|
September 20, 2010
Ideological airbrushing -- a view by dissection
In case there are any readers crazy enough or obsessed enough to be interested in seeing a detailed comprehensive picture of the butchering of Isaac Asimov's "All Four Stanzas," I spent a considerable amount of time going through the original version and the butchered version to come up with a complete view of all the edits. Tedious though it was, I thought I would share it, because it reveals an inside look at how ideological airbrushing works (and it's also a glimpse inside the minds of the petty people who laboriously crank out the sort of disinformation that floods the Internet via endless fraudulent emails and crank billboard postings, etc.) It's frankly amazing to see how little of what Asimov actually wrote was left alone. Nearly every sentence has been messed with in one way or another. They took out almost everything personal to Asimov, such as his background, references to his writing; even the reference to the Dutch Treat Club where he sang the national anthem is deleted. His discussion of Roseanne Barr is likewise struck out. One illustration of the truly petty nature of the minds of his censors is the deletion of Asimov's reference to The Anacreon as a "drinking tune." Instead, it had to become an "English tune." Why? To "correct" him? There are innumerable nit-picky "edits" like that, as if these anonymous censors thought they had a right to edit Isaac Asimov. (I don't like seeing them getting away with it.) Words in red are the words that were deleted. The bracketed bold face words are the words that were added. The remaining words were the ones that Asimov wrote that were allowed to remain in. I hope the html works, and that I have not made too many errors. [It's a monster, as gruesome as an autopsy and far too long to clutter up the blog's front page. If you think you have the stomach for it, you can read the extended entry.] UPDATE: As I suspected, there were many errors in my html, and unfortunately I have had to edit them after publishing the post, as I don't have full WYSIWYG capabilities which allow me to see the red in draft. So I had to spend nearly an hour combing through and re-editing the extremely tedious html. My apologies for any confusion. ADDITIONAL NOTE: Dr. Asimov's article is reprinted by permission of F&SF, copyright (c) 1991 by Mercury Press, Inc. My thanks to the folks at F&SF for kindly granting me permission. ALL FOUR STANZAS WHEN I was going to college, the United States was not yet out of the Great Depression, and I knew that I was not going to get a job after I graduated in 1939. The only thing I could do was to go on to graduate work, obtain some advanced degrees, and hope that the situation would have improved by the time I was through. Now the problem was this: In what subject was I to get my Ph.D. (assuming I could be smart enough to get it and could find the money for tuition -- for in those days there was very little in the way of grants to help out the impoverished)? I was hung up between history and chemistry. I thought I could handle either one, but there was no question in my mind that I was more interested in history. However, practical reasoning entered the field. I said to myself, "If I get my degree in history, then the chances are that if I get a job at all, I will get one in some small college, far away from my beloved city of New York, and that I will be working for a mere pittance with almost no possibility for advancement. On the other hand" (I continued saying to myself) "if I get my Ph.D. in chemistry, I may get a job with a large research firm for an ample salary with lots of room for advancement and with a chance, even, of winning a Nobel Prize, since I am so brilliant a person." So I went for chemistry, and eventually, after a four-year delay because of World War II, I obtained my Ph.D. in chemistry in 1948. The result? I went to work in 1949 as an instructor in biochemistry in a small medical school, far away from my beloved city of New York. I was working for a mere pittance and with no possibility of advancement. (Nor, I quickly realized, was there any chance at all that I would come closer than a light-year or two to a Nobel Prize.) As I frequently say: "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." (Hamlet said that also, and he may even have said it first.) Chemistry was a big flop in another way, too. I really didn't like it and I was no good at it (except for being able to learn an encyclopedia of stuff about it, entirely because I can learn an encyclopedia of stuff about anything). What's more, as time went on, I grew less and less interested in it and, eventually, in 1958, I was fired simply because I was so uninterested in it that I refused to do any research. (I didn't mind teaching and writing books about it -- I loved that.) Of course, by that time I had another career, that of writing. In fact, my writing career began even while I was in college, when I was deciding what to do with myself -- history or chemistry. Becoming a professional writer was a third option, but one that I didn't consider for even a split-second. At the time I made my decision, I had sold a story or two, but never in my wildest imaginings could I possibly have believed I would ever do more than make occasional pin-money out of those stories. And to tell you the truth, for a long time, I never did more than that. By the time I began my work at the medical school, I had written 68 stories and sold 60 of them in the course of eleven years. That was not too bad considering that the major part of my time had to be spent in my father's candy store, or at my graduate studies, or at a wartime job. However, in all that time, my total earnings for all eleven years amounted to $7700. After I had been at work at: the medical school for half a year, my first novel, Pebble in the Sky, was published, to he followed soon by others, and royalties started coming in; but even at the time I was fired in 1958, my literary earnings amounted to only $15,000 a year, enough to keep me going for a while in the absence of a