[ACCPTD] Oh @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have

by **Jutsa** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:15 am

If you couldn't tell, I heavily based this issue off of the title which I based off of both these two issues and Little Red Riding Hood.

I got to thinking: Schools have stories that have things like girls being eaten by wolves, and I thought "Hay! People fight about that, it might just be a good issue!"

So, I made this. :lol2:

It actually has three options, though, so it's got more depth, hopefully. I hope you enjoy!

Title: Oh, @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have!
The Issue: The oldest versions of the popular children's book, "Little Violet Voyaging Veil", have been released to the public, and are causing quite a stir amongst conservative teachers across @@NAME@@.
Validity: Nation has schools; Nation has books; Adult

Option 1: "I didn't much care for the book from the beginning," mutters kindergarten teacher @@RANDOMNAME@@, "but when I found out about this, I was flatout disgusted! Did you know that in one of the original version, both of them are voraciously eaten by the wolf, while in another, the main protagonist actually ate the grandmother? These stories were obviously not made for kids, and I find it revolting that we still encourage our children to read the same stories with a bit of sugar coating. We must ban stories like these from ever appearing in our schools!"
[effect] The Very Hungry Caterpillar was banned from schools for advocating gluttony

Option 2: "Oh, please! It's just a fairy-tale," dismisses Tom S. Boulder, the author of bestselling but frankly tepid rewrites of "Present-day children's stories are only loosely based on their original versions, anyways; even the originals were hardly anything alike to one another. Just remove some of the gory details from any story, like in my version, "Miniature Yellow Traveling Goods Salesman", and no one should have anything to worry about."
[effect] explicit slash fiction is repackaged for kindergarten kids as stories about friends cuddling friends

Validity: Nation HAS picked 516.3
Option 3: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a copy of an unveiled original with a terrifying cover. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they used to be around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! Oh, and if schools can show those saucy programs like Thomas the Spank Engine, then I think they can handle us showing them some cold, hard reality to put their pants back on. We should therefor be telling original stories like these all the time!"
[effect] reading horror stories is a mandatory practice shortly after sexual education

Validity: Nation HAS NOT picked 516.3
Option 4: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a copy of an unveiled original with a terrifying cover. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they used to be around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! If you put so much as a dusting of sugar on them, they'll be pointless. We should instead be encouraging kids to take a look at the original, much darker stories so they can begin to see the world as it truly is."
[effect] children read about the suffering of millions in school in order to better understand the world

Title: Oh, @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have!
The Issue: The oldest versions of the popular children's book, "Little Violet Voyaging Veil", have been released to the public, and are causing quite a significant stir amongst conservative teachers across @@NAME@@.
Validity: Nation has schools; Nation has books; Adult

Option 1: "I didn't much care for the book from the beginning," mutters kindergarten teacher @@RANDOMNAME@@, "but when I found out about this, I was flatout disgusted! Did you know that in one of the original version, both of them are voraciously eaten by the wolf, while in another, the main protagonist actually ate the grandmother? These stories were obviously not made for kids, and I find it revolting that we still encourage our children to read the same stories with a bit of sugar coating. We must ban stories like these from ever appearing in our schools!"
[effect] The Very Hungry Caterpillar was banned from schools for being too violent

Option 2: "Oh, please! It's just a fairy-tale," dismisses Tom S. Boulder, the author of bestselling but frankly tepid rewrites of "Present-day children's stories are only loosely based on their original versions, anyways; even the originals were hardly anything alike. Just remove some of the gory details from any story, like in my version, "Miniature Yellow Traveling Goods Salesman", and noone should have anything to worry about."
[effect] explicit slash fiction is repackaged for kindergarten kids as stories about friends cuddling friends

Validity: Nation HAS picked 516.3
Option 3: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a copy of an unveiled original with a terrifying cover. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they used to be around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! Oh, and if schools can show those saucy programs like Thomas the Spank Engine, then I think they can handle us showing them some cold, hard reality to put their pants back on. We should therefor be telling original stories like these all the time!"
[effect] reading horror stories is a mandatory practice shortly after sexual education

