n/m

[hsmom2011]

n/m

[unsinkable]

Um, wow.

 

It doesn't surprise me, really. If crap is a swear word, porn can be anything that mentions genitalia.

[TXBeth]

Meh. Doesn't sound like the mom is doing anything wrong. She just filed a complaint with the school. I have to admit I was very uncomfortable the first time I read Anne Frank as a teenager - precisely because of those portions -, and I would want my DDs to be at least 13 or so before reading it, maybe older if they had not gone through puberty yet themselves. My DS I'm not sure about. There are other great books about that time period that I might assign instead in Jr High. I wouldn't complain if a teacher had my kids read it as long as they were at least 7th grade, though.

[Elfknitter.#]

O_o

 

I'd blame Bieber, but really stupid is as stupid does.

[mommymilkies]

Ridiculous. It's totally ok to read an emotionally disturbing book about a girl's experience in the Holocaust, but apparently it also being a book about a girl's coming to age is not ok? Seriously?

[Vida Winter]

I seem to remember that there are two versions of this book and that the parts that some object to were added in the second version. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

[Parrothead]

I must have read the abridged version. I don't remember any scenes of "finding genitalia."

[Serenade]

I seem to remember that there are two versions of this book and that the parts that some object to were added in the second version. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

 

 

There was just a thread about this, wasn't there?

 

I think someone mentioned that these sexual parts were added after her father's death. Which makes me scratch my head a bit. If the father didn't want those parts in there, why add them after he died? To cause controversy, perhaps? Or to sell more copies? Sex, or in this case, budding sexuality, sells. I have not read the new version, but it seems to me that these additions may not actually improve the book, but may help sell more copies.

 

I guess when I have my boys read this book, I'll look for the original version. Or maybe we'll just pass. Which would be a shame, because I remember being moved by the original book.

[amsunshine]

I seem to remember that there are two versions of this book and that the parts that some object to were added in the second version. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Yes, in the earliest versions, her father had edited out this material. There have been threads about this here. It seems like a simple solution -- just read the earlier version with youngers if you are uncomfortable with the other material, and save the unabridged version for later years. That's what we are doing.

[Parrothead]

 

 

There was just a thread about this, wasn't there?

 

I think someone mentioned that these sexual parts were added after her father's death. Which makes me scratch my head a bit. If the father didn't want those parts in there, why add them after he died? To cause controversy, perhaps? Or to sell more copies? Sex, or in this case, budding sexuality, sells. I have not read the new version, but it seems to me that these additions may not actually improve the book, but may help sell more copies.

 

I guess when I have my boys read this book, I'll look for the original version. Or maybe we'll just pass. Which would be a shame, because I remember being moved by the original book.

 

So this stuff was added after the fact? Like it was not in the original diary? Or was it in the diary and omitted for printing?

[Serenade]

So this stuff was added after the fact? Like it was not in the original diary? Or was it in the diary and omitted for printing?

 

I don't know for sure, but it seems like it was omitted for the initial printing, and added after the father's death. I'm really glad for TWTM, or I wouldn't have been aware of this and probably would have let my son read it without a second thought.

[amsunshine]

So this stuff was added after the fact? Like it was not in the original diary? Or was it in the diary and omitted for printing?

It was all in her original diary. Anne's father had it edited out, which is understandable. Then, after he died, the unabridged version was published.

[FaithManor]

I must have read the abridged version. I don't remember any scenes of "finding genitalia."

 

 

Me too! I cannot, for the life of me, think of what the mother is referring to.

 

Can someone enlighten me? Definitely, I must not have read the "juicy" version.

 

Faith

[Mergath]

Ugh. As if kids don't have a warped enough view about sexuality being something "dirty," now we're going to ban Anne Frank because she had a vagina. Don't people have better things to do?

[Parrothead]

It was all in her original diary. Anne's father had it edited out, which is understandable. Then, after he died, the unabridged version was published.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

 

 

____

 

 

I really do find it quite disturbing that the publishers decided to put that part of her life into the book after so many years. The book has sold (I suppose) millions of copies to several generations of high schoolers as it was originally printed. It made the focus of her story about what her family endured.

 

I've not read the new version, but I can only imagine how it may take away from the family's struggles. Teenagers' minds work in mysterious ways.

 

I'm all for authenticity but I think maybe they should have left well enough alone.