job, but not enough to make me comfortable. (By that time, I had a wife and two children to support, too -- and I was middle-aged.) Now let's go back in time, to the point when I was first thinking about writing. Again, I had two choices. What I really wanted to write was historical fiction. I wanted to write a new kind of "Three Musketeers." The only trouble was that that would mean research. I would have to spend at least three years doing research in order that I might spend one year writing, and I didn't want to do that. I just couldn't do that. I wanted to write, not sit around taking notes. The alternative was science fiction. That required research, too, for I had to know science. But I already knew science thoroughly, and besides I could make up science of the future -- so I began to write science fiction, and as you all know I did pretty well. But only pretty well. What was it that made me rich and famous? I'll tell you. As I continued to write science fiction, the urge to write historical fiction continued to gnaw away at me, and the impossibility of spending enormous time at research continued to keep me from doing anything about it -- until a brilliant thought occurred to me, a thought that was at once encouraged by the great editor, John W. Campbell, Jr. Why should I not write historical fiction of the future? I would deal with a social system, with politics, with economic crises, with everything that is to be found in history, except that it would all take place in the future and I would make it up. I wouldn't have to do any research. Therefore, I began writing my Foundation novels, and my Robot novels, and, in due course, I became rich and famous. Twice I had shoved history, my one great love, to one side, and despite that, it was history, in the end, that made me. I repeat, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." (Is it possible Hamlet stole that from me?)
I had to stop my histories when Doubleday insisted that I return to science fiction novels, but not entirely. For instance, I wrote a 450,000-word history of science, year by year, from the earliest times, and it was published by Harper's in October 1989, as Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery, and it was well-received, too. However, though Harper suggested that for each year I add a footnote as to what was happening in the world outside science at that time, I did it so enthusiastically that the book would have been more like 750,000 words long. Harper's couldn't manage that, and they trimmed most of the straight history away. Annoyed, I then proceeded to write another 450,000-word book, this time of straight history, period by period, country by country, and had more fun than you could possibly imagine. I did it without a contract, out of love alone, and showed it to Harper Collins (new name) only after it was all done. It will be published by them in 1991 under the title Asimov's Chronology of the World. And, as you all know, I occasionally write straight history even in this column, which is ordinarily devoted to science essays, because the Noble Editor never interferes with my little quirks. And I will do so now. I am not one of your professional patriots, you must understand. I am not a flag-waver (I don't even own a flag) and I eschew nationalism. I'm a globalist, who believes that human beings should not divide themselves into any divisions less than "human being." Let everyone be merely different facets of an overriding humanity. However, even the best of us have our weaknesses, and I have one [a weakness]-- I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem. The words are difficult, the tune is almost impossible, but I sing it frequently when I'm taking my shower -- all four stanzas -- with as much power and emotion as I can possibly manage. And it shakes me up every time. It bothers me no end, then, that hardly any American can sing the tune, hardly any American knows the words even to the first stanza, and hardly any American cares. They'll wave the flag assiduously, but they won't sing the song that celebrates the flag. And they don't know the absolutely thrilling story behind it. When they want to sing something they think of as patriotic, they sing Irving Berlin's "God Bless America," with words and tune as trite as you can imagine. In fact, most national anthems are hymns, slow and stately and sleep-provoking. The only two anthems, beside our own, that I can think of as blood-stirring, are the French "Marseillaise" and the old Soviet "Internationale" (which they have replaced with something that is incredibly dull). But our national anthem takes first place, and easily. I was once asked to entertain [speak at] a luncheon club I belong to called "The Dutch Treat Club." I was given only a few hours notice, since it was well known I required no preparation. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing all four stanzas of our national anthem. This was greeted with loud groans, and one member rose to close the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said. "That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff." I then explained the background of the anthem and sang all four stanzas[.], and l [L] et me tell you that those Dutch Treaters [people] had never heard it before -- or never listened, anyway. When I was done, I got a standing ovation and cheer upon cheer. It was not me, it was the anthem. Then a couple of weeks ago, Roseanne Barr of television shrieked the anthem before the beginning of a baseball game and was booed. I was hurt. The anthem should not be sung as a publicity stunt, and the public should not boo, when they themselves know nothing about it. On August 1, 1990, I was at the Rensselaerville Institute in upstate New York, [More recently, while conducting] my 18th annual [a] seminar. [,] I seized the opportunity to tell them [told my students] the story of the anthem and to sing all four stanzas. And a[A]gain there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. Again, it was the anthem and not me. So now let me tell you the story of how it came to be written.
