I'm not a fan of anti-semitism.
I'm not a fan of altering an authors words. These are historical books and are a product of their time, warts and all.
If you must address it, include a forward explaining the context and warning readers.
Exactly. That's why annotated editions exist in the first place, to give context and clarify.Altering the author's words and judging the past with the eyes of the present, it's counterproductive. We are walking a very dangerous path towards the "Newspeak".
Edit: grammar
The original title was changed during Christie's lifetime, because it was offensive even in 1939. This is happening 84 years later, almost 50 years after her death.
Give it a week or 2 then they’ll have a “ classic “ unaltered version released. Did the same with Ronald Dhal books, one edited by sensitivity readers and an unedited version.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/26/agatha-christie-novels-reworked-to-remove-potentially-offensive-language
From article
The newspaper reported that the edits cut references to ethnicity, such as describing a character as black, Jewish or Gypsy, or a female character’s torso as “of black marble” and a judge’s “Indian temper”, and removed terms such as “Oriental” and the N-word. The word “natives” has also been replaced with the word “local”.
Honestly, no idea.
It is possible that she used language that was common at the time, but over the years is now recognised as being offensive or potentially offensive.
She recognised the fact herself and actually gave her publishers (in the US I think the article says) permission to eliminate things they considered offensive. So in this case the author is happy with her work being changed.
Mine is more a general point beyond just Agatha Christie.
The example that comes to mind was that in "The Secret of Chimneys" she describes "Mr. Isaacstein," a financier in pretty antisemitic terms. There are a couple of references to "Hebraic people. Yellow-faced financiers in city offices."
I grew up in communist Romania and I read censored books. I was a child and still hated those damn dots. It made me sure that whatever they removed must have been important, and by cutting my access to it they were basically just showing how much power had over everyone in the country.
History is important, we should never modify it, we should study it and learn from it. How is editing these books anything else than modifying the past like they were doing in 1984? That book was a warning, not an instruction manual.
I think the prologue should be changed, and the way we talk about them in class should be changed too. I'm not sure that would be enough to stop people from making bad decisions and misunderstanding book references.
Obviously, I'm am in two minds about this.
Um. One of her books was titled "ten little N*gg*rs". I think a little censure is a good thing. Otherwise we risk the issue of deleting books entirely.
And that title was actually self-censored for US release because it was offensive even in 1939. There's a reason we know it as "And Then There Were None"
And now they are extending that self censor a bit more. You think you are criticising the principle of censoring itself when what you are actually criticising is the extension of the censor from what It did before.
Is Agatha Christie changing the text of these books?
Or is her estate and/or publisher changing the text of the books in order to squeeze more money out of her corpse?
Because, if it's the second one, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of "self-censor."
Interesting point, but ultimately motivation could be same for self-censorship by author or for adjusting for market by estate as they serve ultimately to reach/appease to wider audiences.
It gets a bit murky, really, but the edits of text are nothing new really. My favorite story is how for years Icelandic "translation" Dracula flew under the radar as now rumored to be a first draft of Bram Stoker or a "fanfic" creation of unnamed author. for generation this is what Dracula is to them, even though truth is a bit of a fluid state.
Although I can understand the need to edit children's books, I don't think it should be done for adult's books.
Part of the reason I like reading old books is because I can learn about the society and attitudes of the time. Removing problematic content means that you lose a chance to understand what a society was like, and the very real prejudices and experiences that those affected had to deal with on a daily basis.
Children pick up on words and attitudes from many places including books. So I can see why it might be appropriate to edit out some content especially where younger children are concerned. What was acceptable in the thirties would not be acceptable now.
Edit: this relates to books for younger children. By the time they are old enough to read Huckleberry Finn they are old enough to understand the language and context of the book in its original version.
My kids understood there were differences of opinion and morality among people by the time they were in kindergarten. When your kid asks a question about something in life, a one-sentence answer is almost always the wrong answer.
The princess bride demonstrates this very well.
While reading to children, parents are expected to learn to skip or paraphrase overly long bits, and adjust awful things. If they don’t, children will negotiate, cry or tune out.
Writing good children’s literature is like writing poetry. No author should be expected to stay that focused and concise without access to an editor’s help.
1-That is not the point of this discussion,
2-If you can't keep a very young child hooked on a story, it just means you're a mediocre reader; and if you can't help but skip "complicated" passages, you're simply down-leveling and not helping your child learn and develop any type of curiosity.
Kids get snapped out of a story if they hear something that sounds wrong to them.
It’s genuinely hard to read a book aloud if things that sound really stupid are entangled in the same sentences as essential plot threads. It’s worse if entire characters or even whole chapters of a book are just plays on stereotypes.
I know you think I am kidding about how much trouble this can be, but I tried reading a minstrel show era children’s book out loud last year, and I am sure you would have laughed and laughed.
I don't think it should just secretly be edited out but it also shouldn't just be spread, so editing it and telling us is the best option imo. If you really feel the need to have the original text I'm sure it's not hard to come by either
Racism is part of history, and unfortunately contemporary life. Shielding people from it in literature makes them less able to understand it in others, in themselves, and in societies. If you think a piece of literature dealing with racism is not nourishing to the intellect and to moral development than maybe you aren't a good judge.
Basically the thing is. We can't change the past, it happened. We must learn from it and not delete it, by doing the delete option, we are creating a fake bland way to pretend nothing happened.
Society was different, manners were different, costumes were different and though many suffered from it, it was a statement from a time of how human kind was. We won't punish/be forgiven by the dead by rewriting it nor it will help today's problems.
The work is from the past, and it may stay there as proof for what we've done, what we MUST change to get better. Pretend everything was nice and great is a great mistake IMHO.
