| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Martin McDonagh Says Theatres Have Refused His Plays, Calls It “A Dangerous Place For Writers” - ryhog 01:18 am EDT 04/10/23 |
| Next: | 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 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.022298 seconds.