 

Oh, and what about the movie versions? Are they going to be updated as well?

[Julie Smith]

http://dalje.com/en-bestseller/anne-frank-enjoyed-naked-female-body/250423

[stripe]

I think we like people who are one-dimensional. Even though in Anne Frank's diary, she is (obviously) alive, she is somehow interesting because she died. Her normalcy and teenage experience should be what makes her story more shocking; instead, it is what ultimately irritates people. I guess she was supposed to be a saint, knowing that she'd be killed and millions would read her diary.

[FaithManor]

I think we like people who are one-dimensional. Even though in Anne Frank's diary, she is (obviously) alive, she is somehow interesting because she died. Her normalcy and teenage experience should be what makes her story more shocking; instead, it is what ultimately irritates people. I guess she was supposed to be a saint, knowing that she'd be killed and millions would read her diary.

 

 

I do agree with this assessment. Our culture does seem to place a higher shock or outrage on the death of someone who is viewed "saintly". If the drunk next door dies, no one seems all that particularly disturbed - "Oh well, he got his up-n'-comin's." But, if the little old lady that never drank or smoked and made the best apple pie in town dies, then the community has suffered great tragedy. The culture does not see all suffering or all death as tragic. There is far less care and concern for the family members of the "non-saint" than the "saint". The family of saint, by virtue of her "untainted" life, deserves sympathy and compassion. The family of the cultural loser, not so much.

 

I would guess that it is entirely possible for the reading of Anne Frank's diary to somehow become "benign" and not nearly as evocative of outrage and a desire to never let this happen again, now that she's a "naughty" teenager, than some "innocent" victim. The sad horror is that not only will a lot of communities face a minority of parents who have the same outlook as the mother mentioned in the article, but also the disdain of those same when the book is assigned which will detract from these students coming to grip with the real truth. Or, even worse, cause the book to end up on a banned list and not being replaced with anything else that "gets the job done."

 

Though I am no fan of censorship, in this case, I am probably more of a fan of the abridged or "censored" version of the olden days because it at least keeps the central issues from being unjustly clouded by a culture that throws out the baby with the bathwater. I am sure other cultures, less hyper-sensitive to reproductive issues, can read this newer version and still manage to focus on the central issues.

 

Faith

[stripe]

Well, my library has the new version, and I intend to read it after all these threads on here.

[chicagoshannon]

I wouldn't want my dd reading that. How does it add to the story? I feel bad for Anne. I'm sure she wouldn't want that very personal info out there for all to read.

[Catwoman]

It was all in her original diary. Anne's father had it edited out, which is understandable. Then, after he died, the unabridged version was published.

 

 

My personal feeling is that is should have remained as her father originally intended it to be published. It was extremely effective as it was, and I see no reason whatsoever to have changed it.

 

Just because additional information exists, does not mean it should necessarily be published.

[Parrothead]

I wouldn't want my dd reading that. How does it add to the story? I feel bad for Anne. I'm sure she wouldn't want that very personal info out there for all to read.

 

 

I can imagine the teen-aged me writing something of a very private and personal nature. No way on God's green earth would I want it published while I'm alive or after I'm dead.

 

How many of us would want that? And who would want to read it?

 

I like my heroes to be human. But I certainly don't want to know what they (or really anyone else) do during their private and intimate times. Alone or with somebody.

[bettyandbob]

I think the unabridged version was published to show how much of a "normal" teenager she was. The diary was the intimate thoughts of a normal teen. If she had not been in hiding and later murdered, there may never have been anything remarkable about her to warrant publishing her diary. I haven't read the unabridged version, does anyone know how much of the book was taken out for the abridge version? I should read it before I pass judgement on the material that was added back.

[Catwoman]

I think the unabridged version was published to show how much of a "normal" teenager she was. The diary was the intimate thoughts of a normal teen. If she had not been in hiding and later murdered, there may never have been anything remarkable about her to warrant publishing her diary. I haven't read the unabridged version, does anyone know how much of the book was taken out for the abridge version? I should read it before I pass judgement on the material that was added back.

 

 

But how many women would want the "intimate thoughts" they had as a teenager published for the entire world to read?

 

Anne wasn't some 2013 bimbo posting revealing photos, sexy videos, or intimate thoughts on the internet. She was a girl growing up in a very different time, and I'm sure that she never intended her diary to be published at all -- and most certainly not the potentially embarrassing parts. I know I would be mortified if someone found a long-lost diary of mine and published it word-for-word.