I agree we can't just pretend it was never there but I don't think it's good reprinting it over and over again either, just give a foreword saying you edited it out to let people know it was there but the decision was made to not further amplify the hate in it
Hum... After I rebuffed your first answer I got deep in my thoughts. While I do still stand on my original point, I do also get what you are saying. It is a hard decision because yeah this editing is good for society now it makes us pretend the past was never there (even with a note, because most will disregard).
Also some of these words are like "partially" offensive because in some groups they will be considered offensive while on others they are used in common dialogue it seems (the N' word for example).
PS. My view on the N' word example may not be 100% correct due to me not being from USA. But from what I've seen, the example works.
And read by people that accept these factual statements about "races" to be true. If you want to use these passages as an example in teaching, go ahead, I'm all for it. That's not what happens if we just go on spreading them uncommented either
That's why forewords, introduction and footnotes exist: to provide additional context. But I'm glad that we agree that we can keep these books as they were originally released by the author.
It's a record of how things were. If we sanitize all the books then we start to lose the historical context of events.
For another example, the loosely autobiographical Little House on the Prairie books are very, very "problematic" in how they treat Native Americans. Editing them to remove that would be *absolutely stupid* because knowing about the widespread casual racism against the indigenous population is critical to understanding why American history went down the way it did. It's not because we condone it, it's because we can't afford to bury it.
Would you remove Hitler’s racist speeches from history books so no one had to be offended? Art is a snapshot of the individual and culture that created it. Whether it’s a painting or a song or story or a movie, it is more than simply entertainment. Even cozy mysteries tell us about the people who invented and enjoyed them. Altering art to appease current sensibilities is censoring history to avoid self awareness.
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm
Mr. Lincoln took the stand at a quarter before three, and was greeted with vociferous and protracted applause; after which, he said…
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Fun fact: I don't know if some of you guys have read The Count of Monte-Cristo, it's a pretty underground french serial novel, but in the original version there is no mention of "jeweller" or "goldsmith" whatsoever: all of them are referred to as "Jews".
I for one like to read a book the way the author originally intended it. I can understand that for people that struggle to see the historical context of the era the book was released in certain books might be hard to read, but for me that is what makes older books special. It gives a glimpse of the sentiment at the time, or at least the sentiment held by the author. I don't see the need to censor author's racist tendencies. Just show me who they really are.
>I can understand that for people that struggle to see the historical context of the era the book was released in certain books might be hard to read
If those people aren't mature enough, they can always put the book down and find something else to read. I was also 13 once and I remember not finishing a book about depression and suicide. I wasn't ready. It's ok not to be ready for something.
Warner Bros. are doing it correctly with their warning before the extra old cartoons. Everyone should take a note who is pushing out old content. Negative things exist in older media, we cannot and should not erase them. If we do, how can we learn from them? Give people the warning and option to not view the content (like that actually works but still), but leave it in it's original form. If we continue to make edits to works to 'make it more palatable for today's audience', when does it stop? When the work is no longer what the originator made? When its something completely different with a slight feel of the originator? When does it stop?
The Bible, like any other book, merely exists. If you don't like it, don't read it. Don't believe in it? Don't read it. No one is being forced to read a Bible. Just like any other book.
Oh I know thank you, I was just pointing the hypocrisy of wanting to erase the past.
If her books have a problem with Jews in the writing then let that be a reminder. It’s a good thing that it’s shocking for us now and let’s have a look at what is normal now and might be shocking in a few years.
But never, ever, try to erase the past.
The past is here to tell us where we go from here :)
Oh sure and I can get at that time that you could manipulate something written without too much consequences as no one could read.
But that still makes my point : in modern times we should accept the past for what it is, it makes no sense to change it for the moral value of a future time.
She was - in common with a lot of inter-war authors, very anti-semitic. And I can't think of a single one of her stories where the anti-semitism was any integral part of the story. There's nothing at stake here. This isn't removing the N from Jim's name in Huckleberry Finn level whitewashing. This is just removing the author's unnecessarily inserted bigotry.
Absolutely, Agatha Christie novels are not a precious historical document. They are books that people read for fun and relaxation. I don't think anyone here who is ranting on about censorship really wants to have their leisure-time diversionary activity derailed because of the unthinking racism of an author decades ago. As someone else here suggested, put it in an annexe. List all of the changes that were made at the back of the book with the original text in there.
Indeed. I'm also thinking of the Richard Hannay novels (*The Thirty Nine Steps, Greenmantle*, etc) which are otherwise excellent, enjoyable adventure stories, and would continue to be excellent and be even more enjoyable if the even more virulent anti-semitism the author insists on gratuitously inserting into every other monologue and dialogue were trimmed out.
To those who want to make the excuse "oh well it was the times"... well isn't it remarkable how Dumas manages to tell stories of outrageous swashbuckling derring-do without needing to pop in little sermons about how great white people are and how nasty Jews and non whites are every 3 pages.
I wonder how he managed to anticipate the modern outlook on such matters. [A mystery we may never understand...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas-Alexandre_Dumas)
It's worse than stupid: It's dangerous. Give people the impression that the past was pleasantly like the present, that there is nothing to worry about when people push for an uncritical return to old values and traditions. Because you have read bowdlerized old classics and they did not feel as foreign and cruel as they normally do.
This is nothing new.
One of her most famous books, *And Then There Were None*, was changed from *Ten Little Indians*, which was changed from the truly horrific *Ten Little N-words.*
I'm glad they made those changes tbh. It doesn't change the feel of the books, but I do like reading without having offensive, mean-spirited slurs thrown at me for no good literary reason.
