Censored edition of Huck Finn

metrovelvet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700

There is a new edition out of the classic where they took the N word out. I would have thought there are laws against re writing other people's books.

Eliot Rosewater

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see. Consider the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book - the author basically took Jane Austen's book and edited to their liking.


On the point of Huck Finn - I disagree with the edit. The inclusion of such words in a book like that is nearly central to its purpose. Huck Finn is described as one of the "Great American Novels": an accurate encapsulation of a specific time and place in American history. But if the N word is removed then it partly ceases to succeed in that regard as it no longer reflects accurately the society and culture in question. It was a bigoted society, and a book about it should illustrate that.

The Sound and the Fury is similar, even "worse". One of the main characters Jason consistently calls his (paid) servants "****" and abuses them verbally and mentally. But such abuse is central to the character of Jason, and its removal or its moderation would severely hamper the artistic intention of William Faulker.

Perhaps what we are seeing here is an inability to differentiate between the use of the N word in a book, as a literary device, and in normal conversation, where it is obvious a low insult.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think it's silly editing things like this. Slavery happened, racism and segregation happened. Taking the "n" word out of books that were written at a time when these things happened doesn't change anything.

I wonder who's idea it was? I mean was there a black activist group demanded it, or was it just some random PC crazy who thought it was a good idea?

And on a similar note, there are plenty of derogatory terms used nowadays quite freely and nobody seems to mind.

ArtSmart

the N word was used in a different context, far as i remember. (the bigotry was shown , but not using 'N*****' as a major vehicle for same, so it should not be changed)

now, as for Enid Blyton's use of such phraseology... different story. rightly changed.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

If you start doing this though where do you stop?
Do you go back and edit every book in history that uses the N word? And how do you judge which words are as offensive as that word? Should all books with any sort of derogatory words or phrases be changed?

To Kill A Mockingbird uses the N word a few times if I remember it correctly, will it be changed too? I think the racism is central to that story though isn't it? Is it a case that it's not central to Huck Finn so it's OK to take it out?

Who makes these decisions?

ArtSmart

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Who makes these decisions?

me mostly.
(kiddin)
most should not be changed but some like blyton's use(in the secret seven series), have to be as it serves no function and has potential to create embarrassment etc.

Mellor

The use of N----r is a element of both the characters and the times.
Removing it is silly. it's not as if its an opinion piece or anything.

ArtSmart wrote: »

most should not be changed but some like blyton's use(in the secret seven series), have to be as it serves no function and has potential to create embarrassment etc.

Care to explain why you see a difference?
The use here is exactly the same. Those books, (F.Five, S.Seven etc) are generally based in the working class, the rough society. At the time of writing, 1950s or so, the word would of been quite commonly used.
Civil rights movement wasn't all that long ago really.

metrovelvet

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see. Consider the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book - the author basically took Jane Austen's book and edited to their liking.

Im not familiar with that book. Did they revise it and then stick Jane Austen's name on it?

I get the whole copywrite thing, but to change a text and then say someone wrote it, someone who DIDNT write it, seems highly unethical.

Mark Twain did not use the word 'slave' and the N word was in common currency at the time, seems totally wrong to project our fashions onto the habits of the past.

Given the historocity [real word?] of Huck Finn it does look to me like it's rewriting history.

Nody

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not familiar with that book. Did they revise it and then stick Jane Austen's name on it?

His and Jane's.

ArtSmart

Mellor wrote: »

The use of N----r is a element of both the characters and the times.
Removing it is silly. it's not as if its an opinion piece or anything.



Care to explain why you see a difference?
The use here is exactly the same. Those books, (F.Five, S.Seven etc) are generally based in the working class, the rough society. At the time of writing, 1950s or so, the word would of been quite commonly used.
Civil rights movement wasn't all that long ago really.

It's a function of 'what is art?'

for instance we no longer see a gollywog on a jar or marmalade or Lyon's Tea promote the b&w minstrels as neither ads are deemed art.(so the function of the images are not integral to the art of the work (as they are not art), in this case an advert - (adverts can be art, but these are not deemed such)

Blyton's work is also not deemed as art. (to my knowledge - yes i know subjective opinion etc, but there are parameters of definition of art)

in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.

of course, this is the quickie overview, but the essence of why there are differences is there. (IOW I wont be writing reams on this topic, in this arena, sorry. )

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not familiar with that book. Did they revise it and then stick Jane Austen's name on it?

They include the name of Austen and the other author, as Nody said. The ethics of it are certainly dodgy. You can't defend it on the basis that it gets people into "good" reading, because it doesn't. P&P&Z is just a zombie story carved out of an old book: the things of importance in the old book are presumably gone.

You can read the first page on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pride-Prejudice-Zombies-Romance-now-Ultraviolent/dp/1594743347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294681413&sr=8-1#_

It seems there's quite a few in the series.

Monty Burnz

Mellor wrote: »

The use here is exactly the same. Those books, (F.Five, S.Seven etc) are generally based in the working class, the rough society. At the time of writing, 1950s or so, the word would of been quite commonly used.
Civil rights movement wasn't all that long ago really.

On the contrary, those were firmly middle-class families. If my distant memory serves me correctly, the in the case of the 'Adventurous Four' the father was a commander in the Navy.

Enid Blyton didn't write for or about the 'working class'.

SuperInfinity

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see.

It's a free-for-all if they want to put their own names on it and all it something else. But they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HuckleBerry Finn by Mark Twain as this is not a book Mark Twain wrote if they edited it in any way.

This is frankly a ludicrous and very stupid move, possibly a publicity stunt, and the person who is trying this should be ashamed. Too much weight is given to the opinion of these so-called "intellectuals" that are really pseudointellectuals, when any man in the street knows this is heresy?

Otherwise why not change all of Shakespeare's works to make them easier for modern students to use? I can think of few things that would be more ridiculous than this.

Eliot Rosewater

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's a free-for-all if they want to put their own names on it and all it something else. But they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HuckleBerry Finn by Mark Twain as this is not a book Mark Twain wrote if they edited it in any way.