Validity: Nation HAS NOT picked 516.3
Option 4: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a copy of an unveiled original with a terrifying cover. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they used to be around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! If you put so much as a dusting of sugar on them, they'll be pointless. We should instead be encouraging kids to take a look at the original, much darker stories so they can begin to see the world as it truly is."
[effect] children read about the suffering of millions in school in order to better understand the world

Title: Oh, @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have!
The Issue: The oldest versions of the popular children's book, "Little Violet Voyaging Veil", have been released to the public, and are causing quite a significant stir amongst conservative teachers across @@NAME@@.
Validity: Nation has schools; Nation has books

Option 1: "I didn't much care for the book from the beginning," mutters kindergarten teacher @@RANDOMNAME@@, "but when I found out about this, I was flatout disgusted! Did you know that in one of the original version, both of them gor voraciously eaten by the wolf, while in another, the main protagonist actually ate the grandmother? These stories were obviously not made for kids, and I find it revolting that we still encourage our children to read the same stories with a bit of sugar coating. We must ban stories like these from ever appearing in our schools!"
[effect] The Very Hungry Caterpiller was banned from schools for being too violent

Option 2: "Oh, please! It's just a fairy-tale," dismisses Tom S. Boulder, the author of bestselling but frankly tepid rewrites of "Present-day children's stories are only loosely based on their original versions, anyways; even the originals were hardly anything alike. Just remove some of the gory details from any story, like in my version, "Miniature Yellow Traveling Goods Salesman", and noone should have anything to worry about."
[effect] explicit slash fiction is repackaged for kindergarten kids as stories about friends cuddling friends

Option 3: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a copy of an unveiled original with a terrifying cover. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they used to be around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! If you put so much as a dusting of sugar on them, they'll be pointless. We should instead be encouraging kids to take a look at the original, much darker stories so they can begin to see the world as it truly is."
[effect] children read about the suffering of millions in school in order to better understand the world

Title: Oh, @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have!
The Issue: An old book, "Little Violet Voyaging Veil", has been shaking up conservative teachers across @@NAME@@.
Validity: Nation has schools; Nation has books

Option 1: "I didn't much care for the book from the beginning," mutters kindergarten teacher Catherine Gratwick, "but when I got so little as half way into it with my students, my opinion plummeted! This story tells of an innocent child going to her grandmother's house only for them both to wind up being eaten by a giant @@ANIMAL@@! Stories like this are all horrible, and anything that involves any form of harm or even sadness must be banned from schools for our children's safety!"
[effect] The Rather Peckish Inchworm was banned from schools for being too violent

Option 2: "Oh, please! It's just a fairy-tale," dismisses Marcus Syntax, the author of hotly debated What A Mild Thing Is. "Okay, so some of these stories have a little bit of dark humor, but in my experience, it's the adults that take everything so seriously. Besides, it's not like they're anything nearly as graphic as some of those old stories that many modern fairy-tales come from. Just remove some of the gory details, like in my version, Miniature Yellow Traveling Goods Salesman, and you'll be good to go!"
[effect] The Kiwis of Fury can be read in schools if every character is an icecream cone

Option 3: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a book by Max Barry. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they're around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! If you put so much as a dusting of sugar on them, they'll be pointless. We should instead be encouraging kids to take a look at the original, much darker stories so they can begin to see the world as it truly is."
[effect] The Violet Mile is a popular children's book

Validity: Nation is not very secular; Nation does not already enforce compulsory religious readings in schools
Option 4: "This. Is. DISGUSTING! SICKENING! REVOLTING!" sputters the Minister of the Church of Weird Gates, as he marches, tromps, and slithers into your office. "You should be preaching to children stories like that of the Great Lumbering! They yield descriptive examples of what happens when children do not comply, including various forms of... correctional therapy. We must teach our children to be afraid, so they'll follow the right path. To accomplish this, we must make holy texts the only reading material in every school!"
[effect] every school's library is filled with books detailing the suffering of millions

