The Three-Body Problem discussion

I am still not sure what happened. But I heard from a Chinese website that Liu cixin and the translator Joel Martinsen had to make a lot of changes for the second book because some contents may be "gender discriminative" and "other stuff". I guess there would be more modification in the 3rd book.

Hmmm. I'd best start learning Chinese then. I abhor censorship.

Kenneth wrote: "Hmmm. I'd best start learning Chinese then. I abhor censorship."
I think they are not actually censorship. Some things like gender discrimination are just not right.
Learning Chinese...Good Luck!

BTW, I think the change to wallfacer 1's plan is acceptable, but the new one is not as mind-boggling as the original one. naive.

Gender discrimination, if it was part of the original text, being removed IS censorship.

That you disagree with gender discrimination is beside the point. I too am a proponent of equality among sexes, races, religions, whatever. People are people and they should be treated fairly.

However, I am 100% against censorship because it distorts the artist's views. I am an adult. I am capable of reading Mein Kampf without turning into a goose-stepping asshole. I am capable of appreciating the beauty of religious texts without converting to their way of life. I am capable of reading a book with sexist characters or written by a sexist author without becoming a sexist.

Censorship is dilution of art and it is an abasement of literature.

According to the information I've got, it is because the wallfacer's plan referenced some context from Liu's another book "Ball lighting", which is not translated into English yet. In order to avoid confusing, they rewrote that part of plots.

I also heard that the editor of Tor did launch some requests because of so called "gender discrimination", but not all of the requests were accepted and it hadn't brought too much trouble to the translator.

It's still a pity, because the old plan is much more crazy and queer than the new one, it actually involves an army in quantum state. Hope "ball lighting" could be translated into English someday, and there could be a new edition to restore the original plot

I see, Zhao. I also hope that English readers can read the original plot at some point.

I get the feeling that it was not censored it was just changed to sell better in western society. It wouldn't be censored leaving a country but when entering.

Fulong wrote: "I think they are not actually censorship. Some things like gender discrimination are just not right..."

Are we not able to read critically and think for ourselves now?

Zhao wrote: "According to the information I've got, it is because the wallfacer's plan referenced some context from Liu's another book "Ball lighting", which is not translated into English yet. In order to avoid confusing, they rewrote that part of plots.

Oh, a pity... I would prefer waiting for the other one to be translated. I will forever be curious about the original plot. I'm already struggling with German, so Chinese is beyond my brain cells.

so is there censorship or not

Probably by the publishers not the government. It was likly just a marketing scheme. Why would the Chinese government censor an outgoing document that they didn't censor in their own county. And western governments wouldn't censor a book on the grounds of sexism or racism.

The book would have been altered in translation by the publishers to better entertain western readers and therefore sell more copies in western countries.

As a western reader, it offends me that they think I can't handle it.

Kenneth wrote: "As a western reader, it offends me that they think I can't handle it."

It is not that you can't handle it so much that it is they don't think that you would like it. Like the Lord of the Rings movies when they made up and inflated female roles so the cast wouldn't be entiely male like the books reallly were. We would read it then get annoyed and then there would be a different topic on goodreads labled "How dare they treat Women such" . And that irritation would cost them money.

Or they could grow up and let the reader decide. Who says I wouldn't like it, or that I can separate my views on women's rights in the real world (I am for equality) from a fictional narrative in Middle Earth?

It IS that they are censoring and treating readers as children incapable of judging rationally on their own.

Who is this "We" you speak of? Isn't each reader an individual person with an individual mind and an individual worldview? Yes, the decision is financially based. I am still offended.

You are totally right however they are a comercial enterprise and have more intrest in making money than annoying readers to preserve the original content.

Unfortunately true!

Kenneth wrote: "Gender discrimination, if it was part of the original text, being removed IS censorship.

That you disagree with gender discrimination is beside the point. I too am a proponent of equality among se..."

Fulong wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "Hmmm. I'd best start learning Chinese then. I abhor censorship."
I think they are not actually censorship. Some things like gender discrimination are just not right.
Learning Chine..."