I'm not sure. I think the issue is more one of ethics than law. Many poetry anthologies include modernised versions of poems, the making of which involves the same process as the one here - going through someone else's work and editing it as you see fit. However that editing is clearly ethical, whereas the Huck Finn editing is, it's generally thought, not. The problem is if you blanket ban editing of old material you prevent both bad and good uses.

I suppose what matters is that essence of the work and the intent of the original author are preserved. Modernising a poem doesn't infringe on either as it's just bringing the poem to a new generation, and the editing is presumably conducted with the utmost sensitivity. However the Huck Finn edit fails on both counts: the book is intended to be an exposition of a racist society, but the edit dulls this.

SuperInfinity

Eliot Rosewater, as soon as something is edited or translated, it ceases to be the original material. It is something else. Those aren't the original poems, they're different.

It doesn't matter if they were "well-meaning" in their changes.

It doesn't matter if they decided that the original intent of the author was there.

IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN CHANGED.

Selling this book as Huckleberry Finn could be argued under law as being false advertising since the original meanings have been edited. Many people even insist that clear spelling mistakes and other mistakes (eg. mathematical) in original texts are preserved and not corrected. You can't rely on people's "ethics" for these things.... people need to be protected against censorship. You can't rely on people's ethics for anything.

Monkeybonkers

If everybody is so against the word '******' being taken out of the book then why aren't you using it yourselves? Not trying to be controversial or anything but just wondering why everyone's using 'the n word'. If people who are against it being removed won't even use it when discussing its removal then surely this lends weight to the argument for it being removed so as not to offend anyone.


I see now that my post has been auto-edited. Apologies to all. I didn't realise that it would be auto-edited. Now I see why no one was using it.

I think personally that it shouldn't be removed. It's part of the language of the book and should be left in. That said nowadays lots of people find it very offensive (me included) when describing someone. Times change. There's also a film (can't think of the name of it at the moment) in which the dog is called 'Ni--er'!

SuperInfinity

It wouldn't make a difference if didn't use it ourselves anyway. Even if we NEVER used it, it wouldn't matter.

Just because we don't want it censored, doesn't mean we condone it in any way. Just like how it doesn't mean we condone pedophilia if we don't want Lolita to be censored.

Even if it were the most repulsive, vile, obscene thing in the world, it still shouldn't be changed or censored in any way. Pulling a book from the shelf altogether would be what they should do if it were that vile.

Or they should call it something like: "Huckleberry Finn: The Censored Edition". But they shouldn't be selling it as Huckelberry Finn by Mark Twain when it's not that book.

Texts that are translated are different, because it's obvious that they're translated and the title of them is in the language they're translated to. The fact that there are several translations of the bible and they convey very different messages should show you the perils of editing or changing the original work in any way.... translation is clearly marked as that. They're not trying to edit the officially accepted original Hebrew scripts.

Mellor

ArtSmart wrote: »

for instance we no longer see a gollywog on a jar or marmalade or Lyon's Tea promote the b&w minstrels as neither ads are deemed art

Well that's kind of obvious. There is no excuse for continuing to use them in current adverts

Blyton's work is also not deemed as art. (to my knowledge - yes i know subjective opinion etc, but there are parameters of definition of art)

ah, here lies the problem.
They are literature, therefor imo, by definition, art.
I'd be interested to see these parameters.

in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a nonm offensive synonym most likely exists.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the contrary, those were firmly middle-class families. If my distant memory serves me correctly, the in the case of the 'Adventurous Four' the father was a commander in the Navy.

Enid Blyton didn't write for or about the 'working class'.

Ok, maybe no every series. But come on, the secret seven where a much of riff-raff
wikipedia agrees by the way

Monkeybonkers wrote: »

If everybody is so against the word '******' being taken out of the book then why aren't you using it yourselves?

I know you edited this, but I thought the above was great

herbieflowers

Interesting. Editing it depends on a lot of things, but I would agree with an earlier poster who argued for two versions, one original, one uncensored.

If one is looking to remove any offence caused by the word, that's fair enough. I'm not sure how I'd feel as a black student reading it with such a loaded term being used so freely. Then again, it's been in its original format all these years, has it always caued such offence? And if it has, why has it been a staple of most degree / high school syllabi for the last how many years?

At the same time, if you remove the word it removes the book's social and historical context. A work of fiction becomes ahistorical to an extent, which I don't think is a good thing.

SuperInfinity

Mellor wrote: »

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a nonm offensive synonym most likely exists

This is just not true. A synonym does not have the exact same meaning as the original word, and even if it did (an impossible scenario), it would still sound differently.

No two words have the exact same meaning. When I was 13/14 I understood in my Shakespeare class why it wasn't a good idea to change Shakespeare's work after my English teacher gave us a very brief explanation and said "Shakespeare is turning in his grave".

Mellor

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This is just not true. A synonym does not have the exact same meaning as the original word, and even if it did (an impossible scenario), it would still sound differently.

some synonyms have the same meaning. some are simply similar.
I don't see how how it sounds is relevant to my point, as I excluded puns, play of words and rhyming

No two words have the exact same meaning.

Don't be silly, plent of words have the same meaning.

draylander

It's good to see that The Ministry of truth is hard at work.
I cant wait to sit down and watch Blazing saddles once they are done replacing the word N1gger with slave
"The Sherif's a slave!"

SuperInfinity

You are incorrect Mellor, on both points (which are ironically about the same thing).

the west wing

Even though I am completely against the book being censored and I think it leads to a dangerous precedent, I read an article about this issue (I think it was Huffington Post) and someone said that if the book wasn't censored, it would not go on the school curriculum. In this case I would prefer that students get a chance to read even the censored version, then to be denied the chance to read it at all, as most kids may not be even aware of the book.

Mellor

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You are incorrect Mellor, on both points

First of all,

Collins English Dictionary wrote:

synonym (ˈsɪnənɪm)

— n
1. a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word, such as bucket and pail
2. a word or phrase used as another name for something, such as Hellene for a Greek
3. biology a taxonomic name that has been superseded or rejected

I should probably give an example, so;
Attic, Loft* and Garret all have the same meaning

*(loft has a few meanings, i'm refering to he noun, not the verb and not in real estate terms just in case you take a silly angle)

(which are ironically about the same thing).

