Welcome to Learned, a short, weekly look at language, education, and everything else under the sun. I’m Joel, linguist and professional slacker. This week, we're reading the news.
subscribe | unsubscribe | comments | twitter | about
Three more-or-less current news stories on my mind:
1. Context or Cancel
It's nearing Christmastime which means that the Pogues and Kristy MacColl's immortal classic "Fairytale of New York" is being trotted out, dusted off, and added to playlists everywhere. Except. Fairytale has some problematic lyrics. For those who don't know the song, it's a duet between Pogues' lead singer Shane MacGowan and MacColl, a pair of erstwhile lovers who, to put it charitably, have their differences. During the verses, the pair take turns excoriating each other, using the slurs "slut" and "faggot."
(The version linked here is a perfect example of a song being updated for a new generation. “Slut” is used, “faggot” has been replaced. Make of that what you will.)
This year, BBC Radio 1 opted not to play the original version, but to instead play a version still by the Pogues and MacColl but with different lyrics. Naturally and inevitably, opinions vary. The take that most interested me, because I am a fan of his work and because he is friends with and contemporary of the Pogues, is that of Nick Cave. He has stated a strong preference for the original, unadulterated version, stating that it would have been preferable for the BBC to ban the song outright rather than censor it.
While I don't think Cave is wrong, I don't think he's right either. Cave's point-of-view seems to stem from an idea that because Fairytale is a masterpiece of a song, altering it is an unforgivable sin. And yet, one of the beautiful things about living in the 21st century is we get to see songs change and evolve in real-time as dozens, if not hundreds of artists cover and re-work song after song. And given that MacColl herself recorded the new lyrics with the blessing of MacGowan and the rest of the Pogues, where's the harm?
That said, I do not like to see things censored outright, not without providing the context and reasons for the change. Without that, what begins as a well-intentioned change quickly congeals into jingoism.
2. Pay the Man
Some of my earliest experiences with expanded universe materials were Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars and Star Trek novels. It helped that I loved his original novels. It helped even more that I love both Stars Wars and Trek. Last month it came out that Disney has decided not to pay Foster for work he did on those Star Wars novels, arguing that Foster's contract was with a different entity. So, once Fox and the Star Wars properties were purchased by Disney, they were entitled to profit from any and all works centering on the property but are not obligated to pay royalties or honor contracts from before the buyout.
This is a baffling move on the part of Disney. Regardless of what share prices may or may not be doing, Disney is one of the largest corporations on the planet and one that has an incredible amount of market share for popular entertainment. Adding to that is that Foster makes a very good David to Disney's Goliath. Foster is in his mid-70s, is a beloved science-fiction author of long good-standing in the community, and, if that weren't enough, is currently battling cancer.
More broadly, this is the latest in a series of attacks by Disney on the ideas and protections of copyright, trademark, and the ownership of intellectual property in general. Were it not for their consistent, wallet-first lobbying of Congress, U.S. copyright law would look very different and would be much more consumer-friendly. But the biggest takeaway here is that outraged though I and many others are, Disney is able to get away with things like this because they have become too big to be boycotted or affected through economic measures. So, without intervention from the U.S. Congress and other entities, Disney will continue to re-write copyright and intellectual property laws in their favor.
3. Supernatural, Supersilent
Supernatural is one of those shows that I feel like I know inside and out even though I've never seen a single episode. Having recently concluded a massive 15-season run, certain sections of the internet exploded over the perceived silencing of a gay relationship in the series finale. The situation (as I understand it) is that over the course of the show, two male characters were understood to be more than just friends.
Now, the reason I say it like that is that this is mainstream, prime-time television in America, and the two men were never explicitly written as being in a romantic relationship. However, based on fan "ships" (relationships constructed by fans of a show that more explicitly reflect their desires and wants for the characters), the writers gradually introduced a layer of subtext that allowed fans to interpret the two characters’ relationship as an LGBTQA one.
Then, in the series finale, the two characters explicitly profess their romantic love for each other. At least, in the Spanish dub, they do. In the version that aired on U.S. t.v., one character says "I love you" and the other responds with "Don't do this..." However, in the Spanish-language edition of the show, the characters say, "Te amo" and "Y yo a ti." My Spanish is fairly rusty, but I have it on the good assurance of the internet that these are both phrases said in romantic contexts.
The reason this story intrigues me is that I do not think it's going to be the last time we see a controversy like this. As international and multi-lingual edits of t.v. shows and movies become more and more readily available, how will local gatekeepers react? I'm not sure how this story will play out, but I think it may one day be seen as one of the points where the pop culture and media landscapes changed for better or for worse.
That's all that's on my mind this week. Until next week, stay safe, stay sane. Learn something.
subscribe | unsubscribe | comments | twitter | about
Joel