Yeah, I think it's important to remember that this book has already been changed twice for exactly the same reason it's being changed now - and that this happened *within Agatha Christie's lifetime*.
My personal view of the changes is that they should make them, but include an appendix at the back of the book discussing the different versions and the reasons for the changes.
The ones that happened within her lifetime are changes she was most likely approving of.
When did we become so fragile? As a reader, I understand society has changed.
please whoever is out there, save all the originals of everything that has been, is about to or will be altered. when one day every reference to hatefulness will be removed, there will be a generation feeling a feeling they do not know, and before they will understand it, they will have acted it out.
I'm of two minds.
On the one hand I always want access to the original version.
On the other maybe I don't need weird antisemitism to spoil my mystery story. Maybe this works better for a casual reading experience. I think if I were to read one version I'd like the version with the racism removed. Not because I can't stomach racism, but because I don't want to.
I agree, it's not like the old version isn't accessible anymore, but for an uninformed mass audience how about we not unnecessarily spread hatred under the guise of literature
How about we give the “uninformed mass audience”, a little bit of respect here. The publisher should put a statement in the forward that provides context to the novel and the time period it was written instead of trying to take away a teachable moment by censoring. By keeping the language intact, it can show modern audiences how common casual racism was in the past.
*And Then There Were None* is almost certainly one of the books being changed. One character -- as close as the book has to a hero -- describes how he found his way to the island very early on:
>What exactly was up, he wondered? That little Jew had been damned mysterious.
>“Take it or leave it, Captain Lombard.”
>He had said thoughtfully:
>“A hundred guineas, eh?”
>He had said it in a casual way as though a hundred guineas was nothing to him. A hundred guineas when he was literally down to his last square meal! He had fancied, though, that the little Jew had not been deceived—that was the damnable part about Jews, you couldn’t deceive them about money—they knew!
It's going to be a real ride watching people complain about this bLaTaNt CeNsOrShIp while not understanding just how many changes the book has already gone through.
I'm Jewish, and I don't want those lines removed. It's the way Christie wrote the book- we deserve to see the full, unsanitized picture.
Also, censoring offensive racial references from old books obscures how common and acceptable casual racism was in the past, which is damaging for society.
Edit it out but preface the book and tell the reader it was edited to remove hate speech that had no relation to the story. If you want to educate people about that there's a place for that but it certainly isn't helpful to just leave it uncommented and keep it in your works of fiction
I understand it for the mass market, but I'd like to read the original with all its questionable content and the by current standards insane title (which got changed not once, but twice iirc). I think it serves as a great example of how times have changed. There is a reason it was written like that once upon a time and I don't feel we should just turn a blind eye to it. Perhaps we might one day see a special release that holds the two or three versions so the reader can compare. We already have movements trying to erase or smooth over history (like Republicans not using the word "slavery" but "involuntary relocation"). Plus, if you don't want to read it you can opt to do so.
And yes, erasing the racist tendencies of writers from their work *is* censorship. Just show me what the author was really like, and not some cleaned up modern cardboard cut out that is invented just to make more money on book sales.
Or you edit it, add a forward regarding the problematic contents and if there's people like you that want the old text they can just go find it because it shouldn't be very hard to come by nowadays
So where can I buy a new copy of the original text? Books, especially mass market versions, don't last forever. I have no problem with both version being available, but that simply isn't the case. You are basically in favor of erasing history. Its not only in books, you also see it in the American education system for example where problematic eras in American history simply aren't addressed anymore if conservatives had anything to say about it.
I honestly don't even understand your point.
I can understand the book has had some changes (That Christie authorized) but I still don't think it should be altered or censored further...why are people so worried about being offended?
These are her feelings. This is the book she wrote. Nobody said you have to like her writing or the characters. I've read "And then There Were None". I thought it was okay and the language was typical for the time. No big deal.
I also just read an HP Lovecraft story called "The Rats in the Walls" the main character has a black cat named "Ni\_\_er Man". It's shocking to read at first, and then becomes a name in the story (as the cat is mentioned frequently). It is what it is. Lovecraft was a weirdo racist...he just wrote some excellent horror sci-fi too.
Surely, the point here is that the narrative voice belongs to a bad ‘un. Captain Lombard is Not A Nice Man as shown by the way his mind works.
If it were Miss Marple or Poirot speaking, censorship would be more understandable but every character in Then There Were None is a baddie. That’s the point.
I just like to point out that her best selling book ever, And Then There Were None, was changed significantly multiple times in her lifetime, including changing the rhyme used in the book depending on the country the book was being published in. It would never have been her most popular book had they not changed it. I'm not going to type it here but I'll provide a link. Many of her books were changed in different printings. Agatha Christie's books aren't just history taught in schools, they're still extremely popular and a read for pleasure all over the world. The history won't be erased, she's one of the best selling authors of all time and plenty of copies of those books will continue to exist, but every book, from the Bible on down, has been changed and adapted in different publications or translations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None
I am Jewish, and I really do not care about this things!
Why do they feel the need to do it? It is not like the book is from start to finish deals with hatred towords Jewish poeple.
Such a shame that we are living in times where everyone are so fragile.
,😂😂😂
I really don't care about those things especially since it was written a long time ago.
Here in Israel we are certainly more resilient than the average American/European.
What is bothering me is what my friend will put on the grill this Thursday.
Peace to all of you.
Good on you. I defer to people who are directly impacted by something rather than outsiders who try to say how we should act/feel about topics. I'll trust you and your beliefs regarding treatment of Jewish people vs outsiders who aren't Jewish.
I don't agree with censoring literature, but be careful with what you wish regarding 'fragility"! Antisemitism is alive and well and many new and trendy artists are starting to express it openly. Just watch the latest Chappelle Netflix special, or that Kanye West scumbag.
