Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Owls?" you ask...

Expand Messages
  • Stolzi@aol.com
    Publishers censor own texts in nod to PC -- The Washington Times Fictional tales
    Message 1 of 32 , May 12 10:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      <A HREF="http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20030512-90235056.htm">Publishers censor own texts in nod to PC -- The Washington Times</A>

      'Fictional tales involving dinosaurs, disobedient children, coffee,
      Irish-American policemen and "exemplary upper-class people of bygone days"
      are being excised from American schoolbooks, according to a newly published
      study on classroom policy in the United States.'

      'The obsessive attention to the content of children's books is likely to stop
      a future American J.K. Rowling in her tracks. The Harry Potter series, which
      contravenes educational publishers' guidelines by referring to satanism,
      violence, religion and owls, has been listed by the American Library
      Association as the "most attacked" book in the country.'

      Diamond Proudbrook

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Margaret Dean
      ... Is this what you re looking for? I once heard a lady tell her daughter that if you ate too many aspirin tablets you would die. But why? asked the
      Message 32 of 32 , May 14 11:28 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        "Ernest S. Tomlinson" wrote:
        > On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:23:12 -0500, "Croft, Janet B" <jbcroft@...>
        > said:
        > > I didn't explain Pratchett's concept very well, I'm afraid. What he
        > > means by "Lies-to-children" is those partial truths or little stories
        > > that seem to explain a phenomenon -- until you look at them a little
        > > closer and see that it doesn't really explain the whole thing.
        > I understand that, but I see a big difference between "rainbows are
        > caused by raindrops acting like prisms" (which isn't quite the whole
        > story, but still a good approximation of the truth) and "you shouldn't
        > chew gum because it angers the elf that lives in your stomach" (which
        > isn't true at all, unless you resort to a tortured post-modernistic
        > definition of 'truth'.)
        > (I'm reminded of Lewis's argument about "horrid red things". Where was
        > that?)

        Is this what you're looking for?

        "I once heard a lady tell her daughter that if you ate too
        many aspirin tablets you would die. 'But why?' asked the
        child. 'If you squash them you don't find any horrid red
        things inside them.' Obviously, when this child thought of
        poison she not only had an attendant image of 'horrid red
        things,' but she actually believed that poison was red. And
        this is an error. But how far does it invalidate her thinking
        about poison? She learned that an overdose of aspirin would
        kill you: her belief was true. She knew, within limits,
        which of the substances in her mother's house were poisonous.
        If I, staying in the house, had raised a glass of what looked
        like water to my lips, and the child had said, 'Don't drink
        that. Mummie says it's poisonous,' I should have been foolish
        to disregard the warning on the ground that 'This child has an
        archaic and mythological idea of poison as horrid red things.'"

        The quote is from an essay that is actually called "'Horrid Red

        --Margaret Dean
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.