Even if I was wrong. It's in no way ironic. They are quite obviously about the same thing.
Sorry, if I sound pedantic, but it's a pet hate of mine, but irony is one of the most mis-used word/concept in english (along with literally).



You ignored the other part of my post.
How is the sound of the word relevant? The other postered mentioned that an offensive word it should be changed if it wasn't integral to the work. Most single words aren't integral imo (refering to Blyton, not Huck Finn).

StupidLikeAFox

As far as i know they are only using the edited version in some schools in Americs. They reckon it was unfair and could draw attention to black students and single them out for bullying. There will be a note included to say that its edited and why

Theyre not going to be rewriting history or anything, they wont be rounding up and burning the originals or that

Mellor

ColHol wrote: »

As far as i know they are only using the edited version in some schools in Americs. They reckon it was unfair and could draw attention to black students and single them out for bullying. There will be a note included to say that its edited and why

Theyre not going to be rewriting history or anything, they wont be rounding up and burning the originals or that

ArtSmart

Mellor wrote: »

Well that's kind of obvious. There is no excuse for continuing to use them in current adverts

moving from general example to specific. hence mention of adverts.


ah, here lies the problem.
They are literature, therefor imo, by definition, art.
I'd be interested to see these parameters.

assuming the term literature = written art, Blyton's book dont qualify.

however, even if it did, use of N there is not integral to the work (elab below)

the def.s / parameters are in various literary critiques from a variety of commentators. fortunately there isn't a book of 'this is art, this isn't'.

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a non offensive synonym most likely exists.

em, N word in Huck depicts use of language as culturally specific context (the southern states)= relevant as a framing device, also as depiction of social structure = central to one of the novel's main themes. (though not really as indication of racism, but that's open to debate)

as i said if the word is deemed as carrying connotations deemed offensive, it can only be left if it is integral to the art, in this case (Huck) it is (thematically and structurally)

anyhow, this is an eternal debate, so last post on this.

EDIT; slightly more awake.

you're not seriously suggesting one word can be replaced by another similar word, without altering the integrity of a piece of literature. Are you?

bigbadbear

Oh dear god. They might as well have taken ole Jim out too. The racism is probably the strongest theme of the whole story. :rolleyes:
P.C. brigade 1, society 0

crummymummy

Why did they bother changing ''Injun'' to ''Indian''? Firstly if N***** is offensive then surely ''Indian'' is too as the pc term is Native American. (Wouldn't bother me but why 'protect' one race and not another?). Secondly ''Injun'' is just showing the character's accents and dialect. Seems ridiculous

SuperInfinity

Mellor wrote: »

First of all,

Originally Posted by Collins English Dictionary
synonym (ˈsɪnənɪm)

— n
1. a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word,

That doesn't mean they mean the exact same thing in all ways, the dictionary just says the same because they think nobody would be stupid enough to think that you could just exchange one word for another word like that and it wouldn't make any difference at all. No word means the exact same as another word, that is obvious. If negro meant the exact same as black man then there would be no reason to change it as people would see the exact same thing.

Mellor wrote: »

I should probably give an example, so;
Attic, Loft* and Garret all have the same meaning

*(loft has a few meanings, i'm refering to he noun, not the verb and not in real estate terms just in case you take a silly angle)

They mean different things to different people. They conjure up different images. Loft sounds a bit more posh. You've just given an excellent example of how words that are technically referring to the same thing are different.

Mellor wrote: »

Even if I was wrong. It's in no way ironic. They are quite obviously about the same thing.

It is ironic. The irony lies in that I was dismissing your second point based on how it was the same point as the first while I was arguing that all words are different and have different raisons d'etre. It's rare that something like that happens, it was ironic that it happened in this instance (and the reason it's rare that it happens is because normally people tend to have different points for different paragraphs of their posts, not just saying the exact same thing again). The fact that they were "obviously about the same thing" just makes it more have the ability to be ironic. If they weren't the same thing, then it wouln't be ironic.

Can you understand how that makes it ironic? The fact that you were trying to say that two words were the same and I was saying everything is different but at the same time dismissing your second point based on the fact that it was the same point and meant the same thing? If not I feel sorry for you.

Mellor wrote: »

Sorry, if I sound pedantic, but it's a pet hate of mine, but irony is one of the most mis-used word/concept in english (along with literally).

Oh ho ho... Haaaaahahahaha....

No worries about sounding pedantic at all.

It's actually a pet hate of mine as well how people mis-use the word "irony". But at least I know what "irony" is myself. Look I'm getting sick of this nonsense.

In fairness to you, maybe after looking back at what I was saying you will see that it indeed was ironic or at least could reasonably been viewed as ironic even if you didn't find it very ironic yourself.

The fact that they were "obviously" the same has NOTHING to do with it, apart from it being necessary for them to be the same to allow it to be ironic. That just sounds like something you just threw in there that sounded about right. There is no logic behind that. I don't even want to hear your theories on how people are supposedly using the word "literal" wrong, nobody uses it wrongly.

Mellor wrote: »

You ignored the other part of my post.
How is the sound of the word relevant? The other postered mentioned that an offensive word it should be changed if it wasn't integral to the work. Most single words aren't integral imo (refering to Blyton, not Huck Finn).

How the hell is it NOT? Ever hear of alliteration, onomatopoeia, sound symbolism, rhyming, consonance, assonance??? Ever heard of any of those things?

Ever hear of atmosphere? Ever heard of language useage? Every single word is purposefully chosen by the author and is important in every way.... even down to how the word looks on paper.

You ever heard of ideas like subtext? Have you ever been in an English class? Not in a good one if you didn't learn that the words of a book matter and can't just be exchanged for ones that the dictionary says have the same meaning, that's for sure.

metrovelvet

Nobody would have dared done this to Snoop Dog.

Mellor

ArtSmart wrote: »

.

EDIT; slightly more awake.

you're not seriously suggesting one word can be replaced by another similar word, without altering the integrity of a piece of literature. Are you?

Have you even read my posts?
That's the total opposite to what I'm suggesting.