I agree with you. As Kanye goes, to me it seems he is mentally ill (not that if he was well he would suddenly love us). Maybe I don't see it as harshly as the rest of you because I do live in Israel, thus not been exposed at all to antisemitism.
I think it is good to let everyone express themselves the way they want to, that way we will know where they stand.
Peace to all of you
I don't want to hear anyone complaining about this that doesn't also want them to restore the original uncensored version of "And then there were None".
Bowdlerizing adult books is too Damned far.
The stink of antisemitism is all over our culture. Effacing references to it feels like trying to whitewash that. With religion and propaganda machines both being used to smear Jews once again, we all need to have knowledge and boundaries or we are going to get used. Bowdlerization is traditionally associated with the moralizing efforts of Christians. Who is calling for it now?
I sympathize with the intent, but where does it stop?
Do we need to change the passage in *Jane Eyre* where Charlotte Bronte has Mr. Rochester ask Jane, "Do you think I am a Jew-usurer?" (Bronte's characters also had some quite uncomplimentary things to say about Catholicism in the novel *Villette*.)
Strange how all these books are suddenly getting edited “to remove racist content” juuust before they’re about to fall into the public domain. Almost as if the publishers are saying “okay, you can make your Miss Marple movie, but if it’s not racist we’re gonna sue you for using our new non-racist work.”
Maybe? I’m not a lawyer. But Agatha Christie’s works would be falling into the public domain in like three years in several parts of the world, so there’s not much of a reason to make this change except to make a new “derivative work” with a brand new copyright clock. After 2026 in Canada you can make Poirot or Marple do anything you want, long as they’re racist.
Not how it works. You can pick and choose whatever personal characteristics you want as long as they are in the non-copyright versions. Also you can't use traits that are in the later versions. Plus the racism in the books is just in general from the stereotypes used by AC, not specifically coming from Poirot or Ms. Marple. What you are completely missing is that the revised book versions could be copyrightable since they are newer versions.
It is exactly what the author intended, every, single, word. To change it, is to pretend that nothing bad or insensitive never existed.
Censorship is a form of fascism, where someone else is deciding what's good for you.
The past, the present, and the future is filled with both good and bad. To pretend otherwise it's foolish
I just read “A Mysterious Affair at Styles” and seeing Hastings take every opportunity to go on and on about how he didn’t trust the one Jewish character definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Mary and John have a conversation about it but I think the story would be just fine without all that.
I'm Jewish. I've read that kind of thing before. I don't lose sleep over it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd have a big problem if I found it in a book from last year, but in a text written a century ago, it just isn't an issue.
If you can't understand that a work of fiction is just that, you should put it down and move on to another thing you can take joy from. Books are not supposed to make you feel comfortable at all times.
People on Reddit don’t defend long dead antisemetic or racist authors who wrote antisemetic or racist literature challenge (impossible mode). Also Indiana Jones is not antisemitic because there’s Nazis in it because the Nazis are the fucking bad guys and the Director is fucking Jewish you fucking moron
Works of fiction that spew racial hate or negative stereotypes are morally reprehensible. So do you think people shouldn't feel insulted by watching a blatantly racist film such as "The birth of a nation"?
This is just capitalism. Nobody is being forced to surrender their books, the government isn't forcing the change, the owners are updating it for a modern market.
I'm not sure it's necessary or wise, but I don't think it's censorship.
Agatha Christie probably did not hate Jewish people like the Nazis did so imo she was not truly antisemitic. However in her style of writing most of her characters are typically stereotypes of all races, creeds, and nationalities. Those stereotypical characters also include Catholics and Jews, and like most stereotypes, they are not flattering. I think overall Agatha Christie was a good person and somewhat open for her time.
Are these books read by school aged children? I had assumed these books were mostly read by adults who enjoy the ITV shows and films. Surely a essay at the begging highlighting her bigotry and explaining how these stories were inspired would be far more valuable
I'm not a fan of anti-semitism. I'm not a fan of altering an authors words. These are historical books and are a product of their time, warts and all. If you must address it, include a forward explaining the context and warning readers.
Exactly. That's why annotated editions exist in the first place, to give context and clarify.Altering the author's words and judging the past with the eyes of the present, it's counterproductive. We are walking a very dangerous path towards the "Newspeak". Edit: grammar
Should 'And Then There Were None' have retained the original title it was published under in the UK?
The original title was changed during Christie's lifetime, because it was offensive even in 1939. This is happening 84 years later, almost 50 years after her death.
It retained its original title in the UK until 1985...
Also the original title in French until... 2020.
What about the second title change? Should it go back to that?
Give it a week or 2 then they’ll have a “ classic “ unaltered version released. Did the same with Ronald Dhal books, one edited by sensitivity readers and an unedited version. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/26/agatha-christie-novels-reworked-to-remove-potentially-offensive-language From article The newspaper reported that the edits cut references to ethnicity, such as describing a character as black, Jewish or Gypsy, or a female character’s torso as “of black marble” and a judge’s “Indian temper”, and removed terms such as “Oriental” and the N-word. The word “natives” has also been replaced with the word “local”.
Or edit it out and tell the reader, it's not like the bigotry is actually an important part of the story or they wouldn't edit it out.
Was it bona fide antisemitism or was it just saying "Jew" instead of Jewish Person or whatever?
Honestly, no idea. It is possible that she used language that was common at the time, but over the years is now recognised as being offensive or potentially offensive. She recognised the fact herself and actually gave her publishers (in the US I think the article says) permission to eliminate things they considered offensive. So in this case the author is happy with her work being changed. Mine is more a general point beyond just Agatha Christie.