Regardless of whether gender discrimination is right or not, changing a a story is not right either. Remember it is a story. No matter how offensive a story is, censorship is much more offensive. If it is done for selling purposes, there will be those that read it for the offensiveness.

It is possible that it was changed due to translation problems or censored in China by authorities. I am having a hard time understanding why a publisher would change a book especially after the author won a Hugo. The book is going to sell because Liu Cixin is a hot commodity. If the book is sexist, it will sell because of the controversy that ensues.

Editing does happen and it did with A Clockwork Orange, but that was eventually released with the last chapter put back into the novel and it was a better book for it.

I'm with that all the way!

Kenneth wrote: "I'm with that all the way!"

The worse part for me is those that would censor and then try and defend it as NOT censorship. You have a right to read what you want, but not to not be offended.

Kenneth wrote: "Gender discrimination, if it was part of the original text, being removed IS censorship.

That you disagree with gender discrimination is beside the point. I too am a proponent of equality among se... I am an adult. I am capable of reading Mein Kampf without turning into a goose-stepping asshole. I am capable of appreciating the beauty of religious texts without converting to their way of life. I am capable of reading a book with sexist characters or written by a sexist author without becoming a sexist.
"

Well said Kenneth! I hope the sequels aren't delayed too much, I've been looking forward to reading them. I love to read translated books because it gives you a look into another culture, but they are always going to be different from the original... I just hope the difference aren't due to censorship but only the language.

It's funny how the posters here assume it was censored by China lol
It contained several parts that weren't "politically correct" according to western (powers) values.

I was just reading that the book was not censored, but not particularly well translated into English. Evidently there is a much more faithful translation into German. So the question is was it poorly translated by the person working the book or was there other reason. Caveat: I have no read his work yet. I keep picking it up and putting it down. It won the Hugo, so I am interested.

Cathy wrote: "But I agree with Zhao that there was also a big change in one of the wall facer's strategy (I think it's the first one??? might be wrong) and I don't know why. The Chinese version is way cooler..."

That is because Joel Martinsen is also the translater of Liu's upcoming novel "Ball Lightning", after read that novel, you would understand why Joel made that change, it has nothing to do with "sensorship", it is because that plot could spoil the biggest twist at the end of the "Ball Lightning"

only governments or other law/rule making bodies can censor. If it is done by the publisher it is editing. Publishers edit all kinds of things in and out of books, especially foreign or translated works. It is nothing new.

I'm reading Liu partly to get the Chinese world view. Any censorship is a great hindrance to that no matter what the intent.

Janet wrote: "I'm reading Liu partly to get the Chinese world view. Any censorship is a great hindrance to that no matter what the intent."

It is not censorship, repeat my earlier post: "That is because Joel Martinsen is also the translater of Liu's upcoming novel "Ball Lightning", after read that novel, you would understand why Joel made that change, it has nothing to do with "sensorship", it is because that plot could spoil the biggest twist at the end of the "Ball Lightning" " And this change of plot was approved by Liu himself

Cathy wrote: "I'm not quite sure about the gender discrimination thing as I cannot remember the chinese version of the book in detail (it's been way too long since I read it) but the English translation didn't m..."

aaaaarggggh! I thought this would be a spoiler for book 2!

*tosses Death's End into fireplace*

It's funny how Conservative assholes and fake Liberals flock under the umbrella of censorship and cry political correctness to protect their own discriminative and bigotric beliefs. Sure, it's not bigotry when a best-selling author talks trash about 50% of human population, but when someone obscure politely suggests that it might be bad it's censorship. How very open-minded of you, jerks. Welp, far from me to disrespect your right to disrespect other people's right to be respected, so do what you want, you goddamn hypocrites. Oh, BTW, since by your logic I have the right to say whatever the hell I want no matter who I might hurt, anything you say against it would be censorship, which would make you worse than racists and sexists by your own logic, so go eat shit.

