away. 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

9 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Besides, the original versions aren't going away. 

 

Yes and no.  The physical copies of the old version will hang around indefinitely.  It just depends on how they were manufactured and how they are treated out in the world.  Things get stickier with the ebook edition.  The books are still under copyright, so the copyright holder gets to decide if the old version hangs around or if every purchased license will be updated.  

[Bethany]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But if I'm the publisher, I am asking myself if I want to sell the book as an artifact of its time--largely reduced to being read as an intellectual exercise where we examine the "of it's time" aspect of the book.  Or do I want to modernize the language so it can be read as a current/of the times book without the distraction of out-of-fashion language or damaging slurs that may keep the book inaccessible to a large portion of the potential audience?

If I were a publisher and wanted to appeal to "kids today" I'd be reissuing books as graphic novels.  Which, of course, is exactly what many publishers are doing.  That way you can get around changing some text and I don't think you'd get any, or at least as much, backlash for doing it.  Alternatively I'd do what a book I just read (The Pink Motel, Carol Ryrie Brink) has done and put a disclaimer at the front about "product of its time..".

I was trying to find any articles out there defending/supporting these changes and found myself surrounded by article after article condemning them  Some balanced, most not (wow - so definitely not).    I wonder if they may end up reconsidering this.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Elizabeth Anne

[proserpina65]

12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Or do I want to modernize the language so it can be read as a current/of the times book without the distraction of out-of-fashion language or damaging slurs that may keep the book inaccessible to a large portion of the potential audience?

Except that's not really what they're doing.  They're not modernizing the language; they're sanitizing it.  And honestly, this is unlikely to affect sales of already popular books.

 

[DrSpaceman73]

Hate the idea of changing dahls books.  It's a horrible precedent.  An open door to sanitizing great literature based on what modern readers and critics think should be changed. 

And it's not even offensive things. Making them gender neutral in some cases for no real reason. Adding language to 'explain' about being bald.  

Art and literature should stand on its own as the authors produced it.  If you want to discuss the language snd if appropriate or not, changing cultural norms, great.  That's the opportunity that arises and should occur from such moments.  

Changing the words and adding parts?  No.   If you're not the author should not be doing it.  It's not your work to change and modify as you see fit based on your personal views.  

Edited February 21, 2023 by DrSpaceman73

[Bethany]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:54 AM, Elizabeth Anne said:

  I wonder if they may end up reconsidering this.

Looks like they have - somewhat.

Roald Dahl collection to be published in original form later this year

Time will tell of course how well the altered editions vs the classic  re-issues sell.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Elizabeth Anne

[Razzberry]

Camilla forces U-turn in Roald Dahl censorship row.

I wouldn't call it a U-turn, more like a weasel-turn.  Not sure if Camilla caused it, but the timing is suspicious.  

[Mittengirl]

I don’t understand how Augustus being described as enormous rather than fat is “better”.  If I heard someone described as enormous I would expect them to be very fat.  “Hulking” or “gigantic” might lead me in the direction of both large framed and tall.

[Vermicious Knid]

Sequel to How the Grinch Stole Christmas coming.

I give them teeny, tiny props for waiting 66 years for this money grab but, uh. No. 

[Anduin]

8 hours ago, Mittengirl said:

I don’t understand how Augustus being described as enormous rather than fat is “better”.  If I heard someone described as enormous I would expect them to be very fat.  “Hulking” or “gigantic” might lead me in the direction of both large framed and tall.

When I hear huge or enormous, I think like Andre the Giant. Really tall and solid. Fat is fat.

[Razzberry]

Who IS this group of censors or "sensitivity readers"? I wondered.  They call themselves Inclusive Minds,   “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature” but the changes I've read have been rather ridiculous.  To find out more about them, I went to their facebook page but hit a wall.

https://www.facebook.com/InclusiveMinds/events/?ref=page_internal

They need to be stopped.  Who's next?

[DrSpaceman73]

The more I read this the more it seems not just about changes to the books but publicity. 

Stir up controversy sell more books.  Oh so now we will sell BOTH sets of books.  Great. 

But whatever the reason I don't like the changes. 

[Bethany]

5 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Stir up controversy sell more books.  Oh so now we will sell BOTH sets of books.  Great. 

Could be - I mean nothing sells more books than when some school board bans them - but on the other hand I think their heart may have been in the right place but they totally miscalculated on the reaction they'd get.  But that said I would assume the bottom line for publishers is moving copies off the shelf so you may well be right!

