And now they've come for Jeeves..

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Hardly surprising at this point, but the madness continues.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/jeeves-and-wooster-censored-penguins-latest-sensitivity/

Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose
by PG Wodehouse deemed "unacceptable" by publishers, the
Telegraph can reveal.

Original passages in the comic novels have been purged or
reworked for new editions issued by Penguin Random House.

Trigger warnings have also been added to revised editions
telling would-be Wodehouse readers that his themes and
characters may be "outdated".

One warning states that the writer's prose has been altered
because it was judged to be "unacceptable" by Penguin, a
publishing house which enlists the services of sensitivity
readers.

The disclaimer printed on the opening pages of the 2023
reissue of Thank you, Jeeves states: "Please be aware that
this book was published in the 1930s and contains language,
themes and characterisations which you may find outdated.

"In the present edition we have sought to edit, minimally,
words that we regard as unacceptable to present-day readers."
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Titus G]

On 16/04/23 17:56, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> Hardly surprising at this point, but the madness continues.
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/jeeves-and-wooster-censored-penguins-latest-sensitivity/
>
> Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose
> by PG Wodehouse deemed "unacceptable" by publishers, the
> Telegraph can reveal.
>
> Original passages in the comic novels have been purged or
> reworked for new editions issued by Penguin Random House.
>
> Trigger warnings have also been added to revised editions
> telling would-be Wodehouse readers that his themes and
> characters may be "outdated".
>
> One warning states that the writer's prose has been altered
> because it was judged to be "unacceptable" by Penguin, a
> publishing house which enlists the services of sensitivity
> readers.
>
> The disclaimer printed on the opening pages of the 2023
> reissue of Thank you, Jeeves states: "Please be aware that
> this book was published in the 1930s and contains language,
> themes and characterisations which you may find outdated.

Isn't a large part of reading ancient fiction, to learn of attitudes of
different times?

> "In the present edition we have sought to edit, minimally,
> words that we regard as unacceptable to present-day readers."

Reminds me of fingernails on blackboards.

[Johnny1A]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:24:59 AM UTC-5, Titus G wrote:
> On 16/04/23 17:56, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > Hardly surprising at this point, but the madness continues.
> >
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/jeeves-and-wooster-censored-penguins-latest-sensitivity/
> >
> > Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose
> > by PG Wodehouse deemed "unacceptable" by publishers, the
> > Telegraph can reveal.
> >
> > Original passages in the comic novels have been purged or
> > reworked for new editions issued by Penguin Random House.
> >
> > Trigger warnings have also been added to revised editions
> > telling would-be Wodehouse readers that his themes and
> > characters may be "outdated".
> >
> > One warning states that the writer's prose has been altered
> > because it was judged to be "unacceptable" by Penguin, a
> > publishing house which enlists the services of sensitivity
> > readers.
> >
> > The disclaimer printed on the opening pages of the 2023
> > reissue of Thank you, Jeeves states: "Please be aware that
> > this book was published in the 1930s and contains language,
> > themes and characterisations which you may find outdated.
> Isn't a large part of reading ancient fiction, to learn of attitudes of
> different times?

There's a strain of 'year zero' thinking running as a silent backbeat through this insanity. A desire to _erase_ the real past, to replace it with an imaginary one that suits the present fixations.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 06:56:18 UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> Hardly surprising at this point, but the madness continues.
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/jeeves-and-wooster-censored-penguins-latest-sensitivity/
>
> Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose
> by PG Wodehouse deemed "unacceptable" by publishers, the
> Telegraph can reveal.
>
> Original passages in the comic novels have been purged or
> reworked for new editions issued by Penguin Random House.
>
> Trigger warnings have also been added to revised editions
> telling would-be Wodehouse readers that his themes and
> characters may be "outdated".
>
> One warning states that the writer's prose has been altered
> because it was judged to be "unacceptable" by Penguin, a
> publishing house which enlists the services of sensitivity
> readers.

Is it Jews and how do you feel about it?

I was rather startled last night when a repeat of comedy
quiz "QI" from, as I find, 2015 was announced as "with some
outdated humour". I think the actual "problem" was that
when the panel were given their joke "buzzer" sounds, which
they tend not to use, regular player and stooge Alan Davies
got Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers in 1960 singing "Goodness
Gracious Me" as characters from the film "The Millionairess"
in which Sellers plays an Indian doctor, which also is the theme
of the song. This rankles.

But they also had Matt Lucas and Ross Noble on.

