Services Review of Escapist's Journalism

[Houseman]

I wanted to see if The Escapist has returned to doing journalism, since I had already criticized them for abandoning it long ago.

Let's see what they (one of them, at least) have to say on the topic of, say, censorship:

Does It Matter Dahl & Goosebumps Books Are Being Rewritten?

From James Bond to Roald Dahl to RL Stine & Goosebumps, books (& movies) are being rewritten and edited: Is it censorship or is it more?

www.escapistmagazine.com

Written by Damien Lawardorn, https://twitter.com/DamienLawardorn

The article starts off strong, showing both pro- and anti- stances, and encouraging the reader to draw their own conclusions. They even have subheadings titled "The Case for Keeping Stories Up to Date", and "The Case That Literature Is Under Assault" Great! I love 'both sides' stuff.

Personally, I'm biased towards the "literature is under assault" stance, so I assume that by default, because I've seen too many examples of people trying to erase history to give people the benefit of the doubt. The Escapist is one such example, guilty of deleting their own Gamergate articles. Before reading the article, I predict that the author will cherry-pick examples of the "good" and "bad" kinds of censorship, and not take a stance either way.


Now, here I go to read the article fully.

The article says, concerning Ronald Dahl's, change of Oompa-Loompas from African pygmies to fantasy creatures:

Given that Dahl himself proved willing to change the portrayal to reflect shifting social norms...

Hold on. Just because the author changed something, it doesn't mean that this was a "good change". He could have simply caved to pressure against his conscience or better judgement. He could have been under duress. If someone holds a gun to your head and demands your wallet, they can't just claim that your wallet was a gift.

The article the author links to here, even says that "Dahl was shocked and sullen", and that he found the group protesting against him to be "unreasonable", as they described his book as "anti-negro", and "Nazi". There is no quotation here from Dahl saying "I was wrong, I was ignorant." The original article goes on to say "These changes, then, are not driven as a response to the baying mobs of woke commentators calling for censorship...". Well, it sure sounds similar to how Dahl himself described them!

Does it make any difference if those edits are sanctioned by the estate rather than the original author?

Yes. Yes it does. Because the "estate" is not the original author, and the estate has an incentive to do whatever makes money, regardless of what the author's original vision is. They have incentives to reimagine the author and his works as whatever fits in with the Overton Window at any given time, because they profit from it.

That you even had to ask this question deserves a condemnation.

A discerning reader will be able to parse the language used and acknowledge that attitudes reflect the beliefs of the times in which these classic texts were written

Great. So then, why do we even need disclaimers, revisions, footnotes, "updated language" and other such tamperings at all?

we’re talking about children.

Ahh, that's why. "Think of the children". I don't disagree that children are especially ignorant, and susceptible to influence, but what about the children who grew up with the uncensored books? Are they now racists? You likely grew up with these uncensored books, and so did your friends. Are you now a racist because of this book? Are your friends racists because of this book? Did Dahl's books teach you or your friends some racist ideas that you have since had to unlearn? If the answer is "No" as I predict, then how is it that you were a "discerning reader" when you were a kid, but the kids of today aren't?

If small changes can mitigate the risks of social harm, then is it not justifiable to make those changes?

Did MovieBob write this article?

As careful as editors may be, there’s no guarantee they won’t make a grievous error of judgment. Do the benefits of reducing harm outweigh the dangers of changing the meaning of the original work?

The only "error of judgement" involved here is someone with a god complex thinking that they can (re)shape society into their image through the altering of art, literature, and history. This isn't about someone making an 'error' in the sense that you mean it.

So far, I’ve offered questions instead of statements

If you were really doing that, you would be asking contradictory questions. For example, "do the ends justify the means?" from the pro- subheading would be paired with "when is 'the ends justify the means' ever something a good guy says?" anti- subheading. Really let the audience wrestle with that one.

Instead you ask two different sets of questions. Maybe I'm biased, but you seem to be on the pro-censorship side. Maybe I'm a little too used to seeing people seeming like they're "just asking questions" but are really just pushing a certain view.

If there is any solution, it’s one that demands a breaking of the status quo. Instead of continuing to celebrate works that include sexist or racist subtexts, we need to elevate and champion the books, the movies, the music, the games that reflect the present and point the way to a better, more equitable future.

This is something called Presentism, thinking that we are the most moral, because we live in the present, and therefore, the past must be less moral than we are. This follows from a baseless belief that, as the years go by, morality only gets better and better, like some sort of wine or cheese. The world is perhaps more divided now than it ever has been, and we keep inventing more efficient ways to kill each-other. If there is a WWIII, it will be deadlier than WWII, which was deadlier than WWI. Is that "progress"? Does that deserve celebrating?

We are not always moving 'forward'. We might even be 'progressing' towards a cliff. A car needs both the gas and the brakes to reach its destination safely. Sometimes, we even need to go in reverse. How's that for a centrist platitude?


I'm okay with articles that don't take a stance, and don't tell us what to think, but instead of people who pretend to be fence-sitters, I'd rather see people who do write their opinion, one of each, in fact. Have them go head-to-head and respond to each-other. Let them debate, and let us watch and judge for ourselves. I'd rather see that than someone "just asking questions". At least that way, everyone's biases and stances are on the table. This author does not disclaim his biases.

It seems to me (based off this one example, admittedly), that The Escapist has indeed lost their spine and they refuse to write anything that might ruffle feathers. Is it better than some sort of activist mouth-piece telling people what to think? Yes. Is it journalism from the old Escapist that first inspired me to join? No.

 

[Arnox]

Did Dahl's books teach you or your friends some racist ideas that you have since had to unlearn?

I think his response to this would be, "Oh, well they might have made me secretly or unknowingly racist/sexist/etc."

Did MovieBob write this article?

Good callback. I almost forgot about him.

Is it better than some sort of activist mouth-piece telling people what to think? Yes. Is it journalism from the old Escapist that first inspired me to join? No.

I originally just joined because I liked the videos and I really liked the forum. Of course, we can't have nice things these days or things that aren't woefully mishandled though, so naturally, those both went out the door, save maybe for Yahtzee I guess. Oh wait, no, he's out the door too now. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised he stayed with that site for as long as he did.

 

[Signa]

Very good dissection of a bad article. Thanks for the time writing that.