Agreed. If they're up-front instead of vague about whether a particular edition has been changed, I wouldn't mind as much. That aside, the mere concept of bowdlerisation seems like a pertinent issue right now, similar to when the term was first coined.

You are thinking of 'Good Samaritan' law, which compels people to take action to help injured or endangered others. Here, because of the time issue, you are free from legal prosecution: in the Germany of the 1700's, when and where the literary story of 'Frankenstein' occurred, there were no such laws.

If these events had happened after 2009, though, you would be liable for up to a year in prison for failing to render assistance to any person (specifically) in your view that had been injured by the creature - and possibly for failing to raise the alarm to warn the town (though that charge would be unlikely to stick). If you stayed in the university, and saw no person injured, though, you could not be convicted. The law only applies to what you could actually witness.

But, within the given time period of the novel - or even the movie version - no such legal compulsion existed yet, which makes you unprosecutable.

Additionally, there is the issue of the 'Bystander Effect', which is a known psychological phenomena where people fail to take action because they are shocked or stunned into immobility. You could, as a last resort, argue this stance, and that because of the overwhelming horror of the event, you can not be held liable for inaction.

So, yes, sufficiently terrible circumstances do, in fact, paralyze people sometimes, and the law can be forced to account for this effect. The animation of a corpse against all natural law definitely falls under the category of 'sufficiently terrible'.

send him to the gallows!>:.O

Do you think that systematically editing cultural works doesn't affect people's perception of reality?

Ahhhh, so what I'm irked by is bowdlerisation. Far out, that helps a lot, and might help me discuss this issue more accurately

[removed]

There is a whole other thread on this here on r/books. If the Telegraph is correct that they changed Matilda's favorite authors, that is a bridge too far for me. Bowdlerization is looked down on for good reason. It isn't fair to not disclose to fans who may be buying copies of books they loved as gifts for children and relatives.

I absolutely loved these books in middle school, which I see as the perfect age range for them. Elementary schoolers arent really ready for the subject matter or the humor present.

The books are a very beautiful and gentle ode to the Baudelaire siblings, while also being a cutting take on the banality, tragedy, and absurdity of growing up.

OP I really think you kinda missed the subtler aspects of the books. They are meant to be very exaggerated and farcical because they are satirical. They are meant to show the best and the worst of humanity. And yes they are meant to be repetitive because that adds to the tragedy and the farce.

Not entirely sure. A quick Google tells me that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is published by Scholastic as well. Not done a lot of research into it though so might be wrong on that. I guess you could always look for a publication date before the edits when buying online too

haters gona hate. I thouught my experiment was cool af

Your argument gives me hope, but does the occurrence of an extremely implausible event necessarily place any witnesses in a stupor where they can’t reasonably be expected to do anything? I feel like the unexpectedness of an event doesn’t negate my ability to act justly in real time- no matter what I had foreseen while creating the monster

[deleted]

[deleted]

Is there another publisher with the rights to publish in 2023 or are originalists limited to used book stores?

Right, but would the “reasonable person” defense still hold up once it is clear that the monster is conscious (regardless of what was expected of its moral temperament before it was alive), as it was when I turned my back on it?

See the articles linked and discussion on the thread here on r/books. The article in the Telegraph claimed they changed Matilda's favorite author. I think it is worth verifying. If they go too far it is bowdlerization. I'm generally opposed, especially if they don't disclose in the book that changes have been made and what they are.

Make them prove that you created the mobster. Make them prove than mere man can create life from inanimate body parts. It's preposterous. Lol

Good luck

Even then, aren’t zombies basically a virus? How can we even assign morality to that

I mean, neither, it literally doesnt know a thing when I created it

Thanks for your thoughts. I guess I'm trying to think of a literary analogy for this, and I'll accept 1984's Ministry of Truth as being a stretch. But still, like I said in the OP, I can't ignore the principle idea of changing words for reasons other than grammar. It doesn't feel right at all.

Those damn conservatives are burning books again

How would “virtually no efforts” hold up in court? Nobody knows that I was glad the monster was out of my sight 😈😈

Fair enough, I guess that's why I was posting this as a question. I accept that a publisher changing some select words is not the same as a totalitarian regime, and so not what Orwell may have had in mind, but then that still leaves the question of the long-term implications of publishers changing things to suit the times. Can you think of a better literary analogy for Penguins 'reviews'?

If a parent lets his toddler wander off and then takes virtually no efforts to find the toddler, wouldn't that parent be charged with child abuse or neglect?

Agreed- He developed a conscience by observing the family even if he didn’t have one when I made him.

Would your prosecution not be defendable in the same way that Oppenheimer was not guilty for Truman’s decision to drop the bomb?