Title: Tiny Green Mounting Hoodlum Censorship Row
The Issue: An old book, "Tiny Green Mounting Hoodloom", has been shaking up conservative teachers across @@NAME@@.
Validity: Nation has schools; Nation has books

Option 1: "I didn't much care for the book from the beginning," mutters kindergarten teacher Catherine Gratwick, "but when I got so little as half way into it with my students, my opinion plummited! This story tells of a hoodlum - a criminal, who goes to rob her grandmother's house only to wind up being eaten by a giant @@ANIMAL@@! Stories like this are all horrible, and anything that involves any form of harm or even sadness must be banned from schools for our children's safety!"
[effect] The Rather Peckish Inchworm was banned from schools for being too violent

Option 2: "Oh, please! It's just a fairy-tale," dismisses Marcus Syntax, the author of hotly debated What A Mild Thing Is. "Ok, so some of these stories have a little bit of dark humor, but in my experience, it's the adults that take everything so seriously. Besides, it's not like they're anything nearly as graphic as some of those old stories that many modern fairy-tales come from. Just remove some of the gorey details, like in my version, Miniature Yellow Traveling Goods Salesman, and you'll be good to go!"
[effect] The Kiwis of Fury can be read in schools if every character is an icecream cone

Option 3: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a book by Max Barry. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they're around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! If you put so much as a dusting of sugar on them, they'll be pointless. We should instead be encouraging kids to take a look at the original, much darker stories so they can begin to see the world as it truly is."
[effect] The Violet Mile is a popular children's book

Validity: Nation is not very secular; Nation does not already enforce compulsory religious readings in schools
Option 4: "This. Is. DISGUSTING! SICKENING! REVOLTING!" sputters the Minister of the Church of Weird Gates, as he marches, stomps, and slithers into your office. "You should be preaching to children stories like that of the Great Lumbering! They yield descriptive examples of what happens when children do not comply, including various forms of... correctional therapy. We must teach our children to be afraid, so they'll follow the right path. To accomplish this, we must make holy texts the only reading material in every school!"
[effect] every school's library is filled with books detailing the suffering of millions

Title: Tiny Green Mounting Hoodlum Censorship Row
The Issue: An old book, "Tiny Green Mounting Hoodloom", has been shaking up conservative teachers across @@NAME@@.
Validity: Nation has schools; Nation has books

Option 1: "I didn't much care for the book from the beginning," mutters kindergarten teacher Catherine Gratwick, "but when I got so little as half way into it with my students, my opinion plummited! This story tells of a hoodlum - a criminal, who goes to rob her grandmother's house only to wind up being eaten by a giant @@ANIMAL@@! Stories like this are all horrible, and anything that involves any form of harm or even sadness must be banned from schools for our children's safety!"
[effect] The Rather Peckish Inchworm was banned from schools for being too violent

Option 2: "Oh, please! It's just a fairy-tale," dismisses Marcus Syntax, the author of hotly debated What A Mild Thing Is. "Ok, so some of these stories have a little bit of dark humor, but in my experience, it's the adults that take everything so seriously. Besides, it's not like they're anything nearly as graphic as some of those old stories that many modern fairy-tales come from. Just remove some of the gorey details, like in my version, Miniature Yellow Traveling Goods Salesman, and you'll be good to go!"
[effect] The Kiwis of Fury can be read in schools if every character is an icecream cone

Option 3: "That is censorship!" Ro Jennifer complains, polishing a book by Max Barry. "Besides, you shouldn't shelter these children from any of these books - period. Heck, they're around to make sure kids don't end up in a similar situation! If you put so much as a dusting of sugar on them, they'll be pointless. We should instead be encouraging kids to take a look at the original, much darker stories so they can begin to see the world as it truly is."
[effect] The Violet Mile is a popular children's book

Option 4: "This. Is. DISGUSTING! SICKENING! REVOLTING!" sputters the Minister of the Church of Weird Gates, as he marches, stomps, and slithers into your office. "You should be preaching to children stories like that of the Great Lumbering! They yield descriptive examples of what happens when children do not comply, including various forms of... correctional therapy. We must teach our children to be afraid, so they'll follow the right path. To accomplish this, we must make holy texts the only reading material in every school!"
[effect] every school's library is filled with books detailing the suffering of millions

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:56 am

Jutsa wrote:I got to thinking: Schools have stories that have things like girls being eaten by wolves, and I thought "Hay! People fight about that, it might just be a good issue!"