A 1990s BBC comedy show with "British Asian" performers
was titled and theme tuned "Goodness Gracious Me" -
without the lyrics - having had a working title of
"Peter Sellers Is Dead". Wikipedia says they forgave him.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_Gracious_Me_%28TV_series%29>
I don't know if the French have...

[James Nicoll]

In article <758248bb-f01a-4f92...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 06:56:18 UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> Hardly surprising at this point, but the madness continues.
>>
>>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/jeeves-and-wooster-censored-penguins-latest-sensitivity/
>>
>> Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose
>> by PG Wodehouse deemed "unacceptable" by publishers, the
>> Telegraph can reveal.
>>
>> Original passages in the comic novels have been purged or
>> reworked for new editions issued by Penguin Random House.
>>
>> Trigger warnings have also been added to revised editions
>> telling would-be Wodehouse readers that his themes and
>> characters may be "outdated".
>>
>> One warning states that the writer's prose has been altered
>> because it was judged to be "unacceptable" by Penguin, a
>> publishing house which enlists the services of sensitivity
>> readers.
>
>Is it Jews and how do you feel about it?

There is, if I recall correctly, a memorable incident involving
blackface.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 23:03:34 UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <758248bb-f01a-4f92...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 06:56:18 UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> Hardly surprising at this point, but the madness continues.
> >>
> >>
> >https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/jeeves-and-wooster-censored-penguins-latest-sensitivity/
> >>
> >> Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose
> >> by PG Wodehouse deemed "unacceptable" by publishers, the
> >> Telegraph can reveal.
> >>
> >> Original passages in the comic novels have been purged or
> >> reworked for new editions issued by Penguin Random House.
> >>
> >> Trigger warnings have also been added to revised editions
> >> telling would-be Wodehouse readers that his themes and
> >> characters may be "outdated".
> >>
> >> One warning states that the writer's prose has been altered
> >> because it was judged to be "unacceptable" by Penguin, a
> >> publishing house which enlists the services of sensitivity
> >> readers.
> >
> >Is it Jews and how do you feel about it?
> There is, if I recall correctly, a memorable incident involving
> blackface.

Hmm. I've only seen the 1991 adaptation of that.
An American audience apparently didn't. And there was
possibly significant difference.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You,_Jeeves>
describes - in original language by the end - the role of
"blackface minstrels", apparently an unnamed group
of probably white performers (it's 1934 and we're in...
Somersetshire?) which Bertie Wooster disguises himself
into, with boot polish. It isn't mentioned whether the musicians
question him. Meanwhile, Sir Roderick Glossop apparently
has to entertain a child and also uses boot polish on himself.
This allows Bertie to be passed off as Sir Roderick, or
vice versa. It doesn't come off like regular stage makeup,
so they are both looking for butter, which isn't available.

<https://bookriot.com/jeeves-and-blackface/> is a
criticism which seems to assume that the musicians
in the book actually are Black. That isn't impossible.
It even may be mentioned. The critic deeply regrets
their poor treatment.

The first Wikipedia article and also
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapped!_%28Jeeves_and_Wooster%29>
describe that 1991 version in which several of Bertie's
white friends at the Drones Club of London are the musicians,
and are basically victims of one of Jeeves's cunning plans.
Stern father J. Washburn Stoker also is blacked up here,
I forget why, except to make things work out at the end.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>
> <https://bookriot.com/jeeves-and-blackface/> is a
> criticism which seems to assume that the musicians
> in the book actually are Black. That isn't impossible.
> It even may be mentioned. The critic deeply regrets
> their poor treatment.
>
> The first Wikipedia article and also
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapped!_%28Jeeves_and_Wooster%29>
> describe that 1991 version in which several of Bertie's
> white friends at the Drones Club of London are the musicians,
> and are basically victims of one of Jeeves's cunning plans.
> Stern father J. Washburn Stoker also is blacked up here,
> I forget why, except to make things work out at the end.

I'd have to reread the story (what a fate!) but my recollection is that
they are all in blackface, not Black. They were definitely blackface in
the 1991 version (which was available on youtube a few years ago; I
assume without checking that it still is).

Something I feel is important is they're presented as total idiots (as
the Drones always are). One of them is very pleased with himself for
reaching the end of a song first. So while, yes, it does have
blackface, it also has that as something idiots do.

[Kevrob]

This all brings to mind this fellow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler
....the root of "to bowlderize."

https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/22199

I remember expurgated Shakespeare!

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

[snip]

> I'd have to reread the story (what a fate!) but my recollection is that
> they are all in blackface,

[/snip]

IMS, after the US War Between The States when freedmen and their
descendants formed their own minstrel troupes, they might have to
"black up" themselves!