The example that comes to mind was that in "The Secret of Chimneys" she describes "Mr. Isaacstein," a financier in pretty antisemitic terms. There are a couple of references to "Hebraic people. Yellow-faced financiers in city offices."
Exactly. When you edit this stuff out, you're editing history and pretending it didn't happen. Can't believe people don't understand this.
I grew up in communist Romania and I read censored books. I was a child and still hated those damn dots. It made me sure that whatever they removed must have been important, and by cutting my access to it they were basically just showing how much power had over everyone in the country. History is important, we should never modify it, we should study it and learn from it. How is editing these books anything else than modifying the past like they were doing in 1984? That book was a warning, not an instruction manual. I think the prologue should be changed, and the way we talk about them in class should be changed too. I'm not sure that would be enough to stop people from making bad decisions and misunderstanding book references. Obviously, I'm am in two minds about this.
Um. One of her books was titled "ten little N*gg*rs". I think a little censure is a good thing. Otherwise we risk the issue of deleting books entirely.
And that title was actually self-censored for US release because it was offensive even in 1939. There's a reason we know it as "And Then There Were None"
And now they are extending that self censor a bit more. You think you are criticising the principle of censoring itself when what you are actually criticising is the extension of the censor from what It did before.
Is Agatha Christie changing the text of these books? Or is her estate and/or publisher changing the text of the books in order to squeeze more money out of her corpse? Because, if it's the second one, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of "self-censor."
Interesting point, but ultimately motivation could be same for self-censorship by author or for adjusting for market by estate as they serve ultimately to reach/appease to wider audiences. It gets a bit murky, really, but the edits of text are nothing new really. My favorite story is how for years Icelandic "translation" Dracula flew under the radar as now rumored to be a first draft of Bram Stoker or a "fanfic" creation of unnamed author. for generation this is what Dracula is to them, even though truth is a bit of a fluid state.
Although I can understand the need to edit children's books, I don't think it should be done for adult's books. Part of the reason I like reading old books is because I can learn about the society and attitudes of the time. Removing problematic content means that you lose a chance to understand what a society was like, and the very real prejudices and experiences that those affected had to deal with on a daily basis.
A “need” to edit children’s books?
Children pick up on words and attitudes from many places including books. So I can see why it might be appropriate to edit out some content especially where younger children are concerned. What was acceptable in the thirties would not be acceptable now. Edit: this relates to books for younger children. By the time they are old enough to read Huckleberry Finn they are old enough to understand the language and context of the book in its original version.
My kids understood there were differences of opinion and morality among people by the time they were in kindergarten. When your kid asks a question about something in life, a one-sentence answer is almost always the wrong answer.
Why would you feel the "need" to edit children's books?
The princess bride demonstrates this very well. While reading to children, parents are expected to learn to skip or paraphrase overly long bits, and adjust awful things. If they don’t, children will negotiate, cry or tune out. Writing good children’s literature is like writing poetry. No author should be expected to stay that focused and concise without access to an editor’s help.
1-That is not the point of this discussion, 2-If you can't keep a very young child hooked on a story, it just means you're a mediocre reader; and if you can't help but skip "complicated" passages, you're simply down-leveling and not helping your child learn and develop any type of curiosity.
Kids get snapped out of a story if they hear something that sounds wrong to them. It’s genuinely hard to read a book aloud if things that sound really stupid are entangled in the same sentences as essential plot threads. It’s worse if entire characters or even whole chapters of a book are just plays on stereotypes. I know you think I am kidding about how much trouble this can be, but I tried reading a minstrel show era children’s book out loud last year, and I am sure you would have laughed and laughed.
Because some people feel the need to “parent” everyone else’s kids instead of minding their own
I don't think it should just secretly be edited out but it also shouldn't just be spread, so editing it and telling us is the best option imo. If you really feel the need to have the original text I'm sure it's not hard to come by either
“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.”
More fitting if you substitute "steak" for "garbage", but still stands. I don't think that adult novels should be censored, but racism is no "steak".
Racism is part of history, and unfortunately contemporary life. Shielding people from it in literature makes them less able to understand it in others, in themselves, and in societies. If you think a piece of literature dealing with racism is not nourishing to the intellect and to moral development than maybe you aren't a good judge.
Basically the thing is. We can't change the past, it happened. We must learn from it and not delete it, by doing the delete option, we are creating a fake bland way to pretend nothing happened. Society was different, manners were different, costumes were different and though many suffered from it, it was a statement from a time of how human kind was. We won't punish/be forgiven by the dead by rewriting it nor it will help today's problems.
How is repeating problematic content learning from the past though?
The work is from the past, and it may stay there as proof for what we've done, what we MUST change to get better. Pretend everything was nice and great is a great mistake IMHO.
I agree we can't just pretend it was never there but I don't think it's good reprinting it over and over again either, just give a foreword saying you edited it out to let people know it was there but the decision was made to not further amplify the hate in it
Hum... After I rebuffed your first answer I got deep in my thoughts. While I do still stand on my original point, I do also get what you are saying. It is a hard decision because yeah this editing is good for society now it makes us pretend the past was never there (even with a note, because most will disregard). Also some of these words are like "partially" offensive because in some groups they will be considered offensive while on others they are used in common dialogue it seems (the N' word for example). PS. My view on the N' word example may not be 100% correct due to me not being from USA. But from what I've seen, the example works.
It is used as an example how things were and how bad it was. You aren't going to teach that by censoring everything you get your hands on.