I'm saying that no word should be changed.
All literature is art. (still wondering about how Enid Blyton's work isn't considered art)
My view is that all words are integral to a piece.
When you said that its ok to remove a word when not considered integral, my point was that all words can be, on some level viewed this way. some words are obvious more important than other is context, but all words are important.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

They mean different things to different people. They conjure up different images. Loft sounds a bit more posh. You've just given an excellent example of how words that are technically referring to the same thing are different.

Loft sounds posh as its generally used more often by upper class or in the UK.
But all three words have an identical meaning, which is what we spoke about. We never mentioned imagery. The fact that you are debating this is ludacris.

To be clear once more, i'd not saying altering words is ok, i'm debating your point that no two words means the same.

Can you understand how that makes it ironic? The fact that you were trying to say that two words were the same and I was saying everything is different but at the same time dismissing your second point based on the fact that it was the same point and meant the same thing?

Ok, i see what you mean. Initially I just assume it was a [insert ironic] reaction as it sounds right, and incorrectly thought you were incorectly refering to repitition of the point twice.

I don't even want to hear your theories on how people are supposedly using the word "literal" wrong, nobody uses it wrongly.

None i'm starting to thing you are trolling.
Off-topic, but;
"oh my god, I was so drunk last night, I literally drank, like a gallon of vodka"


How the hell is it NOT? Ever hear of alliteration, onomatopoeia, sound

symbolism, rhyming, consonance, assonance??? Ever heard of any of those things?

Of course, which I why I, quite clearly, excluded those situations in my original post.

You ever heard of ideas like subtext? Have you ever been in an English class? Not in a good one if you didn't learn that the words of a book matter and can't just be exchanged for ones that the dictionary says have the same meaning, that's for sure.

I think you are misreading my post. i'm not the one who suggested it was ok to change words, I'm saying we shouldn't change any words.
Go back, and read the posts before mine, I think you latched on to one bit in isolation and have totally missed previous.

My post was a reply to ArtSmart where they said its ok if the word isn't integral.
Imo, either all words are, or no words are. You can't pick and choose.

mikhail

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Too much weight is given to the opinion of these so-called "intellectuals" that are really pseudointellectuals, when any man in the street knows this is heresy?

While I agree that this is a mistake, I see no reason to blame this on "intellectuals". It looks like you're bringing your own biases to the table.

SuperInfinity

mikhail wrote: »

While I agree that this is a mistake, I see no reason to blame this on "intellectuals". It looks like you're bringing your own biases to the table.

Maybe...

Okay, I'm glad we came to an understanding about all of this. I didn't mean to come on a bit strong, but when they're trying to censor things, things can get a bit heated.

I've also had a lot of very bad experiences online with people trying to turn everything that was said into something else as if it was some kind of game. Some people seem to believe that they can just say or argue anything. I've think we've all been in those type of ridiculous debates. And I am strongly opposed to this censoring of old material and am against it in every way.

sponsoredwalk

This is really trivial. Some politically correct section of the population took
it upon themselves to publish an edited public domain work reflecting their
own political biases. Riveting stuff, another chance to attack the PC
brigade & coincidentally create a lot of publicity to sell these horrendous
tomes that exemplify all that's wrong in modern society.

This rings of "they" situation, i.e. "they" are doing X, "they" are doing Y
& it's symptomatic of what "they" are trying to do to "us". This isn't the
ministry of propaganda this is a group of people who did something they
chose to do & have every right in our current way of living.

I personally think anyone who is willing to buy into it has been abused &/or
brainwashed but I think it's clear that it's a decision of a few people who
are working within the laws our society deems acceptable & not some
official mandate.

Considering the fact that it's an anti-racist book by an old member of the
anti-imperialist league who purposely wrote to make you uncomfortable if
you were on the receiving end of his wit & also considering the fact that
the word ni__gg__er really is exemplary of how the (formerly?) oppressed
can champion that which was formerly derrogatory (queer & gay being
other examples) I really pitty anyone who buys into it in this particular
case compared to other situations.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

But they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HuckleBerry Finn by Mark Twain as this is not a book Mark Twain wrote if they edited it in any way.

But they are, the decent thing an honest person would do is make the
distinction clear, but I don't think you can attribute honesty to these
people in all fairness when the intention is to lie about history from the
get go :pac:

Monkeybonkers wrote: »

If everybody is so against the word '******' being taken out of the book then why aren't you using it yourselves? Not trying to be controversial or anything but just wondering why everyone's using 'the n word'. If people who are against it being removed won't even use it when discussing its removal then surely this lends weight to the argument for it being removed so as not to offend anyone.


I see now that my post has been auto-edited. Apologies to all. I didn't realise that it would be auto-edited. Now I see why no one was using it.

I'd say a lot of the reason people don't use the word in contemporary
society is because places like boards self-censor words like this & it's
merely symptomatic of how society treats such issues.

There is a lot of self-congratulatory talk of how Freud opened the way
for critical self-reflection & openness on a communal scale rather than a
personal thing you didn't discuss but the way society hides it's little
secrets like this is a joke. Rather than teaching the history of slavery
properly, teaching 19th century slave songs to kids & letting them see
for themselves the logic of why a word like ni)gg)er can cause outrage an
indirect mode of attack is taken.

ArtSmart wrote: »

for instance we no longer see a gollywog on a jar or marmalade or Lyon's Tea promote the b&w minstrels as neither ads are deemed art.(so the function of the images are not integral to the art of the work (as they are not art), in this case an advert - (adverts can be art, but these are not deemed such)

I don't know how you can class that which purposely sets out to deceive
the senses of the beholder in a way so as to coax money out of them &
fill their heads with manufactured desires as art

ArtSmart wrote: »

now, as for Enid Blyton's use of such phraseology... different story. rightly changed.

ArtSmart wrote: »

in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.

I think you want to be consistent and say that if a word/concept/part is
integral to the art of the work according to whoever in power decides then
it is "rightly changed".

I was reading the reviews on amazon of a guy who grew up in the USSR &
was reading the books about the "real" history of Russia & the real story
behind contemporary biology after being inoctrinated with that fluff since
youth & what you're saying just reminds me of that so much.