Edited February 25, 2023 by Elizabeth Anne

[Razzberry]

You'd think big publishers would be the vanguard against this, but Puffin and Penguin are headquartered in the UK.  Possibly due to the monarchy, who've never been big fans of Free Speech, it can take place without too much concern or protest.   I remember reading about someone being arrested for yelling at Prince Andrew "You're a dirty old man!" or something similar.  

[Ohiopirate02]

17 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

You'd think big publishers would be the vanguard against this, but Puffin and Penguin are headquartered in the UK.  Possibly due to the monarchy, who've never been big fans of Free Speech, it can take place without too much concern or protest.   I remember reading about someone being arrested for yelling at Prince Andrew "You're a dirty old man!" or something similar.  

Publishers care about making money.  This was a business decision that Penguin made months ago.  Updated editions happen all the time in publishing, and sometimes include re-edits.  Normally the original author is the one editing the work, but this is not the first instance of an author's estate handling the edits posthumously.  I read romance, and can tell you that romance is a genre where authors update their work constantly.  Julia Quinn, Georgette Heyer, Janet Dailey(actually updated to remove her blatant plagiarism of Nora Roberts), Lisa Kleyplas and others have updated their works. The edits to Dahl's books fall right in line with what the copyright holder of Georgette Heyer's works has done.  Her books were updated this century to make them more palatable to modern day readers and take out the anti-Semitism.  

[Bethany]

24 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Her books were updated this century to make them more palatable to modern day readers and take out the anti-Semitism.  

I am reading a biography of Agatha Christie by Lucy Worsley (highly recommend this BTW) and she has referenced anti-Semitism in some of Christie's early works.  I don't know if re-issues have removed this or not as the titles I own are all older editions.  This kind of updating wouldn't bother me.  Another author I like had some of her stuff updated and it was just stupid - the books were still obviously set in the '60s but the changes included a teen girl having a crush on Boy George (seriously people??) instead of IIRC  Paul McCartney.   Sheesh!

[Ohiopirate02]

48 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

I am reading a biography of Agatha Christie by Lucy Worsley (highly recommend this BTW) and she has referenced anti-Semitism in some of Christie's early works.  I don't know if re-issues have removed this or not as the titles I own are all older editions.  This kind of updating wouldn't bother me.  Another author I like had some of her stuff updated and it was just stupid - the books were still obviously set in the '60s but the changes included a teen girl having a crush on Boy George (seriously people??) instead of IIRC  Paul McCartney.   Sheesh!

I haven't read enough Christie to comment on any antisemitism in them. But, the various titles of the book now known as And Then There Were None show how casually racist British society was in the 1930s.

[sugarbaker design]

There was a similar sanitization of a racial epithet in a Josephine Tey mystery called The Man In The Queue.  A mysterious figure, referred to as The Dago (I'm serious) was referred to as The Levantine in editions published after 2000.

[magicdog]

On 2/21/2023 at 1:14 PM, DrSpaceman73 said:

Hate the idea of changing dahls books.  It's a horrible precedent.

They're doing it to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels too!

[blackwing]

20 hours ago, magicdog said:

They're doing it to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels too!

Seems crazy to take books written during a different time and try to excise parts to make them more "acceptable" to today's audiences.  I wouldn't even say there needs to be a disclaimer at the front of any of these now-so-called offensive books.  People should understand when they pick up a book that it might contain things they don't agree with or find offensive.

What's next?  A rewrite of "Of Mice and Men" to excise the character of Lennie because he could be considered offensive to those with mental disabilities?

[Bethany]

16 minutes ago, blackwing said:

People should understand when they pick up a book that it might contain things they don't agree with or find offensive.

Agreed. People should not have to recommend or otherwise discuss a book with the caveat "it's dated" or "it's of its time".  But I know I do this all the time myself because otherwise you just know you're going to have someone shocked, shocked I tell you, to find a book written in the '50s reads like a book written in the '50s!

Edited March 6, 2023 by Elizabeth Anne

[Irlandesa]

20 hours ago, magicdog said:

They're doing it to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels too!

I could see why they'd do it for kid's books but for an adult book?  That does seem silly.

[Browncoat]

Who even reads the James Bond books?  Doesn't everyone just watch the movies?  😉

[magicdog]

4 hours ago, blackwing said:

Seems crazy to take books written during a different time and try to excise parts to make them more "acceptable" to today's audiences.  

Nothing new unfortunately.  They did this to the Nancy Drew books back in the 50s.  The original books were written in the 30s and they were "updated" in the 1959 editions.  The older editions can be found including a republished set I found online.  

