FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9      Non-Film Score Discussion: Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published     1 2 3    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 9:34 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Now we gleefully torch our own works of art. On Tuesday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises — the business that preserves and protects the author's legacy — announced that it will no longer publish six books because of racist and insensitive imagery. The books, which include And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street and If I Ran the Zoo, "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong," the company said. The decision was met with divided reactions, and sparked a discussion on how to deal with books containing racist or other offensive imagery. Source: https://twitter.com/i/events/1366779314641899524    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 9:48 AM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) Big difference between "torching" and "not publishing." There is no guarantee that books remain in the catalog indefinitely. Books can be deleted for lack of sales, racist imagery - real or perceived - or any other reason the company wants. The publisher is exercising its right to publish or not publish what it wants to.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 10:03 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Removing art from public consumption specifically over moral objections is censorship. Doesn't matter their rights, the hows or whys.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 10:25 AM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) Removing art from public consumption specifically over moral objections is censorship. Doesn't matter their rights, the hows or whys. "It seems we stood and talked like this before..." Books are published at the pleasure of the publisher. They decide what stays in print. Now, if the estate of Dr. Seuss wants the books published, they can potentially present a case for a new publishing deal with a different company for those six titles. But I doubt they will want to. I'll bet that, before this news story broke, if I asked you how many books Dr. Seuss wrote and how many were still in print, you would not have been able to answer either question. But now you're up in arms because six titles have been deleted from the catalog. Make that "cat-in-the-hatalogue."    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 10:46 AM     By:   Octoberman   (Member) ... But now you're up in arms because... If the cause be just.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 10:58 AM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) ... But now you're up in arms because... If the cause be just. Well, then I'm up in arms because the CD of "Point Blank" and "The Outfit" was censored when it went out of print, before I had a chance to buy it. That is some real censorship, isn't it? Keeping a film score CD from those who want to hear it? If only publishers could all become instruments of the state, and the state could dictate what remains in the catalog...    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:00 AM     By:   Octoberman   (Member) Well, then I'm up in arms because the CD of "Point Blank" and "The Outfit" was censored when it went out of print, before I had a chance to buy it. That is some real censorship, isn't it? Keeping a film score CD from those who want to hear it? If only publishers could all become instruments of the state, and the state could dictate what remains in the catalog... Absolutely. I feel you, Brother.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:21 AM     By:   chriscoyle   (Member) Removing art from public consumption specifically over moral objections is censorship. Doesn't matter their rights, the hows or whys. "It seems we stood and talked like this before..." Books are published at the pleasure of the publisher. They decide what stays in print. Now, if the estate of Dr. Seuss wants the books published, they can potentially present a case for a new publishing deal with a different company for those six titles. But I doubt they will want to. I'll bet that, before this news story broke, if I asked you how many books Dr. Seuss wrote and how many were still in print, you would not have been able to answer either question. But now you're up in arms because six titles have been deleted from the catalog. Make that "cat-in-the-hatalogue." Please point to me the act of censorship in the past that has stood the test of time as the correct decision?    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:24 AM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) Please point to me the act of censorship in the past that has stood the test of time as the correct decision? We're not talking about censorship. We are talking about how a corporation chooses to do business and what a corporation chooses to sell.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:29 AM     By:   chriscoyle   (Member) Please point to me the act of censorship in the past that has stood the test of time as the correct decision? We're not talking about censorship. We are talking about how a corporation chooses to do business and what a corporation chooses to sell. No it’s censorship. We see it differently. The books have been publish for years and all of a sudden it’s a problem?    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:32 AM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) Please point to me the act of censorship in the past that has stood the test of time as the correct decision? We're not talking about censorship. We are talking about how a corporation chooses to do business and what a corporation chooses to sell. No it’s censorship. We see it differently. The books have been publish for years and all of a sudden it’s a problem? We absolutely see it differently. All kinds of things go out of print all the time. Are you suggesting that some reasons for deletion are better than others? All the reasons boil down to the same thing: The company sells what is in its best interests, and the company deletes what is in its best interests. Are you suggesting that the state mandate what publishers must publish?    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:34 AM     By:   Justin Boggan   (Member)    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 11:52 AM     By:   Prince Damian   (Member) Not bothered . Never read and never will.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:04 PM     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member) Here, it's not even the publisher who is making the decision. It's the Dr. Seuss estate, which licenses the books for publication. What gets under (some) people's skin, more than the ceasing of publishing of the books, is the virtue signaling that goes along with it--the big announcement, the news coverage, the seeking of approval. As has been stated earlier, thousands of books go out of print every year, for many different reasons. How many are the subject of such public attention? Dr. Seuss Enterprises could have just let the publishing contracts for these books quietly lapse, and with dozens of others available, how much of an uproar would there have been? But they want everyone to know the reason for these going out of print. They want to be praised for their social justice consciousness. And, deep down, they want it known that they are better and more evolved than the hoi polloi who actually buy and read the books. They are doing this for your own good. To make you as virtuous as they are.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:04 PM     By:   Mr. Jack   (Member) This is horseshit.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:12 PM     By:   Hurdy Gurdy   (Member) I'm more concerned about John Williams censoring his own unreleased scores, for no sane reason whatsoever. All the OST boutique labels have tried to get things like THE RARE BREED, STORY OF A WOMAN & THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS released on CD, but Jay Dubya won't allow it. Now that's censorship!!    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:19 PM     By:   jackfu   (Member) Bob is on target here about virtue signaling. They could have quietly dropped those books and likely few would have noticed. Had they done so quietly, the impression would likely be that it was either considered a matter of discretion, or that they wished to avoid the possible storm to come from the woke crowd. Geisel was known to have drawn some characters long ago that would not be tolerated nowadays for good reasons. This seems the direction we're going in America. It's going to be an "interesting" ride. The thing that really bugs me is all the hysteria and hoopla about all this sort of thing - from both sides. To borrow from 10YA, "...tell me where is sanity?"    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:32 PM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) This is an outrage! Dr. Seuss Enterprises wants to protect the name and brand of Dr. Seuss. What is the world coming to?    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:33 PM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) This is horseshit. Yes! Companies should not be allowed to sell what they want.    Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:35 PM     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member) ...Dr. Seuss Enterprises could have just let the publishing contracts for these books quietly lapse, and with dozens of others available, how much of an uproar would there have been? But they want everyone to know the reason for these going out of print. Companies put out press releases all the time. This one happens to have gotten some traction, and by talking about it online, YOU are amplifying their message.     Non-Film Score Discussion: Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published    < 1 2 3  > >>  Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.