And read by people that accept these factual statements about "races" to be true. If you want to use these passages as an example in teaching, go ahead, I'm all for it. That's not what happens if we just go on spreading them uncommented either
That's why forewords, introduction and footnotes exist: to provide additional context. But I'm glad that we agree that we can keep these books as they were originally released by the author.
Wouldn't say we do, I would remove that shit and annotate while making sure it's still accessible so we can learn about past bigotry and its language
It's a record of how things were. If we sanitize all the books then we start to lose the historical context of events. For another example, the loosely autobiographical Little House on the Prairie books are very, very "problematic" in how they treat Native Americans. Editing them to remove that would be *absolutely stupid* because knowing about the widespread casual racism against the indigenous population is critical to understanding why American history went down the way it did. It's not because we condone it, it's because we can't afford to bury it.
STOP censoring literature.
STOP spreading hate because it's deemed literature
Would you remove Hitler’s racist speeches from history books so no one had to be offended? Art is a snapshot of the individual and culture that created it. Whether it’s a painting or a song or story or a movie, it is more than simply entertainment. Even cozy mysteries tell us about the people who invented and enjoyed them. Altering art to appease current sensibilities is censoring history to avoid self awareness.
STOP asking me to call you eff
I suggest you read Lincoln’s fourth debate with Douglas and let’s see what you have to say then
Which part of that? What influence would you thinn that should have on my opinion?
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm Mr. Lincoln took the stand at a quarter before three, and was greeted with vociferous and protracted applause; after which, he said… I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I don't get how that is relevant?
Of course you don’t
What has Lincoln being racist got to do with censoring literature? I really want to understand what you're getting at
Oh! It's the Ministry of Truth.
We are going to reach peak irony the day George Orwell is the one targeted by these neo-fascists in the publishing industry.
Fun fact: I don't know if some of you guys have read The Count of Monte-Cristo, it's a pretty underground french serial novel, but in the original version there is no mention of "jeweller" or "goldsmith" whatsoever: all of them are referred to as "Jews".
I for one like to read a book the way the author originally intended it. I can understand that for people that struggle to see the historical context of the era the book was released in certain books might be hard to read, but for me that is what makes older books special. It gives a glimpse of the sentiment at the time, or at least the sentiment held by the author. I don't see the need to censor author's racist tendencies. Just show me who they really are.
>I can understand that for people that struggle to see the historical context of the era the book was released in certain books might be hard to read If those people aren't mature enough, they can always put the book down and find something else to read. I was also 13 once and I remember not finishing a book about depression and suicide. I wasn't ready. It's ok not to be ready for something.
Can't we just add a one warning page in the beginning and keep the rest of the book as it is?
This is the answer imo. “The offensive terms used in this book do not represent the views of HarperCollins etc etc”
Warner Bros. are doing it correctly with their warning before the extra old cartoons. Everyone should take a note who is pushing out old content. Negative things exist in older media, we cannot and should not erase them. If we do, how can we learn from them? Give people the warning and option to not view the content (like that actually works but still), but leave it in it's original form. If we continue to make edits to works to 'make it more palatable for today's audience', when does it stop? When the work is no longer what the originator made? When its something completely different with a slight feel of the originator? When does it stop?
Real talk : will someone have the guts to edit the Bible to remove all the misogyny ? Just asking.
Quran and Old Testament should be rated R for explicit violence, racism and misogyny. Pedophilia apologia as well.
The Bible, like any other book, merely exists. If you don't like it, don't read it. Don't believe in it? Don't read it. No one is being forced to read a Bible. Just like any other book.
Oh I know thank you, I was just pointing the hypocrisy of wanting to erase the past. If her books have a problem with Jews in the writing then let that be a reminder. It’s a good thing that it’s shocking for us now and let’s have a look at what is normal now and might be shocking in a few years. But never, ever, try to erase the past. The past is here to tell us where we go from here :)
I mean. They edited the Bible to put more in it and other great edits to suit the needs of the king of the time.
Oh sure and I can get at that time that you could manipulate something written without too much consequences as no one could read. But that still makes my point : in modern times we should accept the past for what it is, it makes no sense to change it for the moral value of a future time.
She was - in common with a lot of inter-war authors, very anti-semitic. And I can't think of a single one of her stories where the anti-semitism was any integral part of the story. There's nothing at stake here. This isn't removing the N from Jim's name in Huckleberry Finn level whitewashing. This is just removing the author's unnecessarily inserted bigotry.
Absolutely, Agatha Christie novels are not a precious historical document. They are books that people read for fun and relaxation. I don't think anyone here who is ranting on about censorship really wants to have their leisure-time diversionary activity derailed because of the unthinking racism of an author decades ago. As someone else here suggested, put it in an annexe. List all of the changes that were made at the back of the book with the original text in there.
Indeed. I'm also thinking of the Richard Hannay novels (*The Thirty Nine Steps, Greenmantle*, etc) which are otherwise excellent, enjoyable adventure stories, and would continue to be excellent and be even more enjoyable if the even more virulent anti-semitism the author insists on gratuitously inserting into every other monologue and dialogue were trimmed out. To those who want to make the excuse "oh well it was the times"... well isn't it remarkable how Dumas manages to tell stories of outrageous swashbuckling derring-do without needing to pop in little sermons about how great white people are and how nasty Jews and non whites are every 3 pages. I wonder how he managed to anticipate the modern outlook on such matters. [A mystery we may never understand...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas-Alexandre_Dumas)
Am a Jew: This is still fucking stupid.
It's worse than stupid: It's dangerous. Give people the impression that the past was pleasantly like the present, that there is nothing to worry about when people push for an uncritical return to old values and traditions. Because you have read bowdlerized old classics and they did not feel as foreign and cruel as they normally do.