"Aah! This is offensive because it's portraying girls as victims!"
"Aah! This is offensive because it's portraying wolves as evil!"
"Aah! This is offensive because it has violence in it!"
"Aah! This is offensive because it features vague implications of pedophilia even though that's clearly not what the story is about!"
...Yeah, I can see how that would happen.

However, by using vaguely-described made-up fairy tales rather than real ones, you reduce the issue to "should we have standards on children's stories or not?" rather than having the opportunity to go into any detail on what those standards might be. Not necessarily a bad thing (I don't think we have an issue on that exact subject yet, although as you are clearly aware we do already have lots of issues about censorship, including for the sake of children), but something you might want to reconsider anyway.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:34 pm

Your description is a bit poorly written. When it said the book was destroyed, I thought something physically destroyed it by accident, and was thinking that they could just reprint it

by **Jutsa** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:58 pm

I didn't say it was destroyed, I said it was hit with burning fire - like, with ridicule.
Then I specifically mention "sometimes literally" as a book burning reference.

by **Principality of the Raix** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:01 pm

Sounds like a nice lil issue.

by **Frieden-und Freudenland** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:36 pm

Nice issue, Jutsa!

I guess a sensible (but perhaps boring) option would be to let parents & teachers decide on which books children should read. I think the main problem with fairy tales is that we think they were made for children. They weren't. I don't know how fairy tales came to be perceived as children's stories in the first place, but this explains the violent content they have. In this case, it would be better to let parents and educators use their discretion, I suppose. (Hey, and keep in mind that they are way scarier fairy tales out there, such as The Blue Beard. :blink:

)

In addition (I don't know if you'd like to incorporate such an option in this issue), sometimes even educational books intended for children in the past could end up being gruesome. There is a famous German author who wrote a book entitled Struwwelpeter (I think the book was from the 18th century, but I am not sure), you should definitely check it out. It is supposed to teach "correct behavior" to kids, but it does this in a creepy way. This, too, could give us a fun twist. For example, what happens if a Violetist preacher says that these books "morally corrupt" our children and instead we should give them religious books --- where there are graphic descriptions of how nonbelievers are supposed to be tortured.

Just a thought. Even if it doesn't fit into this issue, maybe it could inspire another issue.

by **Principality of the Raix** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:47 pm

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I guess a sensible (but perhaps boring) option would be to let parents & teachers decide on which books children should read. I think the main problem with fairy tales is that we think they were made for children. They weren't. I don't know how fairy tales came to be perceived as children's stories in the first place, but this explains the violent content they have. In this case, it would be better to let parents and educators use their discretion, I suppose. (Hey, and keep in mind that they are way scarier fairy tales out there, such as The Blue Beard. )

In addition (I don't know if you'd like to incorporate such an option in this issue), sometimes even educational books intended for children in the past could end up being gruesome. There is a famous German author who wrote a book entitled Struwwelpeter (I think the book was from the 18th century, but I am not sure), you should definitely check it out. It is supposed to teach "correct behavior" to kids, but it does this in a creepy way. This, too, could give us a fun twist. For example, what happens if a Violetist preacher says that these books "morally corrupt" our children and instead we should give them religious books --- where there are graphic descriptions of how nonbelievers are supposed to be tortured.

It is due to the fact that in the older days, those fairy tales before they were re-written to be more child friendly. Were used to teach kids of the dangers of their environment, while at the same time usually expressing the culture and religion of the region.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:54 am

Australian Republic wrote:Your description is a bit poorly written. When it said the book was destroyed, I thought something physically destroyed it by accident, and was thinking that they could just reprint it

Agree with Aussie here.