The exact same logic of yours is used in far more extreme cases to
justify editing history. The amazon guy spoke of how well & detailed his
knowledge of Roman & Greek history was because there was no conflict
of ideology there, similarly with censoring the word ni_gg_er, as long as our
personal ideology is not shaken up it's justifiable. There's always an excuse
by madmen to transcend honesty, read Pol Pot's for instance. There is no
justifiable excuse for editing anyone's work, especially when the motives
are clear & illustrate as severe a hypocrisy as is the case here.
The simple fact that you'd agree with Blyton being censored while I
wouldn't shows how subjective an issue this is & how illogical your view
is when we generalize it beyond your personal tastes, i.e. you don't
discuss trousers around a lady because it's not 'the thing to do', this
was the subjective societal bias over 100 years ago & hinted at a deep
injustice but it's coming from the same place.

If I can make it clearer, the nasty part of Russian history was "deemed
offensive and is not integral to the (work)⇔(Russian vision, &) it goes"
according to the USSR, similarly with Lysenko & genetics.

Even boards censors the word, that's how deeply entrenched the
ideology is, there is uproar about censoring the word from the historical
record while daily society censors itself from usage of this word & therefore
in real time removes the word from the historical record as it marches on.

Crazy stuff.

ArtSmart

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is really trivial. Some politically correct section of the population took
it upon themselves to publish an edited public domain work reflecting their
own political biases. Riveting stuff, another chance to attack the PC
brigade & coincidentally create a lot of publicity to sell these horrendous
tomes that exemplify all that's wrong in modern society.

This rings of "they" situation, i.e. "they" are doing X, "they" are doing Y
& it's symptomatic of what "they" are trying to do to "us". This isn't the
ministry of propaganda this is a group of people who did something they
chose to do & have every right in our current way of living.

I personally think anyone who is willing to buy into it has been abused &/or
brainwashed but I think it's clear that it's a decision of a few people who
are working within the laws our society deems acceptable & not some
official mandate.

Considering the fact that it's an anti-racist book by an old member of the
anti-imperialist league who purposely wrote to make you uncomfortable if
you were on the receiving end of his wit & also considering the fact that
the word ni__gg__er really is exemplary of how the (formerly?) oppressed
can champion that which was formerly derrogatory (queer & gay being
other examples) I really pitty anyone who buys into it in this particular
case compared to other situations.




But they are, the decent thing an honest person would do is make the
distinction clear, but I don't think you can attribute honesty to these
people in all fairness when the intention is to lie about history from the
get go :pac:



I'd say a lot of the reason people don't use the word in contemporary
society is because places like boards self-censor words like this & it's
merely symptomatic of how society treats such issues.

There is a lot of self-congratulatory talk of how Freud opened the way
for critical self-reflection & openness on a communal scale rather than a
personal thing you didn't discuss but the way society hides it's little
secrets like this is a joke. Rather than teaching the history of slavery
properly, teaching 19th century slave songs to kids & letting them see
for themselves the logic of why a word like ni)gg)er can cause outrage an
indirect mode of attack is taken.



I don't know how you can class that which purposely sets out to deceive
the senses of the beholder in a way so as to coax money out of them &
fill their heads with manufactured desires as art





I think you want to be consistent and say that if a word/concept/part is
integral to the art of the work according to whoever in power decides then
it is "rightly changed".

I was reading the reviews on amazon of a guy who grew up in the USSR &
was reading the books about the "real" history of Russia & the real story
behind contemporary biology after being inoctrinated with that fluff since
youth & what you're saying just reminds me of that so much.

The exact same logic of yours is used in far more extreme cases to
justify editing history. The amazon guy spoke of how well & detailed his
knowledge of Roman & Greek history was because there was no conflict
of ideology there, similarly with censoring the word ni_gg_er, as long as our
personal ideology is not shaken up it's justifiable. There's always an excuse
by madmen to transcend honesty, read Pol Pot's for instance. There is no
justifiable excuse for editing anyone's work, especially when the motives
are clear & illustrate as severe a hypocrisy as is the case here.
The simple fact that you'd agree with Blyton being censored while I
wouldn't shows how subjective an issue this is & how illogical your view
is when we generalize it beyond your personal tastes, i.e. you don't
discuss trousers around a lady because it's not 'the thing to do', this
was the subjective societal bias over 100 years ago & hinted at a deep
injustice but it's coming from the same place.

If I can make it clearer, the nasty part of Russian history was "deemed
offensive and is not integral to the (work)⇔(Russian vision, &) it goes"
according to the USSR, similarly with Lysenko & genetics.

Even boards censors the word, that's how deeply entrenched the
ideology is, there is uproar about censoring the word from the historical
record while daily society censors itself from usage of this word & therefore
in real time removes the word from the historical record as it marches on.

Crazy stuff.

yup.




ETA. try and make one point at a time. that way i might be able to respond. and by one point i mean one. not two. or three. not a point then a qualifier, then a sub-point then a side point. just one. one point.

ArtSmart

Mellor wrote: »

Have you even read my posts?
That's the total opposite to what I'm suggesting.

I'm saying that no word should be changed.
All literature is art. (still wondering about how Enid Blyton's work isn't considered art)

but not all writing is literature. are you saying Blyton's work is literature? (assuming we're agreeing that literature is the def of writing which is regarded as art)

My view is that all words are integral to a piece.
When you said that its ok to remove a word when not considered integral, my point was that all words can be, on some level viewed this way. some words are obvious more important than other is context, but all words are important.




My post was a reply to ArtSmart where they said its ok if the word isn't integral.
Imo, either all words are, or no words are. You can't pick and choose.

wrote:

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a non offensive synonym most likely exists.

the only way i can interpret above statement from you is that one word of a piece of literature can be substituted by another - in this case a by 'non offensive synonym'. this suggests that specific words used are not integral to a work as they can be replaced by a non offensive synonym. and further - that to qualify as being integral, they must fulfil a structural function (pun, rhyming word, word play)


my argument is that certain words, if not integral to a piece of art (literature) can be removed. for instance the word 'at' or 'river'. or indeed the word n**ger if that word is not integral to the integrity of the work - ie it's artistic essence, it's integral message or sub-message.


in Huck's case it is, therefore it stays

in Blyton's case it's not, therefore can be removed.

sponsoredwalk

ArtSmart wrote: »

ETA. try and make one point at a time. that way i might be able to respond. and by one point i mean one. not two. or three. not a point then a qualifier, then a sub-point then a side point. just one. one point.