[Ohiopirate02]

5 hours ago, blackwing said:

What's next?  A rewrite of "Of Mice and Men" to excise the character of Lennie because he could be considered offensive to those with mental disabilities?

That depends on if the owners of the copyright need money, and Steinbeck's will allows for updated editions.  All of these updates being done to decades old works from dead authors boil down to the copyright holder wanting money.  Some authors knew they didn't want their works being updated after death and wrote wills to prevent it or knew they never wanted their work adapted and did the same.  

[Snow Apple]

Since we're on the subject of rewrites, I had a copy of an older version is Mary Poppins and read it over and over as a kid. I sadly lost it, so imagine my delight when I found a new copy at a book exchange decades later. Imagine my surprise that the chapter where they traveled around the world is completely different. The people they met are now replaced with meeting animals.

I don't remember the description of the original version so I don't remember how offensive/political incorrect it was. But yeah, rewrites are nothing new.

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, Snow Apple said:

I don't remember the description of the original version so I don't remember how offensive/political incorrect it was. But yeah, rewrites are nothing new.

 I remembered it vaguely (and of course when I first read I didn't see anything wrong with it at all).  Anyway just checked and apparently there were problems with that chapter as far back as the 60s when the author herself revised it a few times.  So I'm not sure which version of it I would have read but I do remember it was with people not animals.   

Edited March 7, 2023 by Elizabeth Anne

[PRgal]

Regarding rewrites:  Are You There God, it's me, Margaret? was updated in the late 90s - in that edition, Margaret uses disposable pads (I had heard about it, but had to look it up to see if it was true).  I guess the difference here is that Judy Blume did it herself.  

[Razzberry]

[Anduin]

I'm very skeptical. Not that I've read it, or that I want to. But no one noticed until now? Or is this just a prank or even historical revision, claiming he wasn't a madman at all? There are some things I'm tempted to look up, but don't want in my search history. That book is one of them.

[magicdog]

46 minutes ago, Anduin said:

I'm very skeptical. Not that I've read it, or that I want to. But no one noticed until now? Or is this just a prank or even historical revision, claiming he wasn't a madman at all? There are some things I'm tempted to look up, but don't want in my search history. That book is one of them.

Nothing wrong with reading it - IMO it gives you insight into the man's thinking.  You don't need to agree with it or his methods.  Plenty of people had this on their bookshelves.   Madeline Albright had one.  It was sold online along with other books after her death.

[Anduin]

4 hours ago, magicdog said:

Nothing wrong with reading it - IMO it gives you insight into the man's thinking.  You don't need to agree with it or his methods.  Plenty of people had this on their bookshelves.   Madeline Albright had one.  It was sold online along with other books after her death.

I have quite enough to read without going into that sort of territory. And I know quite enough of his mindset too. No thanks.

[tres bien]

Hulu has decided not to make a series of Devil in the White City 🙁

 

[Haleth]

Well, shoot.  I was looking forward to that.

[tres bien]

6 hours ago, Haleth said:

Well, shoot.  I was looking forward to that.

Me too! And with Keanu Reeves. It would have been great 

[blackwing]

On 3/20/2023 at 2:54 PM, tres bien said:

Hulu has decided not to make a series of Devil in the White City 🙁

Disappointing news.  I've been fascinated by the 1893 World's Fair ever since this book came out.  I wish there were more photographs of the exhibits and the insides of the buildings out there.  In particular, I've always tried to find more photographs of the insides of the country buildings and the Fisheries building.  This series would have given us some set designer's imagination of what they looked like.  Maybe some other network will pick it up.

Edited March 22, 2023 by blackwing

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, blackwing said:

Disappointing news.  I've been fascinated by the 1893 World's Fair ever since this book came out.  I wish there were more photographs of the exhibits and the insides of the buildings out there.  In particular, I've always tried to find more photographs of the insides of the country buildings and the Fisheries building.  This series would have given us some set designer's imagination of what they looked like.  Maybe some other network will pick it up.

So have I. The 1893 World's Fair was so incredible. 

[Razzberry]

"Agatha Christie's detective novels have been censored by "sensitivity readers" ahead of their reissue, The Telegraph reported on Saturday. Christie is the latest author after Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming to have their works posthumously cleaned up for a modern audience."

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/273673012/more-classic-novels-chopped-by-ensitivity-readers---media

[krankydoodle]

Amazon to close Book Depository online shop

Quote

...the last date customers will be able to place orders is 26 April.