I do not see that the use of the profanity in any material way improved the material.
That's not the reader's choice to make.
To call this editing is really stupid. If I bought a paper book I could go through it and ink out every profane usage before I or my child read it.
edit: prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.
No, it's not stupid. It's exactly what's going on. Changing the text from the original is, in fact, editing.
You might not think that's bad, but don't change the definition of the word 'edit' to make it seem less intrusive that what it is.
I don't need the profanity for that.
Not your choice to make. The writer wrote those words for a reason.
The app lets people who buy the book read it in a way that pleases them.
So why not simply buy a book that would actually please them, i.e. one without profanity. This is the 'I have a right not to be offended' argument. Which is utter bullsh**. No one has a right not to be offended.
It is most certainly not censorship. Censorship prevents everyone from reading something.
I go back and forth on the censorship angle. It's not Big Brother Government Agency level censorship certainly. But a patron going into a library and purposely misshelving a book so others cannot find it is a form of censorship. Likewise, that patron outright stealing a book from the library so that others cannot read it is censorship. So too if a patron goes into a library and marks put a copy of a book to blank out the words they personally find offensive. This simply being a choice the reader makes does not prevent it from being akin to censorship.
This falls under the freedom of choice. I can choose to read the profane language or I can choose not to.
That's funny. So why not chose to avoid the books with profanity instead of editing them? Again, you don't have a right not to be offended. If you want a book without profanity, write one. You don't have the right to edit other people's work simply because you don't like their word choice.
How can an author tell me what I have to read?
They can't. And that's the crux of the argument.
Consent. You have
consented to read a given work by purchasing it and taking the time to read it. You're
consenting to read that book, the writer wrote the book,
consented to whatever edits were made prior to publication, but has
not consented to have their work further changed by this app, or by you. Why is your consent more important than theirs?
I can stop in the middle of a book because the book is boring or because it is offensive (I've done both.) In no way is my choice censorship of the whole.
Putting down a book that you don't want to continue is not censorship, removing words you don't like from a book is.
As a parent I expect to be able to help my children make moral choices. That's an obligation of a parent. I could easily see this app. being an aid in that duty.
As a parent, I can see this app as an easy excuse to avoid parenting. Instead of having a real conversation with my child about passages or words or thoughts or ideas that are out of her context or that she doesn't like, as a parent, it's my duty to talk with her about those things. To explain what those words mean, what the writer might have been trying to express by saying things in a certain way. It's not my job to remove those thoughts and ideas from a given work and thereby avoid talking with my child. If you don't want your kid to read a given work, don't let them. By removing challenging content you're removing the very reason they should be reading in the first place.
If he cannot convey emotions and intensity without profanity, in my book he's pretty much of a hack. It seems to me that Shakespeare rarely resorted to profanity and the emotions of his characters came through with crystal clearness.
:facepalm:
Ah, this chestnut of bullsh** again. 'You're clearly too stupid to communicate effectively if you
have to resort to profanity.' No, as the writer they've made that choice. There's no connection between the use of profanity--or lack thereof--and quality.
'The Bard rarely resorted to profanity.' Really? You have a quite shallow grasp of your Shakespeare then. The man wrote some of the most lascivious, outrageous, and explicit works. Not outright porn, no of course not, but the man's work is peppered with profanity and innuendo
for the time.