:pac:

If only you could demand that all the people challenging your statements
would follow your rules. I'll just say that I only made two points, one
challenging your nonsense about advertising being considered an art &
a second about your nonsense that anyone is justifiably in a position to
judge what is deemed offensive & to therefore remove it. If it's tough to
read a challenging opinion all I did was show that your logic is akin to that
used by the Russian state capitalists (colloquially called communists) of the
20th century in both the political and scientific arena & it led to monstrous
results for humanity. I just used your own words to explain how Russian
history was censored while Greco-Roman history was thoroughally analyzed
to illustrate a bit of motivation for what I was saying, you know, offer
evidence of my assertions so that I can show I'm not talking nonsense?
It's a lot harder for a person to refute actual evidence. It's not up to you
it's up to the creator of the work to decide if a word stays of goes, if
that person wanted word X removed they had plenty of time to do so
themselves so your latest argument doesn't stand up.

But obviously seeing that I made two points instead of one (and by one point
you mean one) everything I've said is obviously null and void. When are we to
expect a criticism of the shape of my posts, or the big posh words I use
or some other fun aspect of my posts?

marienbad

How can it ever be acceptable to change anything in any work of art be it a book , a painting , a film , a sculpture ?

Going back to the Vatican putting 'whitewash' on the Sistine Chapel and the Victorians puting fig leafs on the statues and Bowdler making Shakespeare suitable for family reading. Thats a funny one though , he took out all the lewd and lascivious lines but left in all the anti-semitic ones, thus showing what a waste of time this type of censorship is. What is acceptable in one age is offensive in another.

Do we take the anti-semitism out of Shakespeare, the ****** out of Faulkner, the golliwog,woggers and wogs out of James Joyce ?

And to say that one word means the same as another is just laughable,
I presume Twain,Faulkner,Joyce knew that and still choose the words they did.
If those words have changed meaning in the intervening years, well if you are brainy enough to be reading these authors than you are brainy enough to understand them in their original context.

If those words have not changed their meaning and had a racist or sexist context when used , then so be it .The reader is entitled to know that despite being a great writer/painter whatever he/she was also sexist or racist.

If these word make the books unsuitable for younger classrooms then so be it, dont use them in classroom. The Irish experience of of banning books
has shown that this is a guaranteed way of ensuring that those books will be read at a later time when they will be understood.

This whole business is just so arrogant and really condescending

metrovelvet

Its kind of like going into the National Gallery with a basket of fig leaves.

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

How can it ever be acceptable to change anything in any work of art be it a book , a painting , a film , a sculpture ?

Going back to the Vatican putting 'whitewash' on the Sistine Chapel and the Victorians puting fig leafs on the statues and Bowdler making Shakespeare suitable for family reading. Thats a funny one though , he took out all the lewd and lascivious lines but left in all the anti-semitic ones, thus showing what a waste of time this type of censorship is. What is acceptable in one age is offensive in another.

Do we take the anti-semitism out of Shakespeare, the ****** out of Faulkner, the golliwog,woggers and wogs out of James Joyce ?

And to say that one word means the same as another is just laughable,
I presume Twain,Faulkner,Joyce knew that and still choose the words they did.
If those words have changed meaning in the intervening years, well if you are brainy enough to be reading these authors than you are brainy enough to understand them in their original context.

If those words have not changed their meaning and had a racist or sexist context when used , then so be it .The reader is entitled to know that despite being a great writer/painter whatever he/she was also sexist or racist.

If these word make the books unsuitable for younger classrooms then so be it, dont use them in classroom. The Irish experience of of banning books
has shown that this is a guaranteed way of ensuring that those books will be read at a later time when they will be understood.

This whole business is just so arrogant and really condescending

great post. and you woke me up to an important consideration. i stated that even if blyton was art, the N word should be removed, as it was not integral to the piece. however ,rather than take the risk going down such a road might lead, i retract that rather flippant remark and state that NO word should be removed from a work of art.

on the rest of the post.

yup, one word of a piece of literature is not automatically interchangeable with another.
yup, nice point (the bold bit)
yup, no word integral to a work of art (literature) should be changed. Indeed as stated above, NO word should be removed from a work of art.

however, 1/ blyton's work is not art, they are averagely written children's books. so if the choice is a/ deny children the books, or b/ remove the word n**ger from said book, i say the second option is the better, as a child can still enjoy aspects of her work.
in this instance as her work is not art, it will not be read as an adult - except for analytical/historical purposes for a wider topic.

ETA: Blyton's work is not art/ literature. If it was there would be academic work / analysis etc etc on it. Any criticism work mentioning blyton would be referencing her work as an illustration of a a bigger topic ( the war, societal change, the increase of literacy in post war england etc) or as part of a biography and not as a subject in itself.

of course if anyone finds an academic work which contradicts this, (ie offers critique of her work using one or many of the literary criticism techniques and refers to her work as literature) please feel free to humiliate me.

ArtSmart

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:pac:

If only you could demand that all the people challenging your statements
would follow your rules. I'll just say that I only made two points, one
challenging your nonsense about advertising being considered an art


em, advertising is considered art - not all of it of course. same as not all writing is considered art.

&
a second about your nonsense that anyone is justifiably in a position to
judge what is deemed offensive & to therefore remove it.

i said that? where?


If it's tough to
read a challenging opinion all I did was show that your logic is akin to that
used by the Russian state capitalists (colloquially called communists) of the
20th century in both the political and scientific arena & it led to monstrous
results for humanity.



I just used your own words to explain how Russian
history was censored

did you?

while Greco-Roman history was thoroughally analyzed
to illustrate a bit of motivation for what I was saying,

was it?

you know, offer
evidence of my assertions so that I can show I'm not talking nonsense?

??

It's a lot harder for a person to refute actual evidence.

evidence?