This...:

An old book, "Tiny Green Mounting Hoodloom", has been hit with burning fire - sometimes literally, and has been causing a large shake in teachers across @@NAME@@.

...makes no sense to me. Having read that sentence, I am finding myself none the wiser as to what the issue is about, and I'm finding the phrase "a large shake in teachers" to be especially bewildering.

by **Jutsa** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:28 am

I do apologize for my inactivity, here - probably shouldn't start one of these things on the weekend. :blush:

An old book, "Tiny Green Mounting Hoodloom", has been hit with burning fire - sometimes literally, and has been causing a large shake in teachers across @@NAME@@.

So, this is sort of a reference to 003 and 046. From 003:

has been hit with burning fire - sometimes literally,

This is based off of "The latest "Harry Potter" book to hit schools across @@NAME@@".
I admit, it's not a very clear-cut reference, but I figured it still worked for the reason I gave to Aussie.
From 046:

has been causing quite a stir in governmental offices across @@NAME@@

I figured I'd just change "stir" to shake", whereby teachers are "shaken up" by the problem.

It makes perfect sense to me, but if you guys can't make night or day of it, then I doubt most people would, so I'll gladly change it - if you have any recommendations on how.
Going to comment on the rest shortly - hopefully.

by **Jutsa** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:53 am

Trotterdam wrote:by using vaguely-described made-up fairy tales rather than real ones, you reduce the issue to "should we have standards on children's stories or not?" rather than having the opportunity to go into any detail on what those standards might be. [...] might want to reconsider anyway.

Thank you, Trotterdam. My idea with this was to have the book sort-of NS-ified, so as not to use a real-life story, but still get the point across
- then I kinda hit that with a sledgehammer when I came up with the name. :lol:

I'd gladly make it more specific, if you'd like - and, if you wish, change it to be much more like the original story.

As for "what would be acceptable or not", I'm not sure how I could incorporate that more than I have it now,
where option 1 is "completely prohibit", 2 is "allow as long as everything's peachy", and 3 is "mandate availability".
If you have any ideas as to how to go about that, I'd be delighted to work with that a little bit more.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:For example, what happens if a Violetist preacher says that these books "morally corrupt" our children and instead we should give them religious books --- where there are graphic descriptions of how nonbelievers are supposed to be tortured.

Oh... that's horrifying. :shock:

That could be an interesting option... whereby, instead of mandating that schools have something with a darker story available,
that children must read the horrific religious texts and throw out the adorable, kid-friendly text in exchange. Hmm... I'll certainly let that brew for a bit.

The other option you suggested, though... I do agree that it's kind of plain, but that's not always bad, either.
It would encourage parents to send their children to schools which have their ideals, but I don't want this to have too many options,
and... well, I believe that approach has already been taken with several other issues about schools. Basically put, I don't think I'll be adding that one, myself.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:05 am

Jutsa, I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker. A lot of these colloquial rules on sentence construction and word usage are intuitive to natives, but hard for outsiders to spot.

For example, a "shake" can be used as a noun to describe physical movement of something, something that has been shaken (like a milkshake), but not a metaphorical stir throughout a community. Likewise, even if you said "causing a stir", you just don't describe such things as "a large stir", as large refers to the magnitude of physical objects, not to the size of something conceptual. You can have a "serious stir", a "notable stir", an "unexpected stir" and a "considerable stir". If you're being clever with language and using the right context, you could have something like a "magnificent stir", or a "not inconsiderable stir" or a "consciously self-conscious stir" (though not here). It's just to do with language, and how it is used.