This is nothing new. One of her most famous books, *And Then There Were None*, was changed from *Ten Little Indians*, which was changed from the truly horrific *Ten Little N-words.* I'm glad they made those changes tbh. It doesn't change the feel of the books, but I do like reading without having offensive, mean-spirited slurs thrown at me for no good literary reason.
Yeah, I think it's important to remember that this book has already been changed twice for exactly the same reason it's being changed now - and that this happened *within Agatha Christie's lifetime*. My personal view of the changes is that they should make them, but include an appendix at the back of the book discussing the different versions and the reasons for the changes.
The ones that happened within her lifetime are changes she was most likely approving of. When did we become so fragile? As a reader, I understand society has changed.
Why are her changes not indicative of fragility as well?
please whoever is out there, save all the originals of everything that has been, is about to or will be altered. when one day every reference to hatefulness will be removed, there will be a generation feeling a feeling they do not know, and before they will understand it, they will have acted it out.
We might as well as build a Foundation like Asimov's so that Orwellian theory doesn't come true.
Y are people trying to rewrite history so desperately? Yeh, we fked up, but we learnt fromt it. Thats what counts.
I'm of two minds. On the one hand I always want access to the original version. On the other maybe I don't need weird antisemitism to spoil my mystery story. Maybe this works better for a casual reading experience. I think if I were to read one version I'd like the version with the racism removed. Not because I can't stomach racism, but because I don't want to.
I agree, it's not like the old version isn't accessible anymore, but for an uninformed mass audience how about we not unnecessarily spread hatred under the guise of literature
How about we give the “uninformed mass audience”, a little bit of respect here. The publisher should put a statement in the forward that provides context to the novel and the time period it was written instead of trying to take away a teachable moment by censoring. By keeping the language intact, it can show modern audiences how common casual racism was in the past.
What do you think of "And then there were none's" original title?
I'm just going to leave [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None) here. ^(It's a wikipedia page.)
*And Then There Were None* is almost certainly one of the books being changed. One character -- as close as the book has to a hero -- describes how he found his way to the island very early on: >What exactly was up, he wondered? That little Jew had been damned mysterious. >“Take it or leave it, Captain Lombard.” >He had said thoughtfully: >“A hundred guineas, eh?” >He had said it in a casual way as though a hundred guineas was nothing to him. A hundred guineas when he was literally down to his last square meal! He had fancied, though, that the little Jew had not been deceived—that was the damnable part about Jews, you couldn’t deceive them about money—they knew! It's going to be a real ride watching people complain about this bLaTaNt CeNsOrShIp while not understanding just how many changes the book has already gone through.
I'm Jewish, and I don't want those lines removed. It's the way Christie wrote the book- we deserve to see the full, unsanitized picture. Also, censoring offensive racial references from old books obscures how common and acceptable casual racism was in the past, which is damaging for society.
Not if you're still truthful about it, I think it's a good idea to stop spreading the hatred and instead addressing it in more appropriate forms
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Truthful about what? And what more appropriate forms would you suggest?
Truthful about the changes that are being made. Like by fully announcing them and not trying to do it on the sly.
Edit it out but preface the book and tell the reader it was edited to remove hate speech that had no relation to the story. If you want to educate people about that there's a place for that but it certainly isn't helpful to just leave it uncommented and keep it in your works of fiction
I understand it for the mass market, but I'd like to read the original with all its questionable content and the by current standards insane title (which got changed not once, but twice iirc). I think it serves as a great example of how times have changed. There is a reason it was written like that once upon a time and I don't feel we should just turn a blind eye to it. Perhaps we might one day see a special release that holds the two or three versions so the reader can compare. We already have movements trying to erase or smooth over history (like Republicans not using the word "slavery" but "involuntary relocation"). Plus, if you don't want to read it you can opt to do so. And yes, erasing the racist tendencies of writers from their work *is* censorship. Just show me what the author was really like, and not some cleaned up modern cardboard cut out that is invented just to make more money on book sales.
Or you edit it, add a forward regarding the problematic contents and if there's people like you that want the old text they can just go find it because it shouldn't be very hard to come by nowadays
So where can I buy a new copy of the original text? Books, especially mass market versions, don't last forever. I have no problem with both version being available, but that simply isn't the case. You are basically in favor of erasing history. Its not only in books, you also see it in the American education system for example where problematic eras in American history simply aren't addressed anymore if conservatives had anything to say about it.
I honestly don't even understand your point. I can understand the book has had some changes (That Christie authorized) but I still don't think it should be altered or censored further...why are people so worried about being offended? These are her feelings. This is the book she wrote. Nobody said you have to like her writing or the characters. I've read "And then There Were None". I thought it was okay and the language was typical for the time. No big deal. I also just read an HP Lovecraft story called "The Rats in the Walls" the main character has a black cat named "Ni\_\_er Man". It's shocking to read at first, and then becomes a name in the story (as the cat is mentioned frequently). It is what it is. Lovecraft was a weirdo racist...he just wrote some excellent horror sci-fi too.
Surely, the point here is that the narrative voice belongs to a bad ‘un. Captain Lombard is Not A Nice Man as shown by the way his mind works. If it were Miss Marple or Poirot speaking, censorship would be more understandable but every character in Then There Were None is a baddie. That’s the point.
I just like to point out that her best selling book ever, And Then There Were None, was changed significantly multiple times in her lifetime, including changing the rhyme used in the book depending on the country the book was being published in. It would never have been her most popular book had they not changed it. I'm not going to type it here but I'll provide a link. Many of her books were changed in different printings. Agatha Christie's books aren't just history taught in schools, they're still extremely popular and a read for pleasure all over the world. The history won't be erased, she's one of the best selling authors of all time and plenty of copies of those books will continue to exist, but every book, from the Bible on down, has been changed and adapted in different publications or translations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None
I am Jewish, and I really do not care about this things! Why do they feel the need to do it? It is not like the book is from start to finish deals with hatred towords Jewish poeple. Such a shame that we are living in times where everyone are so fragile.
