Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:14 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - singleticket 12:54 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| It would be nice to know what the nature of the requests for revisions are. While he has a right to demand his plays be performed as is, it’s incredibly common for theaters to make small changes in scripts to adjust for changing cultural awareness, especially when we’re looking at plays from more than the last 20 years. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 07:44 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 07:36 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - Singapore/Fling 07:14 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| I would imagine it is a matter of degrees. McDonagh thought the proposed changes bordered on censorship and PEN International seems to agree. The Roald Dahl situation, who was an admittedly nasty nasty man, was over-reach on the part of the publishers who wanted to make a profitable author more aligned with changing cultural standards but in doing so were also muffling Dahl's misanthropy which is really the essence of his writing and what makes him a unique writer of children's fiction. I like what Philip Pullman said about Dahl's publishers' attempt to rehabilitate him to contemporary ideological standards: ...let him go out of print... That’s what I’d say. Read Phil Earle, SF Said, Frances Hardinge, Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman. Read Mini Grey, Helen Cooper, Jaqueline Wilson, Beverley Naidoo... Read all these wonderful authors who are writing today who don’t get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl... They’re [Roald Dahl's books] not going to vanish because they’re still going to be around for years and years... They should be allowed to fade away. Let him go out of print. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 01:28 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - singleticket 07:36 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's tough, because I think you can preserve Dahl's misanthropy and also make, for example, the description of the Oompa Loompas less racist, which Dahl himself addressed in a subsequent revision. Looking at examples of their revisions (available on Wikipedia), there are definitely some original passages that seem ripe for re-evaluation or that could be more inclusive, while others seems overreactive (I for one mourn the loss of "queer" meaning strange, and don't think it affects the modern reclamation of queer as an identity, which is how I identify) or even head scratching (changing a reference to "Mrs. Weasel and six kids" to just "family"). Some of the revisions, for example, appropriately erase Dahl's misogyny, while others are so afraid that something might be misogynistic that they erase marvelous character details (Mrs. Wormwood is too tired to cook dinner because of Bingo, not because she's a woman, but the revisions are afraid of even that implication, so they just cut the whole passage). But even in the revised version, you still get plenty of Dahl's jaundiced view of humanity, and sometimes revisions that at first strike me as odd (changing a reference to hunters shooting elephants to hunters shooting prey), do seem justifiable after further reflection, even if I don't necessarily agree. As so often happens, I think that there is a lot of space for nuanced conversation about what drives these revisions and whose point of view on inclusivity is being privileged, but that all gets lost in the hysterics of outrage. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: FortPeck 11:08 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - Singapore/Fling 01:28 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Roald Dahl is dead. His books are what they are, and they don't need to live forever via inclusiveness updates (much as the estate might like that). They can go out of print, and someone can write new books. Posthumous changes and edits are absurd and offensive. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:00 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - FortPeck 11:08 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| "much as the estate might like that" Since the estate owns the property (subject only to the terms of Dahl's delegation) and you don't, how much more presumptuous could you be? It's easy for you to say the books can go out of print since you have nothing to lose. (Also, let's recognize that, in the 21st Century, "out of print" is a wholly meaningless anachronism.) I take your last sentence as a statement of your opinion, which does not align with mine. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: FortPeck 11:44 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - ryhog 02:00 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I would say it's the ultimate in presumptuousness to alter the words of a deceased author and present them to the world as his. (Sure, they own it and have the right to do it.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:18 am EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - FortPeck 11:44 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I very clearly understood that from your prior post. :-) I wonder, though, why you presume it is presumptuous. In the theatre at least, I am familiar with writers who have settled their literary estates with instructions to keep their words as resonant as much as possible in the future. Not everyone, to be sure, but a lot of writers nowadays spend a lot of time pondering these questions just as they answer the easier ones like what grandchild will wear that broach instead of putting it in a drawer. Curious about one more thing: do you object to the alteration of the words in the Bible? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:07 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - Singapore/Fling 01:28 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Just want to say there's a massive difference between revising something so that it no longer reads as racist or interpretable as racism in current day... vs making it "more inclusive." I don't know if you mean to imply anything with that, but I think it's insanely presumptuous and transgressive against an author's rights to change something to be more inclusive because of a current day obsession with inclusivity wherever it can be found or forced. Of course any real debate would be about specific examples. I'm just speaking to the general idea of re-evaluating and re-writing passages from older books because they "could be more inclusive" I agree the loss of "queer" to mean strange or outside societal norms is a shame. And I agree there's space for nuanced conversation about what drives revisions, on a case by case basis. But I continue to raise an eye to your emphasis on the need for inclusivity as a reason for rewriting older works. And again, I mean outside of scrubbing racist things and things. Maybe I'm missing something or being too sensitive to the language or vagueness of that kind of statement. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:32 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - Chazwaza 02:07 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| Inclusive is a broad umbrella for things that address racism, sexism, ableism and the like - the subjective bit is where we draw the line on what is sexist/misogynistic versus what is an unflattering portrait of a specific female character, or whether you think that affirming traditional patriarchal gender roles is itself sexist (which in many cases I would say it is) and thus these revisions address that. If you’re okay with scrubbing racist things, then you’re on board with at least one aspect of inclusivity, since the text is now inclusive of BIPOC readers by not being racist. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:39 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - Singapore/Fling 08:32 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| But here again, a problematic choice of words if you ask me... "unflattering portrait"... who says any character, including characters who are female, non-white, and/or disabled, need their portrait drawn of them in a script to be "flattering" ? Let alone that it must exist to not affirm or reject "traditional patriarchal gender roles" etc? If it does indeed do those things, perhaps it doesn't need to be produced anymore because it no longer presents a recognizably worthwhile or nuanced view of society. Also, you are broadening and redefining the word "inclusive"... I get that it is used this way, but it also implies, as you used it, at least in my reading of it, that the goal and mandate of all things presented to any audience should be to include, or not exclude, as many peoples and types of people and experiences as possible. Yes I am ok with scrubbing racist things, if those in control of the work have approved any changes -- and if they haven't, then it only needs to be seen/produced/read by people who don't care or can keep it in its historical context. I am on board for many aspects of inclusivity but I think it's more tricky that you're painting it to be. What constitutes something being racist and worthy or erasure? Is a character who is racist needing to be erased from a play because we don't want racist people to exist? I doubt very much that the author who included them in the work did either. If the text promotes and upholds the racism of the character, that's another issue... and if it is a book, or the premise of a play, where the intent is actually racist, that's also another issue. Again, this is really only possible on a case by case basis. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:49 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - Chazwaza 02:07 am EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't have time right now to address the broader inclusivity discussion, but I just wanted to note that, at a minimum, some non-inclusive scripts could indeed be "interpretable as racism." That said, I agree with the wisdom of case by case. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:29 pm EDT 04/10/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - ryhog 01:49 pm EDT 04/09/23 | |
|
|
|
| I mean, yes, of course... but also if you take it further, literally any and every text, written by a white person, ever, and especially before 5 years ago, that either doesn't include non-white characters or, worse, does include them, could be "interpretable as racism"... so yes, let's stick to the case by case. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Pen International's partnership with McDonagh's "The Pillowman" | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 08:14 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 08:09 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - singleticket 07:36 pm EDT 04/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| Just to correct myself and clarify, Pen International isn't saying they are partnering with McDonagh's "The Pillowman" because of what McDonagh perceives as the censorship of his plays. Pen International sees the play itself as an allegory of censorship. | |
| Link | PEN INTERNATIONAL - PILLOWMAN |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
Time to render: 0.072777 seconds.