Likewise, the usage of "hit" that you are referencing is just a normal, standard usage, not something unique to that issue. Check definition 6c here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hit

So you can no more be "referencing" that word than you could be referencing the word "book". That's not a reference, that's just using a word.

by **Jutsa** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:20 am

Well, the sad thing is that I indeed am a native English speaker... though, I've had a great deal many years of thinking of things with inaccurate contexts and syntaxes, rather. :blush:

Hit really is just using the same word, in this case, though I also liked the totally different use of it, myself,
since I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be "hit by schools" rather than "to hit schools", and then ultimately forgot to add "schools" in there.

As for "large shake" ... well, it's just one of those things I probably made up subconsciously - which I also do a lot. :blush:

The main goal of the description is to be based off of the other two while having some goofy differences, although I can see that my way of going about this is... certainly wrong. :lol:

Well, how's about this, instead? Is it more proper, or am I missing the point and should take an ultimately different approach?

"An old book, "Tiny Green Mounting Hoodloom", has ultimately shaken up school teachers across @@NAME@@, leading to the book being hit with fire - sometimes literally."

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:36 pm

Jutsa wrote:As for "what would be acceptable or not", I'm not sure how I could incorporate that more than I have it now,
where option 1 is "completely prohibit", 2 is "allow as long as everything's peachy", and 3 is "mandate availability".
If you have any ideas as to how to go about that, I'd be delighted to work with that a little bit more.

Well, that's not wrong, it's just a bit generic since we've had censorship issues before.

If you want to shake things up a little, I was thinking of something more along the lines of "Which morals should we teach our children?", with options for several different fairy tales with different morals and tones.

by **Jutsa** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:41 pm

Hmm... you know what, that could very well coincide with FuF's idea... and that would be interestin...

Well, I'll take this down for a while (I can always open this back up ifever you guys want) and work on a more interesting thing for this.

It'd diverge even more from its original version, but I think it'd be ok if it slowly devolves into something else entirely. :lol:

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:00 am

Jutsa wrote:"An old book, "Tiny Green Mounting Hoodloom", has ultimately shaken up school teachers across @@NAME@@, leading to the book being hit with fire - sometimes literally."

Sorry, mate, it's still not coherent. "Hit with fire" is not a recognised metaphor, so it can only be meant literally. Something being "ultimately shaken up" means it was shaken up last or finally or at the end of a process, or it was shaken to death. That's what 'ultimately' means.

Can you explain what the issue is meant to be about, and then perhaps we can help with the phrasing?

Why has this Little Red Riding Hood analogue upset teachers? What is the context? What is the story?

by **Jutsa** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:10 am

Well, the idea is that teachers are upset for... well, basically, this thing that Trotterdam said covers most of it.

"Aah! This is offensive because it's portraying girls as victims!"
"Aah! This is offensive because it's portraying wolves as evil!"
"Aah! This is offensive because it has violence in it!"
"Aah! This is offensive because it features vague implications of pedophilia even though that's clearly not what the story is about!"
...Yeah, I can see how that would happen.

The idea is that teachers are angry that fairy tales (in which many of them had very dark origins, as FuF said) are taught to children,
and although it's to a "more kid-friendly" extent, it's still not acceptable to them for the reasons that are essentially stated in that Trotterbox.

The original idea was to ban the books entirely, make completely child-safe versions, and make schools have one darker story,
although now there are options such as "have schools contain* only horrific stories to teach* important lessons" and... well, plausibly that'd be the last option,
but idk if that can be expanded or not.

As for "hit with fire", I think I'm mixing metaphors... namely, "hit with criticism" and "under fire". :blush:

And "ultimately" I think fits here, since teachers are finally upset enough to come to you with the problem, but if you think a different word is in order,
I'll gladly take one of your recommendations.

by **USS Monitor** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:18 am

Jutsa wrote:And "ultimately" I think fits here, since teachers are finally upset enough to come to you with the problem, but if you think a different word is in order,
I'll gladly take one of your recommendations.

Just take it out and say "shaken up" with no adverb.

by **Jutsa** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:02 pm

Yes, that could also work... :lol:

by **Jutsa** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:22 pm

So... I completely rewrote the whole issue... :lol:

Not sure if it's any better, but I hope it is. I changed the options from Ban/Edit/Encourage to:
1) Ban all books that have anything to do with violence or... well, even negativity, basically;
2) Let books in as long as they are relatively child-safe, ideally around where Maurice Sendak's books were (which is why I referenced him);
3) Encourage old versions of the fairy tales, and
4) Enforce horrific holy texts.