Oh, here's some food for thought, if you assholes have enough brain cells to rub together: hate speech is a freedom, sure, but so is killing people. Laws against murder is a limit on freedom, just like laws against hate speech. So, by your logic, which states that any limit on freedom is evil - more evil than bigotry and discrimination itself, in fact - then laws and civilization should be the greatest evil of all, and you should all become Molotov-throwing Anarchists to fight it. Unless, of course, you're all talk and no guts, which is probably the case; if you just talk about equality and progress but refuse to even speak up against discrimination and bigotry, than I highly doubt you'd have the balls to do anything about hate crimes and actual acts of harassment. So show me your faith without deeds if you can, you self-patting, hypocritical assholes.

Disgruntled wrote: "since by your logic I have the right to say whatever the hell I want no matter who I might hurt, anything you say against it would be censorship, which would make you worse than racists and sexists by your own logic ..."

I do not now about Taiwan, but in the United States you do have the right to say whatever you want. However, you do not have the right to be heard, nor immune from criticism. You have the right to be ridiculed for your views and excoriated for said views. You have the right to be fired too. You have the right to say it, but society has the right to push you to the edge. Society has the right to turns its collective back and ignore you.

In the United States, you cannot be arrested for hate speech. That is a protected right. The Constitution protects speech for government reprisal and that was upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as of 2017. What that protects you from is intrusion by government. However, it does not preclude other from voicing their free speech rights denouncing Hate Speech.

Disgruntled wrote: "Laws against murder is a limit on freedom, just like laws against hate speech. ..."

At least in the United States, Murder is not and has never been a freedom. Freedom is not the same as freedom of limits. Any functioning society has limits to prevent the destruction of society.

Once again, in the United States, you cannot be arrested for Hate Speech. Maybe it is different in Taiwan.

https://transfelinism.wordpress.com/2...

Oh, but you can be arrested for hate crime no matter where you are in the world, even if the law doesn't call it as such. So I ask you: where is the line? Who decides that hate crime is a crime but hate speech is not? People who exalts hate speech as a prime example of freedom of speech often cites the logical fallacy of slippery slope: if you don't let people talk trash about black people or women, what stops you from preventing people's freedom from criticizing a political party? What these hypocritical morons don't talk about, though, is that the slippery slope applies to both sides: if you decide that trans or gay people have no rights to be respected, what stops you from deciding that women and black people also have no right to be expected or, hell, that none of them have the right to exist? There is cost and benefit to every decision, which is why all government except the most fucked-up dictatorship has some kind of checks and balances...but the tyranny of the majority is remarkably good at ignoring the rights and needs of the minority by being utterly cold-hearted bastards.

Disgruntled wrote: "Oh, but you can be arrested for hate crime no matter where you are in the world, even if the law doesn't call it as such. So I ask you: where is the line? Who decides that hate crime is a crime but..."

Once again, in the United States, you cannot be arrested for Hate Speech. However, crime is another matter. You can certainly be arrested for crime and if it is a Hate crime, then the penalty is worse because the perpetrator singled out someone for a specific reason. there is a very large difference between Hate Speech and Hate crime. You yourself distinguished between the two. Unless you do not believe in the rule of law, then I do not see the point of your argument.

Sorry, my bad. There is one place in the world where murder - especially ones motivated by hatred - is not a crime: the US of A. More people die in the US of A from police brutality - almost always aimed at minority such as black or trans people - than terrorism every year, and you've thrown all of your resources into oppressing people because of their skin color or religion instead of reining in your police brutality. Hate speech not a crime? Is libel not a crime in the US? So of fucking course you can't see the point of my argument: in your goddman Eagle land, hate speech is REWARDED with a Presidency and a nuclear football instead of being reprimanded in any way, so I'm not at all surprised by your impotence to comprehend anything that doesn't suck up to your majority agenda. You hypocritical assholes whine about Social Justice Warriors all the time, but the truth is you're better at doing Political Correctness: you simply ignore anything that doesn't conform to your narrow political view and don't even bother to discuss it. So yeah, think whatever you want, jerk off to the lie that you're the most freest and equaliest holy land in the world, I don't give a fuck.

What is wrong with you guys ? You are way off the topic and I am bored to death with your arguments, if that happened, I am sure that would be a crime

You don't have to read it if you don't like it, which is what people tell the victims of hate speech all the time, so practice what you preach.

