出版与作家生涯2023spectator.co.uk
改写罗尔德·达尔作品是一种文化破坏行为
The rewriting of Roald Dahl is an act of cultural vandalism
导读
这是《旁观者》杂志一篇批评新版达尔童书删改的文章，立场认为删改经典是文化破坏。值得写作者一读：它把改写、审查、语言时代性、版权垄断这几件事放在一起，恰好逼我们想清楚自己的用词也会过时，以及改编与破坏的界线到底在哪。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
动笔修改别人的文本前，先查作者本人是否早已改过，例如达尔就曾删除奥帕伦帕人设定中的奴隶背景；否则容易把作者的自我修订误当后人篡改
- 02
用“现代化排演莎士比亚”这个类比检验自己的立场：保留原作与让当代读者共情，两者未必不能并存
- 03
记住词汇的时代性：今天读来刺耳的词，当年可能是中性医学术语或日常称呼，所以自己写下的用词也会被后人审视
- 04
分清愤怒的对象：让人无法同时流通新旧两版的，是版权制度而非改写本身；想清楚再下判断
HN 评论精选
达尔本人就曾顺应时代改写自己的书，因此“亵渎经典”的指责站不住脚。
我没见作者抱怨《查理和巧克力工厂》第一版消失。达尔当年就向七十年代初的“政治正确”低头，抹掉了奥帕伦帕人作为非洲奴隶的真实身份。各种影视改编也一直很难处理：不管怎么装扮，奥帕伦帕人终究是奴隶。
mattbee查看英文原文
I don't hear the author complaining about the loss of the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This is where Dahl bowed to early 70s wokery and erased the oompa-loompas' true identity as African slaves who would dribble for cocoa beans. Film adaptations have struggled with the fact that oompa-loompas are, however you dress them up, slaves. From this article which is much more interesting: https://theconversation.com/from-pygmies-to-puppets-what-to-do-with-roald-dahls-enslaved-oompa-loompas-in-modern-adaptations-166967
与其指责改编，不如把矛头指向版权垄断；让新旧版本并存才是解法。
把莎士比亚排成现代化版本，让观众更能共情剧情和人物，这算文化破坏吗？该愤怒的是版权，而不是让作品现代化的决定。如果没有版权限制，传统版和现代版可以同时流通；这也解释了为什么莎剧常有多种版本并存，而百老汇每轮巡演都必须授权、只能照搬。艺术是时代的产物，把版本更新成当代人理解、孩子共情并在其中看见自己，我认为完全合理。
RheingoldRiver查看英文原文
Is it an act of cultural vandalism to stage a modernized production of Shakespeare so that the audience can empathize with the plot & characters better? Be angry at copyright, not at the decision to attempt to modernize a work of art; without copyright, both versions could be circulated concurrently (and of course this is why you see both traditional & modernized Shakespeare productions, unlike Broadway where every tour is authorized and a replica (some exceptions for school versions and such)). Art is a product of its times, and imo it's completely reasonable to want to update a version to what makes sense in the modern day and what children can now empathize with, and see themselves reflected in.
每个时代都有自己的盲点，该不该改没有现成答案。
这问题让我很为难。想想过去被视为正常的事：R 词曾是医学术语，N 词是平常称呼，同性恋者被叫作 F 词，当年没人觉得有问题，如今回望只有鄙夷。我无法想象把含这些词的书给孩子看，可当年也许那就是常态？将来的人会不会鄙视我们：为管人叫疯子、胖子、丑八怪，为在性别上大做文章？也许我们就是“对着云大喊的老人”？该跟上时代，还是这其实就是“取消文化”？可惜我只有问题，没有答案。
pprotas查看英文原文
This one is very hard for me. I think about how we look at the things that used to be normal in the past. How the R word was a medical condition, how the N word was a normal thing to call somebody, how a gay man was called the F word. Nobody would bat an eye at these words back then. And yet - we look back on those times with disdain. I can't imagine giving a book to a child that contains those words; and yet maybe back then that was normal? Will people look back on our times with disdain and think how horrible we were for calling each other crazy, mad, fat and ugly? How we made such a big deal about gendering things? Maybe we are "the old men shouting at clouds" (ahem... I mean "old people shouting at clouds" xd)? Maybe we should get with the times? Or is this really all "cancel-culture" and everybody else except us is wrong? Unfortunately, I only have questions and no answers hahah
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选