Good point in first paragraph. . . ..But, personally I am not impressed with the 'accessibility' argument. In fact, THAT is exactly what bothers me.
If, on the path to making something more accessible, it loses the essence and true character of the original, then there is NO reason to make it more accessible. In fact, arguably, it does a disservice to future generations.
I would rather see the book in it's entirety become more rare, harder to find, less accessible than to see a 'Readers Digest' version become the de facto standard, accessible and easy-to-find. In a generation or so (maybe even less time) the sanitized version will become the version that society-at-large is familiar with, and in fact may even lose sight that this is NOT the original. Only the fringe will even know that there is another version, and that to find it will require a trip to ebay resellers.
While I am not a Disney apologist, I am reminded of a somewhat similar decision Disney made a few years ago. I do not agree with the decision they made to PULL copies of 'Song of The South', but I am happy that they did that INSTEAD of reissuing that movie as a sanitized version. By completely pulling it from all marketing channels, the movie today has a notoriety that it would not have if it had been edited and re-released. While I have not recently seen this movie (since I first saw it about 45 years ago), I may be wrong about it's content. My recollection of it, though, is that the main narrator of the tales (these are all Bre'r Rabbit/Bre'r Fox/Bre'r Bear tales) was an amiable, friendly, and wise elderly black character, probably a slave. I saw this movie as a child, and my recollection of it was that this was one smart dude, even though not schooled, he was a master story teller, and could focus right in on the morals and key points of these tales.
That is what counts, and that is what I remember of that movie. I remember a character with moral fiber, who is smart, funny, positive, and just seemed to be fun to be around (kind of like the chimney sweeper (Dick Van Dyke) character in the Mary Poppins movie.)
If they had sanitized this character, and re-released it, most viewers would not even realize that there was an original, and that the intent of the original was lost to the mainstream. . . . . .
Yes, distracting. At first I didn't really notice it, but after a while it just got worse and worse. Even though there is some good stuff in there, I don't thnk I'll be watching it for more than a few minutes, much less 100 hours!
This is a fantastic idea, and a wonderful implementation. . . . not to mention that it is a great use of internet video streaming. Compared to all much the inane video junk available, this is truly educational and engrossing. When my kids get home form school in an hour or so, I am confident that this will be a wonderful for them to get exposed to contemporary science issues without realizing they are being more than just 'entertained'.
Thank you for the post.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point in first paragraph. . . . .But, personally I am not impressed with the 'accessibility' argument. In fact, THAT is exactly what bothers me.
If, on the path to making something more accessible, it loses the essence and true character of the original, then there is NO reason to make it more accessible. In fact, arguably, it does a disservice to future generations.
I would rather see the book in it's entirety become more rare, harder to find, less accessible than to see a 'Readers Digest' version become the de facto standard, accessible and easy-to-find. In a generation or so (maybe even less time) the sanitized version will become the version that society-at-large is familiar with, and in fact may even lose sight that this is NOT the original. Only the fringe will even know that there is another version, and that to find it will require a trip to ebay resellers.
While I am not a Disney apologist, I am reminded of a somewhat similar decision Disney made a few years ago. I do not agree with the decision they made to PULL copies of 'Song of The South', but I am happy that they did that INSTEAD of reissuing that movie as a sanitized version. By completely pulling it from all marketing channels, the movie today has a notoriety that it would not have if it had been edited and re-released. While I have not recently seen this movie (since I first saw it about 45 years ago), I may be wrong about it's content. My recollection of it, though, is that the main narrator of the tales (these are all Bre'r Rabbit/Bre'r Fox/Bre'r Bear tales) was an amiable, friendly, and wise elderly black character, probably a slave. I saw this movie as a child, and my recollection of it was that this was one smart dude, even though not schooled, he was a master story teller, and could focus right in on the morals and key points of these tales.
That is what counts, and that is what I remember of that movie. I remember a character with moral fiber, who is smart, funny, positive, and just seemed to be fun to be around (kind of like the chimney sweeper (Dick Van Dyke) character in the Mary Poppins movie.)
If they had sanitized this character, and re-released it, most viewers would not even realize that there was an original, and that the intent of the original was lost to the mainstream. . . . . .
Yes, distracting. At first I didn't really notice it, but after a while it just got worse and worse. Even though there is some good stuff in there, I don't thnk I'll be watching it for more than a few minutes, much less 100 hours!
This is a fantastic idea, and a wonderful implementation. . . . not to mention that it is a great use of internet video streaming. Compared to all much the inane video junk available, this is truly educational and engrossing. When my kids get home form school in an hour or so, I am confident that this will be a wonderful for them to get exposed to contemporary science issues without realizing they are being more than just 'entertained'. Thank you for the post.