Disgruntled wrote: "You don't have to read it if you don't like it, which is what people tell the victims of hate speech all the time, so practice what you preach."

I just say this conversation is boring, nothing else, bro, don't be mad, it is now late in the night, can you find something else to do, such as Friday is almost at its end, which means Monday is just two days away. Believe you would be very depress, and just want to go to the bed

Disgruntled wrote: "o of fucking course you can't see the point of my argument:..."

If raving incoherence is your point, you have succeeded brilliantly.

Disgruntled just joined Goodreads in Feb., and hasn't listed any books as read or rated. They are obviously are just here to argue, troll, and be obnoxious. I suggest blocking or at least ignoring them. It's not censorship, it's just like hanging up on an obscene phone caller or kicking someone out of a private club when they abuse another member.

Phil wrote: "Disgruntled just joined Goodreads in Feb., and hasn't listed any books as read or rated. They are obviously are just here to argue, troll, and be obnoxious. I suggest blocking or at least ignoring ..."

As much as understand your thought, I have never blocked anyone. I certainly think he is a troll, but engagement is the only way to combat these types of people.

This convo seems to have gotten derailed. Guess it is an old convo. Having read the trilogy, which I enjoyed, it still came off as sexist, much in the way that some golden age sci-fi does. Editing to make certain aspects more palatable to a western audience is fine imho, especially if that aspect of the story was derivative and would otherwise be distracting. That's a decision between author, editor and translator. Censoring by an authority is another matter, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

And no, I don't believe in your stupid fucking laws. Your laws prevent trans people from changing their legal gender without being surgically neutered like it's the fucking Dark Ages, while allowing kids to buy bullets like they're candies on Halloween. You think laws against hate speech would be a thought crime, but you've been jailing and killing Muslims for no other reason than beliveing in a different religion for more than a decade. You whine about political correctness and social justice warriors speaking up for the minorities as censorship, but the truth is you use labels like PC and SJW to silence minorities and their allies, which is REAL censorship of the highest order. Youy'd have made George Orwell proud and scared at the same fucking time. So fuck you and your stupid fucking law, fuck your goddman eagle land for using laws to oppress your own people, and fuck you, yes you, for being such a fucking privileged asshole who willfully ignore the pain and suffering of your fellow humans and do nothing but call them whiners and tell them to shut the fuck up when they even dare to speak up against your right-wing, Conservative, discriminative political correctness and bigotry. FUCK. YOU.

So are you free speech warriors having fun watching the live stream of the Christchurch shooting right now? Have you jumped out to defend the manifesto and video post yet? Oh, I know your tune: it's not hate speech if it's against people you dislike, they shouldn't have moved to the NZ because only you straight white Conservative Christian cismale has the right to do whatever the hell you want, yadda yadda yadda. Tell me, is this the free speech you have tried so hard to defend, eh? Is the publicity of this killing everything you've hoped for?

So tell me Disgruntled, are you defending the actions or words?

BTW, under the unitary executive theory which is invented by, surprise surprise, the Conservatives, the POTUS can basically do whatever they want - up to and include murder and rape - and be protected by US laws, because they're the goddamn President and whatever sick shit they do is legal, so that's the kind of stupid laws you're using in your Eagle land, and we're not even talking about how you use a jury composed of randomly selected people to make sure that the minorities are always convicted of whatever crimes they were accused of, if your police didn't shoot them dead first.

Disgruntled wrote: "BTW, under the unitary executive theory which is invented by, surprise surprise, the Conservatives, the POTUS can basically do whatever they want - up to and include murder and rape - and be protec..."

Actually you are talking about legal theory and it is not a law. There is plenty of ink spilled on whether a sitting President may be indicted and there is plenty of disagreement on the subject. Regardless of the actual truth of the matter, a President may be removed form office and then tried by the legal system either after removal or leaving the white house at the end of the term.

Once again, ALL Americans are protected by United States laws.

Now, please answer my question if you defend the right to free expression or not.

Here, more bullshit from your favorite sexist:

https://transfelinism.wordpress.com/2...

About the censorship - Ray Bradbury was correct.