Dragons a health risk

[wellinghall]

"Children’s books are being sanitised to a “crazy” extent by publishers, authors claim. Lindsey Gardiner said that editors opposed her depiction of a dragon toasting marshmallows on flames from his nostrils in one of her books because “it looked dangerous and went against health and safety”."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2896715.ece

Comments

[na-lon.livejournal.com]

Oh parents of the world, unite and trawl all second-hand bookshops to rescue proper, dangerous and exciting books which don't keep children wrapped in cotton-wool which will only become a navigation hazard to them when learning stops coming so easily in their adulthood.

*cries*

That's just retarded

[the-marquis.livejournal.com]

Methinks this is one of the results of the last decade or so's policies of "prizes for all" and "everyone should go to uni" rather than "anyone who wants to and is capable" - you get numpties thinking they're clever because they've been near some cleverer people. A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing ...

[na-lon.livejournal.com]

Besides... How are baby dragons supposed to learn to deal with their flame if they can't experiment with marshmallows. Should their parents wait until they hit puberty and go nuclear?!

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

This doesn't surprise me. I've posted before about the healthy eating messages that are seeping into children's books, and how reading aloud a book that mentions cakes now feels like a terrible crime. I've also read that some of these 1950s facsimiles come with a large health and safety disclaimer, saying that the activities described - making tree houses, doing fun kitchen chemistry experiments - are no longer to be advised.

The other thing I've read about is that books are being censored because of Britishness. Illustrators have been asked to change illustrations because they look "too English" and that will affect the book's chances of selling in America. (Milk bottles on the doorstep was one example I saw quoted.)

[arda-unmarred.livejournal.com]

"books are being censored because of Britishness"

This has always been the case. American editions of books routinely change not just the title, but British idiomatic expressions that might be unfamiliar to American children - I believe the Narnia books were tampered with in this fashion when first published. But bowdlerising books to suit the publisher's/educator's/censor's need is nothing new, it has been done since printing was invented.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, it's got a lot worse lately. In the past - or so I read - publishers were more likely to publish a book purely for a British audience, and then if it did well, consider trying to sell it to America, where sometimes there might be changes made for the American edition. Now, according to a few things I've read lately, they're more likely to refuse to publish it at all unless it has international appeal. I don't object too much to different editions for different countries - though it does seem a shame, since it reduces exposure to cultural diversity - but it does seem a bit unfair when British authors writing for British children in Britain are told to Americanise their book before it will be published in Britain.

[arda-unmarred.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is quite a lot worse! Could it have something to do with the 'globalisation' of the publishing industry? Whereas before you would have had exclusively British publishers, who may have had a deal with another publisher in America to bring out editions there (like that between Allen & Unwin and Houghton Mifflin), now you have multinational publishing corporations like HarperCollins who don't think in terms of national markets, but in terms of largest profits (especially when they're owned by Murdoch!), and are probably headquartered in America anyway. To quote their website:

"HarperCollins UK is part of HarperCollins Worldwide, one of the leading English-language book publishers in the world, with operations in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia. It is a wholly-owned division of News Corporation, the media conglomerate and parent of Times Newspapers Ltd, British Sky Broadcasting and Twentieth Century Fox....Collins [a long-standing British publisher] was acquired by News Corporation in 1989 and merged with the prestigious US imprint Harper and Row."

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I expect that's the reason, yes (though I know nothing about publishing, really, just about children's books, being a children's librarian.) It seems to be an issue in more than just books. More and more apparently British TV dramas seem to be made with an eye to the American market, and when you look at it, you see that they were made with American money.

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

I have a 1920s edition of the Arthur Mee Children's Encyclopedia, which assumes that all small boys have pocket knives and free access to woodland. And that all girls have scissors and needles and hot irons.

And I'm not afraid to use it.

[miss-t-ide.livejournal.com]

I think it's a perfectly sensible precaution. After all, if images like that are freely circulated among children, who knows how many of them will ask their pet dragons to toast marshmallows for them...?

What? Wait. You mean children don't have pet dragons..? Oh! Well, then scrap the above. Can't see the harm in the picture then.

[coppervale.livejournal.com]

In my new book, I'm planning on having a dragon roast all sorts of people...

THINGS! I meant things.

Really.

[alex-downunder.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think all books should be banned! Clearly they're heavy, and could be used by the unscrupulous as a weapon. You could have someone's eye out. At the very least goggles should be worn if attempting to read them. And don't even get me started on Libraries - imagine using a book someone else has read. Very unsanitary.-