RL Stine, author of the Goosebumps horror series for children, has accused his publisher of making changes to his books without his permission.
Oh man, this could get fucking spicy. When it came out that he was changing the books, I looked at people's reactions, and there was a bunch of people cheering it on, and saying "Stine was always empathetic," and "what a good guy," and "it's different because this is the author doing it."
It will be fun trying to see these people twist themselves into knots.
Also, real talk, where did the claim that the author was the one making the changes come from? If he really had nothing to do with it, that's a massive clusterfuck.
where did the claim that the author was the one making the changes come from?
I’d guess the chucklefucks just assumed it, because unlike authors like Dahl and Seuss he’s still alive.
Of course the entire argument is a red herring anyways. It’s not like it wouldn’t be censorship if Stine had caved to threats and self-censored instead.
Its amusing how they always go after the books that kids are actually willing to read willingly and happily, almost as if these issues don't bother them.
Well we all know that's by design, but its still funny.
Well yeah, obviously? Just how they're so fixated on grooming your kids through feminist teachers and curriculums, because none of their ideologies are self sustainable, the only way they don't cease to exist is by grooming a child to be one of them since early school, it's all intentional.
I mean, there is a gap between when they add something designed to groom and the times they just remove something entirely and leave a blank sanitized nothing in its place. Its all from the same censorious place, but different goals and sometimes undermines the other one.
I think that one is part of the older woke cause of "remove every possible negative thing a child can ever see." Like when they started removing physical contact from sports and giving everyone trophies, which in turn just made kids not play at all anymore. Just like they just won't read anymore either, which will hurt their indoctrination process.
Depends what they replace reading with. Many of those people who have literally never read a single story since they've left high school have replaced that with spending time on twitter or other social media, and get all their news from their "friends' " hearsay.
If the only things available to read are propaganda, then I agree with you. But if not, if it can still get them exposed to heroic characters and different perspectives, then having a generation of children become functionally illiterate just seems like a loss of potential.
Of course, in this scenario I was speaking only of children and their specific book reading. I don't know how it is now, but back when I was in public education we had expectations and programs that required you to be reading at least a few books a year.
And once they limited that from "anything in the library or good enough for a book report" to "only approved by the system literature" we all just stopped reading most books beyond the barest minimum with a skim to pass. I kept reading on my own like a nerd, but most didn't and won't.
Which failed on multiple levels, but would absolutely shoot the "groom them into being easy prey for pedos and trannies" plan in the foot because no reading at all defaults them back to instincts. Which would reject those things anyway.
So, how does this sort of thing work in the publishing world?
I would have assumed that when an author makes a book deal with a publisher did it gives them the right to print the author's work with limits potentially on the number of copies or how long they had the printing rights- sort of like licensing agreements work.
If that was the case, they wouldn't be able to change anything without the author's consent, but it sounds like they can. What are his rights in this case? It's his name that they slap on the cover as the author can he demand that they remove it if the work has been edited without his consent?
Oh man, this could get fucking spicy. When it came out that he was changing the books, I looked at people's reactions, and there was a bunch of people cheering it on, and saying "Stine was always empathetic," and "what a good guy," and "it's different because this is the author doing it."
It will be fun trying to see these people twist themselves into knots.
Also, real talk, where did the claim that the author was the one making the changes come from? If he really had nothing to do with it, that's a massive clusterfuck.
He is, that’s why he wants you to go for a walk fatty
I’d guess the chucklefucks just assumed it, because unlike authors like Dahl and Seuss he’s still alive.
Of course the entire argument is a red herring anyways. It’s not like it wouldn’t be censorship if Stine had caved to threats and self-censored instead.
Glad to see he isn’t behind it. Goosebumps were an easy and entertaining read.
[Edited to rephrase and correct] I posted a Deadline article that reported on this. It (and likely others) sourced a report from The Times (UK).
Its amusing how they always go after the books that kids are actually willing to read willingly and happily, almost as if these issues don't bother them.
Well we all know that's by design, but its still funny.
Well yeah, obviously? Just how they're so fixated on grooming your kids through feminist teachers and curriculums, because none of their ideologies are self sustainable, the only way they don't cease to exist is by grooming a child to be one of them since early school, it's all intentional.
I mean, there is a gap between when they add something designed to groom and the times they just remove something entirely and leave a blank sanitized nothing in its place. Its all from the same censorious place, but different goals and sometimes undermines the other one.
I think that one is part of the older woke cause of "remove every possible negative thing a child can ever see." Like when they started removing physical contact from sports and giving everyone trophies, which in turn just made kids not play at all anymore. Just like they just won't read anymore either, which will hurt their indoctrination process.
Depends what they replace reading with. Many of those people who have literally never read a single story since they've left high school have replaced that with spending time on twitter or other social media, and get all their news from their "friends' " hearsay.
If the only things available to read are propaganda, then I agree with you. But if not, if it can still get them exposed to heroic characters and different perspectives, then having a generation of children become functionally illiterate just seems like a loss of potential.
Of course, in this scenario I was speaking only of children and their specific book reading. I don't know how it is now, but back when I was in public education we had expectations and programs that required you to be reading at least a few books a year.
And once they limited that from "anything in the library or good enough for a book report" to "only approved by the system literature" we all just stopped reading most books beyond the barest minimum with a skim to pass. I kept reading on my own like a nerd, but most didn't and won't.
Which failed on multiple levels, but would absolutely shoot the "groom them into being easy prey for pedos and trannies" plan in the foot because no reading at all defaults them back to instincts. Which would reject those things anyway.
TIL that if R.L. Stine really wanted to scare kids, all I'd have to do is show them his face.
What a nice guy, sticking to writing books.
He used to make intro appearances in the 90s movies, definitely had the creepy vibe down.
Plus some body horror and possession and utter mind death and the like. As I recall, at least. It's been decades, probably.
Based Slappy the Dummy.
So, how does this sort of thing work in the publishing world?
I would have assumed that when an author makes a book deal with a publisher did it gives them the right to print the author's work with limits potentially on the number of copies or how long they had the printing rights- sort of like licensing agreements work.
If that was the case, they wouldn't be able to change anything without the author's consent, but it sounds like they can. What are his rights in this case? It's his name that they slap on the cover as the author can he demand that they remove it if the work has been edited without his consent?
How many steps from rewriting books to burning them?
How dare you question the ministry of truth! The party is always right.