Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
J. Morris' Last Letters from Hav was good, but I knew one poor eejit who didn't get that this "Hav" was fictional, and sat up half the night poring over his atlas in search of its location on the map.
Roald Dahl's Books Being Altered
- Thread starter dshl
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I spent some time looking for Arkham before finding out it was but a fragment of hpl's imagination
Looked in Cambridge Dictionary earlier.
the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:
censorship of the press
a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas:
Civil libertarians say that the ruling amounts to censorship.
I think you've got this wrong.
First definition is just about the restricting of x. So that's enough. We have our defintion right there. End of this discussion, I guess, if we are going by Cam. Dic.
But even if we entertain ourselves and move on to the second definition:
The second defintion does mention 'authority' but then, like I said, that's open to interpretation. I mean if you are Penguin going to Open Minds to decide which RD words the general public will read, that sounds pretty much like a position of authority. I mean 'authority' again cam dic.: the moral or legal right or ability to control
Well they certainly are in a postion to do these things. We've got to think of authority and power in the context of whatever times. Obviously it's not stagnant.
As for 'coercion', well, that's nowhere to be seen.
So going on the CD, (haven't looked up others - feel free) I think you've basically got it wrong when you correct others on that word 'censorship'
ska invita
back on the other side
Do you know theyre still publishing the original texts + theres several million copies knocking around second hand?
After this little storm they may have changed things up a bit.
I assume (maybe wrongly) that the original revisions were to become basically the standard editions the general public would find in Waterstones, etc
I think it's not necessarily fair to say something is not censored simply because it's possible to find it somehow/somewhere. I don't think the word needs that kind of totality to be applicable.
By the way I'm not saying that all censorship is wrong but I do have a problem with littlebabyjesus' position that it isn't in fact censorship.
Maybe I'm wrong on that but it doesn't seem that way.
When/if the reins of power change, and the giant entities that have so much say over these things start to censor according to a different ideology, some will soon switch their understanding of the word censorship double quick, I reckon.
Maybe I'm wrong on that but it doesn't seem that way.
When/if the reins of power change, and the giant entities that have so much say over these things start to censor according to a different ideology, some will soon switch their understanding of the word censorship double quick, I reckon.
ska invita
back on the other side
One thing IS for sure, Lucasfilm not making the original Star Wars available anywhere and forcing the CGI crap ones on us is censorship 
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't really do discussions by dictionary definitions tbh. The word 'censorship' isn't a neutral term. It is best not used in certain contexts. For example, in the context of the estate and publisher of Roald Dahl deciding to change some words in new editions of his works.
????One thing IS for sure, Lucasfilm not making the original Star Wars available anywhere and forcing the CGI crap ones on us is censorship
I’ve got the original Star Wars on ITunes.
ska invita
back on the other side
i dont really know what that means youve got it "on iTunes". You definitely cannot access the original cut of the film legally. By all means share a link if you think otherwise
Why Finding the Original 1977 'Star Wars' Verges on the Impossible
A short time ago in a galaxy very, very near to here, I set out on a mission to find a movie classic.
Last edited:
Okay, there’s a fair leap from “not being able to access the original” to “forcing the CGI crap ones on us”. For sure they have been subsequently tidied up since first released but the effects haven’t been replaced I don’t think.i dont really know what that means "on iTunes". You definitely cannot access the original cut of the film legally. By all means share a link if you think otherwise
Why Finding the Original 1977 'Star Wars' Verges on the Impossible
A short time ago in a galaxy very, very near to here, I set out on a mission to find a movie classic.www.inverse.com
ska invita
back on the other side
No theres no leap. The original ones are banned from all sale + streaming and the only ones available are the ones with CGI added years later. An exact parallel with the Roald Dahl thing except that you can still get the original Dahl books and there is no way at all to get the original Star Wars 1977 cut, or Empire for that matter
I do remember a part in the original A New Hope where a mistake was made and you got a brief few frames of ghost TIE fighters that I always looked out for that you never see anymore. Not sure it takes anything away from the story though?
JimW
支那暗杀团
Is that the one where they call Chewbacca fat? And of course it's Jabba the Pergola now
ska invita
back on the other side
the mood is substantially changed with the CGI versions, the original (which can be torrented) feels very raw < its great. The Star Wars universe feels very gritty.
certainly replacing "fat" in RD would be unnoticeable by comparison to this act of CENSORSHIP
Again, it's not just that. This publisher happens to be an absolute giant and they are ideological changes, hence the bringing in of Open Minds.
(By the way, can you show me more about the estate's involvement)
As for not using a dictionary for definitions, I've heard that said in certain esoteric discussions. However,
1: The context is a public issue right now, where a broad population of all sorts is tackling this news item, not just a tiny stuffy philosophy meet-up group or something. And when the word censorship is used in this situation it obviously reflects common parlance. Hence a dic. def. is quite handy here to say the least.
2: When I've seen this dissmissing of dictionary definitions by the person contesting the use of a term, it's usually supported by other sources. So even if we did throw out dictionary definitions (not that we should here) we should be left with something, especially from the one challenging both the term's use and the dictionary definition as a source.
Not really censorship for a producer to alter their own intellect property to improve it though.
So basically, even though the dictionary definition points to correct use you say we shouldn't use it, right?
Okay, so if not Cam. Dic. then by what source are we going by. So far I've just got the we shouldn't use it by the Littlebabyjesus source.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Do you disagree with me and think that censorship is a neutral term? The source for the meaning of words is 'all of us, all of the time'.
As I've said, for various reasons above, that's a way oversimplification of this.
I didn’t realise I was responding to you, mind.
Your source is 'all of us, all of the time'. Isn't that the dictionary's source also?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
which giant entity is forcing the publishers to revise the works to keep them saleable then? This is the crux of it imo, who is censoring? If the changes are made to reflect changing consumer attitudes who then is the censor?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ultimately yes of course. Doesn't mean we should defer to your reading of your selected definition from your selected dictionary. And even the best dictionary definitions often don't quite capture the full nuances of a word's usage.
You're just arguing by authority here, which is the thing I don't do. These important people say this and they're more important than you so there.
To be more explicit about it, the term censorship implies the existence of a censor. It implies that somebody somewhere said 'I'd like to publish/perform/broadcast this', and somebody else in a position of authority said 'no you can't' or 'no you can't do it like that, you will have to do it like this'.
Last edited:
I would certainly put the publisher Penguin as a giant entity in this case. I'm not sure if their actions reflect the populous at all. This thread and poll on a left-leaning message forum in a tiny, tiny way helps to point that it's significantly not suported even on the left. But obviously, again, this is just a silly poll on a small forum.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Wokeness. It's probably gone mad or something.
LBJ (Can I call you that?), it honestly wasn't me choosing from a load of dictionaries that said otherwise. As I think I said, it was the first I came across and feel free to list the others. Also, wasn't about going by my reading. It's quite clear that your understanding of the term doesn't fit very well with it. Please, again give me another reading of it then, where it does. I think you might find that difficult because the fundamentals weren't there - esp, with the first definition, ie coercion, and authority being more than just that - just an authority.
And when you say I'm arguing from authority, it's funny because that authority (the dictionary) uses the the masses themselves in trying to gauge the definitions of common parlance. So you're saying they got it wrong or perhaps have an agenda - or something along those lines?
Ultimately, though, what are we left with? I would like to know when you correct people on the word 'censorship' what sources you're getting your definition from. As (and I'm not saying it is) it sounds as though you're correcting people's use of words on just your own particular sense of things.
Lol, no, I don't know. I just don't buy the mass support.
Similar threads