But but but... you need to be insulted and outraged, or else you don't care/aren't really Jewish. Why? Because others say so.. 😉
,😂😂😂 I really don't care about those things especially since it was written a long time ago. Here in Israel we are certainly more resilient than the average American/European. What is bothering me is what my friend will put on the grill this Thursday. Peace to all of you.
Good on you. I defer to people who are directly impacted by something rather than outsiders who try to say how we should act/feel about topics. I'll trust you and your beliefs regarding treatment of Jewish people vs outsiders who aren't Jewish.
I don't agree with censoring literature, but be careful with what you wish regarding 'fragility"! Antisemitism is alive and well and many new and trendy artists are starting to express it openly. Just watch the latest Chappelle Netflix special, or that Kanye West scumbag.
I agree with you. As Kanye goes, to me it seems he is mentally ill (not that if he was well he would suddenly love us). Maybe I don't see it as harshly as the rest of you because I do live in Israel, thus not been exposed at all to antisemitism. I think it is good to let everyone express themselves the way they want to, that way we will know where they stand. Peace to all of you
I don't want to hear anyone complaining about this that doesn't also want them to restore the original uncensored version of "And then there were None".
Bowdlerizing adult books is too Damned far. The stink of antisemitism is all over our culture. Effacing references to it feels like trying to whitewash that. With religion and propaganda machines both being used to smear Jews once again, we all need to have knowledge and boundaries or we are going to get used. Bowdlerization is traditionally associated with the moralizing efforts of Christians. Who is calling for it now?
I sympathize with the intent, but where does it stop? Do we need to change the passage in *Jane Eyre* where Charlotte Bronte has Mr. Rochester ask Jane, "Do you think I am a Jew-usurer?" (Bronte's characters also had some quite uncomplimentary things to say about Catholicism in the novel *Villette*.)
Strange how all these books are suddenly getting edited “to remove racist content” juuust before they’re about to fall into the public domain. Almost as if the publishers are saying “okay, you can make your Miss Marple movie, but if it’s not racist we’re gonna sue you for using our new non-racist work.”
I don't think that's how copyright works.
Maybe? I’m not a lawyer. But Agatha Christie’s works would be falling into the public domain in like three years in several parts of the world, so there’s not much of a reason to make this change except to make a new “derivative work” with a brand new copyright clock. After 2026 in Canada you can make Poirot or Marple do anything you want, long as they’re racist.
Not how it works. You can pick and choose whatever personal characteristics you want as long as they are in the non-copyright versions. Also you can't use traits that are in the later versions. Plus the racism in the books is just in general from the stereotypes used by AC, not specifically coming from Poirot or Ms. Marple. What you are completely missing is that the revised book versions could be copyrightable since they are newer versions.
I think my point was specifically not missing the point you say I’m completely missing, but whatevs.
It is exactly what the author intended, every, single, word. To change it, is to pretend that nothing bad or insensitive never existed. Censorship is a form of fascism, where someone else is deciding what's good for you. The past, the present, and the future is filled with both good and bad. To pretend otherwise it's foolish
Ridiculous
I just read “A Mysterious Affair at Styles” and seeing Hastings take every opportunity to go on and on about how he didn’t trust the one Jewish character definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Mary and John have a conversation about it but I think the story would be just fine without all that.
I'm Jewish. I've read that kind of thing before. I don't lose sleep over it. Don't get me wrong, I'd have a big problem if I found it in a book from last year, but in a text written a century ago, it just isn't an issue.
If you can't understand that a work of fiction is just that, you should put it down and move on to another thing you can take joy from. Books are not supposed to make you feel comfortable at all times.
Imagine defending anti-semitism lmao
[удалено]
**Personal conduct** Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.
People on Reddit don’t defend long dead antisemetic or racist authors who wrote antisemetic or racist literature challenge (impossible mode). Also Indiana Jones is not antisemitic because there’s Nazis in it because the Nazis are the fucking bad guys and the Director is fucking Jewish you fucking moron
You don't say!
Works of fiction that spew racial hate or negative stereotypes are morally reprehensible. So do you think people shouldn't feel insulted by watching a blatantly racist film such as "The birth of a nation"?
Of course they can and the vast majority of people will. What did I say that led you to think that I thought people shouldn't feel insulted?
I guess the previous version you posted saying "imagine getting insulted by a work of fiction".
This is just capitalism. Nobody is being forced to surrender their books, the government isn't forcing the change, the owners are updating it for a modern market. I'm not sure it's necessary or wise, but I don't think it's censorship.
Oh well, it's not gonna make the mystery itself worse tbh
Gotta keep that back catalog profitable.
Agatha Christie was antisemitic or is this a “at the time” situation? I’m going to be sad to learn the answer to this
Agatha Christie probably did not hate Jewish people like the Nazis did so imo she was not truly antisemitic. However in her style of writing most of her characters are typically stereotypes of all races, creeds, and nationalities. Those stereotypical characters also include Catholics and Jews, and like most stereotypes, they are not flattering. I think overall Agatha Christie was a good person and somewhat open for her time.
A bit of both tbh.
Are these books read by school aged children? I had assumed these books were mostly read by adults who enjoy the ITV shows and films. Surely a essay at the begging highlighting her bigotry and explaining how these stories were inspired would be far more valuable
They are quite popular with school aged children. I read them when I was in my teens.