81

Douglas Adams' American publishers forced him to change some of the text in Life, the Universe and Everything: "Asshole" became "kneebiter", "shit" became "swut", and most bizarre and hilarious of all, "fuck" became "Belgium".

Has anyone associated with the US publisher (Harmony/Crown/Random House) ever explained why they made Adams change the text?

Community
  • 1
Wad Cheber
  • 69,816
  • 70
  • 523
  • 684
  • Is Adam's assessment of why they did it acceptable? – Adamant May 13 '16 at 06:02
  • @Jonah - Only if there is no word from the publishers themselves. – Wad Cheber May 13 '16 at 06:11
  • 2
    From what I've read from other authors (Terry Pratchett, for one) - US publishers are rather notorious at making editorial changes to books without the author's consent... – HorusKol May 13 '16 at 06:43
  • 6
    -1 for the profanity. Next time just put "-word" or something. (I don't actually downvote stuff, but if I did I'd downvote this for the profanity). :) – RedCaio May 13 '16 at 07:27
  • 151
    @RedCaio Citing profanity is perfectly acceptable on StackExchange sites, and censoring it is actively discouraged, except in titles. Citing uncensored profanity is not a valid reason to downvote a question. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 13 '16 at 07:46
  • 37
    @RedCaio - Don't like it, don't read it. I'm not going to do the thing the publisher never should have done, and site policy is very clear on this - profanity is fine in quotes or proper names. – Wad Cheber May 13 '16 at 08:05
  • 3
    I'll preemptively call for keeping it civil. – Adamant May 13 '16 at 08:08
  • 13
    @WadCheber surely you agree that 'Belgium' is a better fit in Life, the Universe and Everything than 'f***'... it just adds to the overall quirkiness of the book instead of detracting from the dialogue. –  May 13 '16 at 09:27
  • 2
    Slartibartfast's name was originally Phartiphukborlz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slartibartfast – Josh May 13 '16 at 10:12
  • 17
    I like to cite this as one of the few (if not only) Good instances of censorship, in that it gave us an additional chapter (to explain why Belgium was such a bad word). – aslum May 13 '16 at 13:10
  • 3
    I agree with @aslum -- in this case, the censors did us all a favor, because that extra chapter is one of the best bits of the book. What it shows is that making the effort to avoid profanity can actually be worthwhile. A lot of other authors should take note of this. – Simba May 13 '16 at 13:55
  • People with more information want to alter your communication for their own purposes. – mathreadler May 13 '16 at 15:45
  • 2
    One should note that the "changes" have been done to the original already: The radio drama. So much for "reading". – Make42 May 13 '16 at 16:31
  • 2
    Thanks for asking this--I'd always assumed "kneebiter" was some kind of bizarre British slang. – Kyle Strand May 13 '16 at 17:57
  • 7
    +1 to negate the -1 for profanity. – Steve Ives May 13 '16 at 18:03
  • 16
    CAN WE JUST STOP SAYING THE B WORD? seriously guys... I know this is the Internet, but come on, this is getting REALLY profane. – Patrice May 13 '16 at 20:18
  • 4
    @Patrice I spent a few seconds searching through all the comments to figure out what you were talking about... +1 – Tin Wizard May 13 '16 at 20:58
  • *Forget* this nonsense (if that link fails, try this) — for completeness, follow with this.  P.S. I thought that the B****** chapter was hilarious. – Peregrine Rook May 13 '16 at 21:21
  • 1
    Agree with Amadeus. Apparently the rest of the word is "elgium". – TOOGAM May 14 '16 at 07:09

1 Answers1

68

According to Adams, because kids were reading it

As recounted in Hitchhiker's Guide, by M.J. Simpson:

"I think what happened was my U.S. publisher was unhappy about using the word "fuck" because of the number of kids who read the books," explained Adams later. "I was a bit frustrated by that, but then it gave me an idea and I put in the whole Belgium piece."

Of course, this was merely the author's impression of what his publishers wanted, not a statement from the publisher itself.

I was unable to find any direct statement from the publishers.

Adamant
  • 116,314
  • 35
  • 473
  • 648
  • 18
    I have the same (excellent) book and one thing I learned is that Adams is something of an unreliable narrator even where his own life is concerned. – TheMathemagician May 13 '16 at 09:36
  • 2
    @TheMathemagician - Alas, it may be the best we have. – Adamant May 13 '16 at 09:37
  • 3
    If American publishers are so out of touch with American kids that they think they would be shocked/offended/unnerved by the traditional Big 5 Bad Words, this explains why kids don't much read their books any more. And @TheMathemagician, you mean "Adams was ..." because he's dead, and not just for tax purposes either. – frank May 13 '16 at 10:32
  • 17
    @frank, the kids wouldn't mind. Some parents would. Just look at what they get books banned from schools for. – Chris H May 13 '16 at 10:39
  • 1
    @ChrisH that's the point. Many of those kids whose books were censored by the parents or whomever have now grown up not to want to bother with reading traditional, old-media print. – frank May 13 '16 at 10:45
  • 2
    @frank: but (almost) nobody thinks the kids would be shocked/offended/unnerved. Parents who censor on the basis of vocabulary do it because they, the parent, would be shocked/offended/unnerved by knowing that their kids are reading those words. Their concern is the kid won't be shocked. If the only way to stop a child reading a rude word is to stop them reading entirely, well, that's the (woeful) choice their parent is signing up for. Censoring by subject matter I have more sympathy for: we can at least observe children actually being scared or disturbed by events in books. – Steve Jessop May 13 '16 at 11:42
  • @SteveJessop, now we're going off topic, but this would be worth pursuing. Is there a forum where we could do so? I'm new to SE so I still have to discover these things. – frank May 13 '16 at 11:49
  • 7
    Interesting note and timeliness on this question and answer: My 13-year-old nephew will be required to read Hitchhiker's in public school. Now 13 is not really a young age to be exposed to profanity, but in American public schools the teacher probably would have a hard time assigning any book that had the f-word. – Todd Wilcox May 13 '16 at 13:59
  • @frank - Yes, we have chat. You can go to Mos Eisley chatroom, or make your own. – Adamant May 13 '16 at 14:01
  • @Jonah Thanks - will do. – frank May 13 '16 at 14:32
  • @frank When I read it I was in my mid teens (and happy to swear, though no one would have said [then] that I did it a lot). I wouldn't say it would have put me off, but the book would definitely have had a different feel to me. I loved the feel it had, so I'm glad they went that way. – T.J. Crowder May 13 '16 at 15:26
  • 1
    @T.J.Crowder yes - I agree that the book's feel is excellent the way it is, censored or not. And when I read it, it didn't feel censored to me. – frank May 13 '16 at 15:33
  • 1
    I wonder if this censorship of Life, the Universe, and Everything is part of why he made So Long and Thanks for All the Fish explicitly sexual (and included the chapter indicating that some risqué stuff was about to show up, and asking "Does he [Arthur], in a nutshell, fuck?"). – Kyle Strand May 13 '16 at 18:00
  • @TheMathemagician Never trust a fiction writer to write a non-fiction account of anything. – corsiKa May 13 '16 at 23:15
  • @SteveJessop I think it's more the concern that the child will repeat the word without really understanding what it means or why it might not be appropriate to say in certain situations. I've certainly been there a couple times. – Schilcote May 14 '16 at 02:47