It's not up to you
it's up to the creator of the work to decide if a word stays of goes, if
that person wanted word X removed they had plenty of time to do so
themselves

fair nuff. if it's a work of art.

so your latest argument doesn't stand up.

i had a latest argument? what was that?

But obviously seeing that I made two points instead of one

em....

(and by one point
you mean one) everything I've said is obviously null and void.

well, ahem...

When are we to
expect a criticism of the shape of my posts,

what shape is that? oblong?

or the big posh words I use

er....

or some other fun aspect of my posts?

well, they are fun i have to admit.

sorry. i shouldn't be so dismissive.

and yet i am.

sorry again.

sponsoredwalk

:pac:

If only you could demand that all the people challenging your statements
would follow your rules. I'll just say that I only made two points, one
challenging your nonsense about advertising being considered an art


em, advertising is considered art - not all of it of course. same as not all writing is considered art.

I don't consider any "art" created for advertising purposes to be art
because I don't think it's artistic to create something that has the sole
purpose of subconsciously forcing manufactured wants on the viewer.
But you're wrong about "all writing" because you'll always find someone
who considers piece X as art. Just because I don't agree that advertising
is not art doesn't give me any right to ban it.

&
a second about your nonsense that anyone is justifiably in a position to
judge what is deemed offensive & to therefore remove it.

i said that? where?

Okay, so it's not justifiable to take words out of Enid Blyton then
But you just said it was justifiable to take words out of Enid Blyton,
of course you didn't use the actual word "justifiable" you just explained
the situation that the word justifiable would sum up.

ArtSmart wrote: »

my argument is that certain words, if not integral to a piece of art (literature) can be removed. for instance the word 'at' or 'river'. or indeed the word n**ger if that word is not integral to the integrity of the work - ie it's artistic essence, it's integral message or sub-message.


in Huck's case it is, therefore it stays

in Blyton's case it's not, therefore can be removed.

^Here^ I think it's obvious that you have graciously placed yourself in the
role of the moral arbiter of what is deemed acceptable in this situation
& justified it with shoddy logic that can be manipulated by anyone to
ban any word they want. Who judges what word is integral to the story?
Everyone, but those in power have the, wait for it, power to ban certain
words or books or passages over others. Now, this is a related point &
not a side point, it's related if you think for a second, but in Russia that
was state policy. My example of the Russian guy on amazon who lived
through this first hand was just an illustration of what your horrendous
logic is like in practice.

If it's tough to
read a challenging opinion all I did was show that your logic is akin to that
used by the Russian state capitalists (colloquially called communists) of the
20th century in both the political and scientific arena & it led to monstrous
results for humanity.



I just used your own words to explain how Russian
history was censored

did you?

Yes,

ArtSmart wrote: »

in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If I can make it clearer, the nasty part of Russian history was "deemed
offensive and is not integral to the (work)⇔(Russian vision, &) it goes"
according to the USSR, similarly with Lysenko & genetics.

The ⇔ sign means "logically equivalent". Notice that I am explaining the
Stalinist justification for removing certain parts of Russian history deemed
unfit or against the spirit of the state. This is your logic in practice, you
are simply arguing for a weakened version of it but it's essentially the
same. Remove words like ni_gg_er from classic works because our
culture cannot face it's ugly past & we'd rather hide it than face it is no
different to the state-sponsored mandate to ignore the history of the
gulag & show trials etc... Shameful stuff...

while Greco-Roman history was thoroughally analyzed
to illustrate a bit of motivation for what I was saying,

was it?

Yes, if you'd read my post properly rather than reply with the weak
response you chose you'd see I explained how the guy learned
Greco-Roman history thoroughly but failed (for some reason) to learn
the history of his own country (& it's just common knowledge anyway).
Similarly in the U.S., Native American history is still only being
uncovered after years of purposeful ignorance of the extermination of
the indigenous population. The point is that in Russia they use your logic
to expunge the negative side of Russian history & in the West we expunge
words like ni_g_-G_e-r to hide the extremely shady side of our history.

you know, offer
evidence of my assertions so that I can show I'm not talking nonsense?

??

I'm sorry, I thought you'd recognise the digression into Russian history as
evidence. Obviously not. Well a bit of knowledge of Russian state-
sponsored suppression & reading these reviews will help you see what I
meant. Employing some ridiculous rationale for editing historical works,
i.e. your argument, has been done in history & it's always was done to
hide a particularly negative trait of those hiding it. In this situation it's no
different.

It's a lot harder for a person to refute actual evidence.

evidence?

As I explained above. Also, remember in my earlier post I went and
explained how the Russian state employed your logic to further Lysenko's
foolish science? Mendelian genetics was "deemed offensive" in the eyes
of the Russians & scientists advocating it were murdered. They were
very proud of their scientific acheivements & spared no expense to
ensure their population seen Russian superiority. They produced some
absolutely unbelievable math & physics books, but in biology :pac:.

It's not up to you
it's up to the creator of the work to decide if a word stays of goes, if
that person wanted word X removed they had plenty of time to do so
themselves

fair nuff. if it's a work of art.

Enid Blyton is a work of art too, maybe not to you because your
subjective perception of what art is is shaped a certain way, but the
whole world doesn't (shocker) think the way you do.

so your latest argument doesn't stand up.

i had a latest argument? what was that?

ArtSmart wrote: »

my argument is that certain words, if not integral to a piece of art (literature) can be removed. for instance the word 'at' or 'river'. or indeed the word n**ger if that word is not integral to the integrity of the work - ie it's artistic essence, it's integral message or sub-message.


in Huck's case it is, therefore it stays

in Blyton's case it's not, therefore can be removed.

ArtSmart wrote: »

as i said if the word is deemed as carrying connotations deemed offensive, it can only be left if it is integral to the art, in this case (Huck) it is (thematically and structurally)

I don't know why but I think you knew that.

But obviously seeing that I made two points instead of one

em....

(and by one point
you mean one) everything I've said is obviously null and void.

well, ahem...

When are we to
expect a criticism of the shape of my posts,

what shape is that? oblong?

or the big posh words I use

er....

or some other fun aspect of my posts?

well, they are fun i have to admit.

