Originally Posted by
Litmaster
Ok, but I think you're going a bit over the top here with the anti-censorship rant. Parents have every right (as much as they are able) to regulate what their kids are exposed to and I have no problem with them trying to shield them from what they perceive as negative elements. In this case, it was Duff's wife that had the problem and, since the son apparently was already hooked on the story, the dad took these measures so that they could continue to listen to it together.
Moreover, Duff ("Doofus?") the dad wanted to expose his kids to all the good things in the story and at the same time keep the peace with his wife, which is understandable. A similar situation would be if a high school teacher wanted to expose her class to the finest in audio drama but wasn't allowed to use material with cuss words because of school policy.
That's hardly the same situation as if Red China were to ban all zombie stories, including "We're Alive", from their country because they believed that zombie stories tended to stir the populous into social dissent or something. The situation here isn't a censorship issue.
Of course... if "We're Alive" was made into a TV miniseries to air on, say, CBS, then it would necessarily have to look a lot different, and all the cuss words would have to be taken out. Not sure they would be able to show some of the more violent scenes in the story, either. I'm sure this kind of thing is what makes Kc a bit leery of giving up any creative control over the project to a major studio.
Artists have always been having to make concessions of this nature in order to get their work publicized. Take a look at any 19th century novel and try to find some cuss words there. Generally, they got modified to, "When the hammer accidentally struck his extended thumb, a stream of Foul Oaths issued forth from Uncle Shylo's mouth" or some such thing.
Now, come on... get off the soap-box, Osi. First of all, the cuss words in the story are not a 'core piece' of the world. I do agree that they belong there, primarily for characterization, but also occasionally for comedic ("Shoot that bitch in the face!") or other effects. If I thought the swearing had nothing to do with the story and that Kc was simply putting them in there for 'shock value' or something, then I would be opposed to their use. However, they are an element that serves the overall story, which is why I think they belong there. The story features a lot of army guys-- army guys cuss, and so to substitute that with "Golly gee whizz" would be inauthentic.
If you don't like Duff's 'altering' of Kc's world in removing the swearing, then you must also be opposed to product placement ("More Cheetos, Captain?") in films, given that these elements are added for commercial and not artistic purposes, right?
What about when screenwriters have to alter the length of their scenes in order to accommodate commercial breaks and that sort of thing--that too is altering their artistic expression and hamstringing their creative efforts, correct?
Or when a producer casts an 'A-list' actor to a movie--not because the actor is right for the part, but rather because he is a 'name' that will bring in more dollars than a no-name actor, even if the no-name is perfectly suited for the part? Is that not also an example of 'fucking with the art'?
"Heh, heh... now THAT shit is funny." (REP to 1st person who can tell me which 'WA' character I just quoted)