American land forces did very poorly, the only competent military officer we had being Winfield Scott. At sea, we did well. American ships and American [first, our] seamen proved better, ship by ship, then [than] the British[.] , to the world's surprise (and especially to Great Britain's). We also [After we] won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, when the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, using ships he had had built on the spot for the purpose sent the famous message, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually, and the United States was under a tightening blockade. New England, particularly, was hard-hit economically and it [by a tightening blockade,] threatened secession. Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain could now turn[ed] its attention to the United States, and it organized [launching] a three-pronged attack on the country . The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York to cut off disaffected [and seize parts of] New England. The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi[,]to take New Orleans and to paralyze the west. The central prong , the most important, was to head for the mid-Atlantic [states] and take [then attack] Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast for the most part , would be split in two. New England would certainly secede, and the United States would have to sue for peace, and it might well be a Draconian peace for Great Britain was very annoyed at the United States for distracting it in its fight against Napoleon. (The British asked the Duke of Wellington to lead the assault, but he refused.) The north and south prongs might succeed or fail; they were not crucial (and in the end, each failed). It was the central prong that counted. On its success or failure rested the death or life [The fate of] the United States [, then, rested to a large extent on the central prong]. The British reached the American coast and, on August 24, 1814, they took Washington [, D.C.]. President James Madison and the rest of the government fled. The British then burned the public buildings including the Executive Mansion. It wasn't much of a fire and it didn't do much damage; nor was there any looting. Later on, the Executive Mansion was painted white to hide the scorch marks, and it has been known as "the White House" ever since. Washington didn't count, though. It was a little shantytown of no importance except that it housed the government, so that it had symbolic value. The British ships t [T]hen [they] moved up Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore, their real objective . On September 12, 1814, they arrived, and they found 13,000 [1000] men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore[,] they would have to silence those guns and take [the] Fort McHenry . On one of the British ships was an aged physician [,William Beanes,] who had been captured [arrested] in Washington [Maryland] and who had been brought along , for some reason, as a prisoner of war . An American lawyer in Baltimore, Francis Scott Key, [a lawyer and] who was a friend of the physician, [had come] came to the ship to try to negotiate his release. The British captain was quite willing, but [the two Americans would have to wait.] it was now the night of September 13 -14 , and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start. They could not be released till the bombardment was over. Key and his physician friend had to wait through the night. They [As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes] saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry as twilight deepened and night fell. Through the night, they heard the burstings of bombs [bursting] and saw the red glare of rockets[.] , and while that was going on, t [T]hey knew that the Fort was still resisting and the American flag was still flying. But then, toward morning , the bombardment ceased and a dread silence fell. [Asimov's original paragraph break was here.] There were two possibilities. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag now flew above it, or the bombardment had been a failure and had been stopped [failed] and the American flag still flew over the Fort. If it was the former, the United States might well be through as a nation; if the latter, it would survive . But which was it? As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key [and Beanes] stared out the porthole [at the fort,] trying to see which flag was flying over the Fort [it]. Bedridden and unable to look for himself, [He and] the physician [must have] asked [each other] over and over again , "Can you see the flag? Can you see the flag? " After it was all over [finished], Francis Key wrote a four-stanza poem telling the events of the night. [Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry,"] I [i]t was published in newspapers on September 20 and it swept the nation. It was [Someone] noted that the words fit an old drinking [English] tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven , " [--]and it was sung to that (a difficult tune with an uncomfortably large [vocal] range ) . Key called the poem "The Defense of Fort McHenry," but, f [F]or obvious reasons, [Key's work] it quickly became known as "The Star - Spangled Banner . [,]" Eventually, [and] in 1931, Congress officially declared it to be the national [official] anthem of the United States , and a flag flies over Francis Scott Key's grave, day and night, though ordinarily the flag is not allowed to fly at night . Now that you know the story, here are the words[.] to the first stanza, and how I wish I could sing it to you. I don't have the best voice in the world, but it is adequate, considering my age, and I sing it (believe me) with a wealth of emotion. It is [Presumably,] the old doctor [is] speaking [.]from his bed, and here [This] is what he is asking [asks] Key : Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming! Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming! And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting, in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? "Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the [protective] walls or other elevations that surround a fort to help protect the personnel within . [Asimov originally had a paragraph break here.] This [The] first stanza only asks the [a] question. It is t [T]he second stanza that gives the [an] answer , and it goes as follows: On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses! Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam. in full glory reflected now shines on the stream: 'Tis the star spangled banner! O long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. "The towering steep" is, again, the ramparts. Obviously, t[T]he bombardment has failed, and Fort McHenry remains in American hands with the American flag still flying. T [t]he British fleet can do nothing now [more] but sail away, their mission a failure, so the United States survives. In the third stanza, [I feel] Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph and to shout abuse at the British enemy. It is not a very nice thing to do in cold blood, but Key, in the immediate aftermath of the bombardment[, Key probably] was in no mood [to act otherwise] not to be cold-blooded . However, the enemy are the British, and d[D]uring World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies against a new and far more hideous enemy, it seemed that this third stanza was unnecessary, and it was removed from the anthem. [, this stanza was not sung.] However, I know it , and I am foolish enough to want to share the gloating, so here it is: And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion A home and a country should leave us no more! Their blood has wiped out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuse could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spanned banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. That leaves the fourth stanza, which is a pious hope for the future[,] and which has the atmosphere of a hymn at last. It should , to my way of thinking, be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling. Here it is: Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, while our cause it is just. And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner forever [in triumph] shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave! The fourth stanza as I've given it here is the way I sing it. I have taken the liberty of making two small changes from the way the song appears in the reference books and, presumably then, the way that Key wrote it. In the fourth line, Key wrote, "Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just." Key was writing about the War of 1812, when, as I believe, our cause was just, but I am not ready to assume that our cause is always just. The United States is as capable of fighting an unjust war as any other nation is, although I earnestly hope it doesn't do so often. The Mexican War was an unjust war, a naked war of aggression, a war to fasten slavery on Texas after Mexico had freed the slaves there and to seize territory to which we had no real right. But we won every battle just the same, established slavery in Texas, and took the entire southwest. The Spanish-American War was not particularly just, either. The southern states of the Union, after seceding to form the Confederate States of America, stood between their loved homes and the war's desolation and did so with magnificent bravery for four years, but lost in the end and (in my opinion) rightly so, for they fought for slavery. The Vietnam War (again in my opinion) was an unjust war, for we travelled 6000 miles to take part in a civil war that was not really our business and held no threat whatever to our vital interests. The old "domino theory" was just a fraud used to justify what could not really be justified. And we lost, as we should have. But now (as I write) Iraq has invaded Kuwait and taken it over. This was unjustified aggression and does affect American vital interests, for Iraq intends to control the world's oil supply to its own advantage. If we take measured action, I will consider our cause to be just. Let me go on. The other change I have made is in the next to the last line where Key apparently repeated that the star-spangled banner "in triumph shall wave." I don't think that the third and fourth stanzas should end equally. I want the end of each stanza to represent a new and higher climax, so I replaced the last "in triumph" with "forever." When I sing "The Star-Spangled Banner," I don't try for vocal tricks, which I don't have the voice or the technique for, never having had even a day's training in voice. I try only to enunciate carefully so that the audience hears every word with out fail. Nevertheless, when I sing that last stanza, I do try one little trick. I linger over the "forever" and make my voice louder and even more emotional and I can feel the audience respond to that. I sang all four stanzas in public only twice, but each time it was a memorable experience for me, and, I believe, for the audience as well. Now I do it for a third time, in print only, and without the additional dimension of my voice (such as it is).
And don't let them take it away and substitute "God Bless America," for goodness sake. posted by Eric on 09.20.10 at 10:37 AM
Comments
Thank you for this. It gives one pause as to what else we think was said or written that wasn't Richard Diamond · September 20, 2010 07:30 PM Thanks Jeff. I had "0 say" in what the OCR "saw," and I have difficulty distinguishing between 0's and O's. A distinction which, BTW is somewhat modern and arbitrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29 ***QUOTE*** The modern numerical digit 0 is usually written as a circle or ellipse. Traditionally, many print typefaces made the capital letter O more rounded than the narrower, elliptical digit 0.[7] Typewriters originally made no distinction in shape between O and 0; some models did not even have a separate key for the digit 0. The distinction came into prominence on modern character displays. ***END QUOTE*** Eric Scheie · September 20, 2010 09:19 PM You know this, just the Asimov part, leaving out the garbage edit, just having somebody read it straight would make a cracker jack invocation for the next tea party rally. papertiger · September 21, 2010 05:03 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2010
August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Happy Belated International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
Clean Sweep Ideological airbrushing -- a view by dissection How Dogs Got Domesticated The Threat Of Sharia Dowdifying Asimov is bad enough, but kitschifying him goes too far Christine O'Donnell Was A Witch Behead those who insult robots! Leftist Dogma Christine O'Donnell just keeps looking better and better!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What gets me is the arrogance of those who butchered Isaac's prose, and insulted the original editor for the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. It never occurred to them that the piece was edited by the magazine's managing editor at the time before it was published?