Er - I hope this is the right course of action. Again, I'm willing to completely rewrite this if I end up having to... given that that's exactly what I did. :roll:

Also note that I wanted to add a few more references, so I chose Catherine Gratwick (because I recently found out about her), Markus Syntax (Maurice Sendak),
kept Ro Jennifer, and added The Minister of the Church of Weird Gates. I could have just used violetism,
but I figured that violetism's used in everything, and I do have a list of religions(which I updated on account of issue 091),
and that church looks like it could really use a reoccurance, so... yeah, I chose that.

So, give me your thoughts - is this better, worse, or about the same as before? Is it too much, or should it have more?
Should I take a different approach, or should I just disband it altogether? Your choices.

by **Principality of the Raix** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:11 pm

Jutsa wrote:So... I completely rewrote the whole issue...

Not sure if it's any better, but I hope it is. I changed the options from Ban/Edit/Encourage to:
1) Ban all books that have anything to do with violence or... well, even negativity, basically;
2) Let books in as long as they are relatively child-safe, ideally around where Maurice Sendak's books were (which is why I referenced him);
3) Encourage old versions of the fairy tales, and
4) Enforce horrific holy texts.

Er - I hope this is the right course of action. Again, I'm willing to completely rewrite this if I end up having to... given that that's exactly what I did.

Also note that I wanted to add a few more references, so I chose Catherine Gratwick (because I recently found out about her), Markus Syntax (Maurice Sendak),
kept Ro Jennifer, and added The Minister of the Church of Weird Gates. I could have just used violetism,
but I figured that violetism's used in everything, and I do have a list of religions(which I updated on account of issue 091),
and that church looks like it could really use a reoccurance, so... yeah, I chose that.

So, give me your thoughts - is this better, worse, or about the same as before? Is it too much, or should it have more?
Should I take a different approach, or should I just disband it altogether? Your choices.

I think we should focus on the books and not holy texts as how many besides a few cultures use religion in schools? Though, I am sure plenty would love to run a theocracy on here. However, if we include holy text. You may also want to change the limitation on who can receive this issue as not every nation with a school is religious. However, besides the horrific holy book reference. I see this as being basically pretty good.

by **Jutsa** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:47 pm

Interesting. Well, I kind of feel like option 4 is better as-is, since there's not much argument for "the true path" if your nation is secular.

That being said, I think that is an excellent validity to add onto that last option - thank you.

by **Principality of the Raix** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:52 pm

Jutsa wrote:Interesting. Well, I kind of feel like option 4 is better as-is, since there's not much argument for "the true path" if your nation is secular.

That being said, I think that is an excellent validity to add onto that last option - thank you.

I find it a twisted irony, when i argue for those non-secular states. But it's a funny irony to me.

by **Luna Amore** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:16 pm

I kind of hate the book title. It doesn't flow and it takes a bit to unpack which makes you step back and say 'OK, what the hell is this?'

Potential replacements:

Little Green Galloping Girl
Tiny Green Galloping Tot

or if you want to reference her appearance like the original:

Little Green Galloping Cloak
Little Violet Voyaging Veil

by **Jutsa** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:19 pm

Oh, yes - thank you, Luna! I'll use that last one, I believe.

'Course, now I have to think about removing the "hoodlum" part and vague referencing to such in option 1,
but that'll be easy enough.

Also, "mounting" was google's synonym for "riding", and it completely blew across my mind that synonyms for "traveling" would have been much better. :blush:

by **Jutsa** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:27 pm

Alrighty, changed the title and some text in option 1. Also fixed "gory" and "plummeted".

[ACCPTD] Oh @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have

[ACCPTD] Oh @@NAME@@, What Obscene Children's Books You Have

Who is online