Cheers Don't mean to get all hysterical but if you're seriously going to
argue that there is any rationale behind editing literature or the historical
record the claws come out :P

sponsoredwalk

ArtSmart wrote: »

however, 1/ blyton's work is not art, they are averagely written children's books. so if the choice is a/ deny children the books, or b/ remove the word n**ger from said book, i say the second option is the better, as a child can still enjoy aspects of her work.

c/ give the children the book & tell the truth when that part comes up

ArtSmart

personally, now that you mention it, there's a number of authors i wouldn't mind seeing spending time in one of the Gulag's fine hostelries .

Mellor

I just remembered they say n-gg-r in Lord of the Flies too -

- PC Brigade go forth and destroy

John

ArtSmart wrote: »

ETA: Blyton's work is not art/ literature. If it was there would be academic work / analysis etc etc on it. Any criticism work mentioning blyton would be referencing her work as an illustration of a a bigger topic ( the war, societal change, the increase of literacy in post war england etc) or as part of a biography and not as a subject in itself.

of course if anyone finds an academic work which contradicts this, (ie offers critique of her work using one or many of the literary criticism techniques and refers to her work as literature) please feel free to humiliate me.

That seems like a very narrow definition of art/literature. Anyway, I'd be very surprised if there were not some academics somewhere that studied Blyton to some degree (here's one on Amazon, don't know anything about how good it is but it doesn't look like just a biography but treats her work as a subject in itself). Regardless, to view academia as the gatekeepers of art is foolish. Art should be experienced on a subjective basis and one person's art is another person's dross.

Regardless, this does not impact on whether a book should be censored or not. If the book is so abhorrent that it cannot be sold as is without corrupting the youth of today, then do not buy it for children. However, perhaps actually talking with young people when they are reading any books is a better way of going about it. Get them to explore the differences between what was acceptable in the book and what is acceptable in the real world. Get them to compare it with something like Lord of the Flies or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and let them see how culture is not just what they know from their day to day life, it has changed immensely since Blyton wrote her stories and it will change again in the next century. Give them some food for thought and encourage critical engagement with what they experience in life instead of being spoonfed and led blindly down a corridor instead of exploring the wide plains of writing and art in general.

On a personal note, even as a young boy I had no interest in Blyton because it was so old fashioned. Young people need to be given more credit for their ability to think and see through such nonsense.

SuperInfinity

Personally I don't believe the word "art" used like that has any meaning to it. It's so vague and undefined that it's just meaningless. Even if we could say for definite that such and such book was art or was not art, what difference would that make to anything anyway? It's just a label. Talk about if a book is good or not, or whether it affected you emotionally, but IMO all arguments on whether something is "art" or not are pointless... it's just an argument of semantics.

ArtSmart

John wrote: »

That seems like a very narrow definition of art/literature. Anyway, I'd be very surprised if there were not some academics somewhere that studied Blyton to some degree (here's one on Amazon, don't know anything about how good it is but it doesn't look like just a biography but treats her work as a subject in itself). Regardless, to view academia as the gatekeepers of art is foolish. Art should be experienced on a subjective basis and one person's art is another person's dross.

hmmm. so Jeffery Archer is art if someone believes it to be? naw. the business of what is art is a pretty serious one and detailed one - check it out. it's certainly not a 'each to his own' thing.



Regardless, this does not impact on whether a book should be censored or not. If the book is so abhorrent that it cannot be sold as is without corrupting the youth of today, then do not buy it for children. However, perhaps actually talking with young people when they are reading any books is a better way of going about it. Get them to explore the differences between what was acceptable in the book and what is acceptable in the real world. Get them to compare it with something like Lord of the Flies or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and let them see how culture is not just what they know from their day to day life, it has changed immensely since Blyton wrote her stories and it will change again in the next century. Give them some food for thought and encourage critical engagement with what they experience in life instead of being spoonfed and led blindly down a corridor instead of exploring the wide plains of writing and art in general.


I think blytons work is the children's version of Archer's work. nice on a rainy day, or to get kids reading. i dont really see parents getting in too deep, comparison wise etc. So, to allow the secret seven etc to continue the handiest way is to remove the offensive material. in exactly the same way with other commercial entities - like the example i gave with lyon's tea or the golliwog on marmalade jar.

now if blyton's work was art, that'd be different. but it aint, it's a commercial product and can be approached as such.

JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS IN PROSE FORM AND IS BETWEEN TWO COVERS AND HAS SOLD WELL, DOESNT ACTUALLY MAKE IT LITERATURE.

but of course, we all know that. right?


On a personal note, even as a young boy I had no interest in Blyton because it was so old fashioned. Young people need to be given more credit for their ability to think and see through such nonsense.

to reiterate a previous statement, it's a what is art question. Blyton's work isnt. neither is Archer's. Neither is the lyon's minstrel song, dance or imagery. neither is...well, the list goes on.

wrote:

A crucial point that David Rudd develops is that it is unhelpful to judge these books
in terms of what adults consider as good or worthwhile literature. They are uniquely
for children and are not 'developmental', but are about being rather than becoming.
Moreover, it is misguided to view each book as an artistic work in itself since its
value lies in its being part of a series and its readers being part of the club (whether
this be metaphorical, through the reader's imaginative identification or literal, as in
membership of the readers' clubs and correspondence with the author).

David Rudd considers the accusations levelled against Blyton - accusations of low
literary merit, sexism, racism, 'old-fashionedness' and the idealisation of Lost
England, and uses research methods to provide a balanced view which seems
ultimately on the side of Blyton and her fans - children past and present.

from one of the two 'customer' reviews of the link you gave -and this is a positive review
he he he.

John

For someone whose username is ArtSmart and writes in such a patronising way, you're not offering much more than old fashioned arguments about what art is. What "depth" does a work have to have to be considered art? Who gets to decide whether something is art or not? Whose opinion is accepted and whose is not? Does making something for money instantly mean that it is impossible to consider it art? Can something be bad and still be art? Are all children's books exempt from being considered art? Can bad literature be used as an instructive guide to what art is?

And as for the book I linked to, I never said it was a good book but it's a book written from an academic point of view about Blyton. That's all you asked for to prove you wrong. By your definition of art, the existence of this book means Blyton made art (even if the author thinks that her books are not art).