Re: Bert Williams and George Walker aka "Two Real [Expletive]"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/12/behind-the-mask

--
Kevin R

[William Hyde]

Thanks for that. I had no idea.

William Hyde

[David Johnston]

I'm OK with it. Lighthearted comedy is a fragile mood to maintain and
casual racial epithets that wouldn't disrupt it a century ago can act as
a real spoiler now. Editing a work to make it more commercially viable
was a thing that happened to writers such as Wodehouse back then, and
its not unreasonable for it happen now. They aren't publishing the
novels as historical artifacts but as something that's supposed to give
the audience a laugh right here and ow.

[James Nicoll]

In article <u1sqar$qsbd$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I'm OK with it. Lighthearted comedy is a fragile mood to maintain and
>casual racial epithets that wouldn't disrupt it a century ago can act as
>a real spoiler now. Editing a work to make it more commercially viable
>was a thing that happened to writers such as Wodehouse back then, and
>its not unreasonable for it happen now. They aren't publishing the
>novels as historical artifacts but as something that's supposed to give
>the audience a laugh right here and ow.

The classic example is a frequently retitled Agatha Christie
currently known as "And Then There Were None."

[Titus G]

Such as television and newspaper news?
I'm definitely not OK with it and agree with the warning in the phrasing
of the Subject title, that it is the thin end of the wedge.

[Johnny1A]

Bet on it.

It was the same thing we've seen many times before, it starts with something that people really do find somewhat offensive, or doubtful, and once the precedent is set it expands.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
<johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:

They appear to be coming for the Bible in Florida.

Apparently, it's been objected to under the law in several school
districts.

That's the worst characteristic of Republicans: they are so stupid
they still think that they are actually running the country. That
other people, with different opinions exist, is unknown to them.

"What larks!" as Joe said to Pip.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

[David Johnston]

I have no idea what the hell that means.

>> I'm definitely not OK with it and agree with the warning in the phrasing
>> of the Subject title, that it is the thin end of the wedge.
>
> Bet on it.
>
> It was the same thing we've seen many times before, it starts with something that people really do find somewhat offensive, or doubtful, and once the precedent is set it expands.
>

You know, changing old fiction to suit modern sensibilities for
commercial purposes is not a new thing, and older examples were much
more drastic. Just think about what they did to Robin Hood. Meanwhile
they are already releasing a "classic" set of unaltered Roald Dahl books
that's going to sell a hell of a lot more after this publicity.

[Lynn McGuire]

"Steven Spielberg Regrets Editing Guns Out of ‘E.T.,’ Says ‘No Film
Should Be Revised’ for Today’s Standards: ‘That Was a Mistake’"

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/steven-spielberg-regrets-editing-guns-et-censorship-1235594163/

Lynn

[David Johnston]

That was just nonsense. Today's standards have no problem with showing
armed cops.

[Paul S Person]

I agree.

It wasn't a mistake because you should never revise a film to meet
modern standards. It was a mistake because it removed ET's motivation
for taking the kids airborne.

IOW, he just plain /forgot/ what that scene was doing in the film. It
isn't a sign of poor judgement; it's a sign of softening of the brain.

A softening extended to /Close Encounters/, and (for Lucas) all those
"improved" Star Wars films.

[Titus G]

Sorry. Just a cynical throwaway line relating the dishonesty of official
news organisations in rewriting current history by never telling the
whole truth. (eg NY Times and WaPo Russiagate).

>
>>> I'm definitely not OK with it and agree with the warning in the phrasing
>>> of the Subject title, that it is the thin end of the wedge.
>>
>> Bet on it.
>>
>> It was the same thing we've seen many times before, it starts with
>> something that people really do find somewhat offensive, or doubtful,
>> and once the precedent is set it expands.
>>
>
> You know, changing old fiction to suit modern sensibilities for
> commercial purposes is not a new thing, and older examples were much
> more drastic. Just think about what they did to Robin Hood.  Meanwhile
> they are already releasing a "classic" set of unaltered Roald Dahl books
> that's going to sell a hell of a lot more after this publicity.

Yes, there is always the possibility of a hidden ulterior motive and
those that voice them are often called conspiracy theorists. (I don't
mean you.)

I don't know what was done to Robin Hood in this context. That was one
of my favourite childhood books and after exposure to only one or two
other versions, have never again let memories of my childhood visuals
of: Robin Hood and the Men of Greenwood. Henry Gilbert. Nelsons. 1912.
be sullied.