 

It's not even as though someone just found the diary for the first time and published it exactly as it was. Anne's father was the one who made the decision to share her story many years ago, and I think it is entirely disrespectful of his wishes for anyone to have added material to it now.

[Catwoman]

I can imagine the teen-aged me writing something of a very private and personal nature. No way on God's green earth would I want it published while I'm alive or after I'm dead.

 

How many of us would want that? And who would want to read it?

 

I like my heroes to be human. But I certainly don't want to know what they (or really anyone else) do during their private and intimate times. Alone or with somebody.

 

 

:iagree:

[Kathryn]

Totally agree with Cat. I still have the one I read in school and that's what my kids will read.

[Mergath]

I wouldn't want my dd reading that. How does it add to the story? I feel bad for Anne. I'm sure she wouldn't want that very personal info out there for all to read.

 

 

I don't think any of us should be making declarations about what she would or wouldn't have wanted.

[FaithManor]

But how many women would want the "intimate thoughts" they had as a teenager published for the entire world to read?

 

Anne wasn't some 2013 bimbo posting revealing photos, sexy videos, or intimate thoughts on the internet. She was a girl growing up in a very different time, and I'm sure that she never intended her diary to be published at all -- and most certainly not the potentially embarrassing parts. I know I would be mortified if someone found a long-lost diary of mine and published it word-for-word.

 

It's not even as though someone just found the diary for the first time and published it exactly as it was. Anne's father was the one who made the decision to share her story many years ago, and I think it is entirely disrespectful of his wishes for anyone to have added material to it now.

 

Yes, I agree. It is not common for ALL of the entries of a private diary to be published...entered into record in a court proceeding because someone is on trial, yes...if it is germaine to the case. But, normally, the person who wrote the diary would be giving permission for the diary to be published in X form simply for the book market. Anne not only couldn't give her permission, but by being published post-humously, it was the property of her living next of kin and this is what he chose. He is gone now and I have no idea who "next of kin is". If there is someone who "inherited" the rights, then I think they've made a bit of a blunder for not respecting Anne's father's wishes. If it became the property of the publishing company, then I think they had the moral responsibility to respect his wishes even if they had the legal right to publish it differently. I think it is a matter of ethics. Just because something can be done, that does not mean it should be done.

 

For me, I can easily see how the unabridged edition would be very meaningful for me because I don't like 2 dimensional characters, the more real, the better...the more effective for me. However, that doesn't mean that everyone feels this way and given the hang-ups of our culture, I think that in this case, it will do more harm than good.

 

Faith

[stripe]

I can imagine the teen-aged me writing something of a very private and personal nature. No way on God's green earth would I want it published while I'm alive or after I'm dead.

But it is a diary. It's always been private and intended to be private. Isn't it invasive to read her diary even minus her sexual thoughts?

 

I found an old diary, in which I rambled on about how much I loved my sister. What a hoot! I sent her a photo of it.

[beaners]

But how many women would want the "intimate thoughts" they had as a teenager published for the entire world to read?

 

Anne wasn't some 2013 bimbo posting revealing photos, sexy videos, or intimate thoughts on the internet. She was a girl growing up in a very different time, and I'm sure that she never intended her diary to be published at all -- and most certainly not the potentially embarrassing parts. I know I would be mortified if someone found a long-lost diary of mine and published it word-for-word.

 

It's not even as though someone just found the diary for the first time and published it exactly as it was. Anne's father was the one who made the decision to share her story many years ago, and I think it is entirely disrespectful of his wishes for anyone to have added material to it now.

 

I thought that she did consider having it published and suggested pseudonyms for some of the people in the diary.

[Zuzu822]

I thought that she did consider having it published and suggested pseudonyms for some of the people in the diary.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Several months ago I read Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife and it discusses how heavily Anne herself edited and rewrote her diary with an eye for publishing it after the war. IIRC, both the version Otto Frank published in 1947 and the "definitive" edition published a decade ago are not the "true original" (I think Anne destroyed much of that).

 

And yes, original versions of the diary did use pseudonyms (Van Daan for the Van Pels, etc.).

 

So I don't think we can say that Anne's diary was intended to remain private, and then the argument about which version to publish becomes murkier. Whose wishes are to be respected? The father or the author herself? Both, perhaps, have a place in the canon.

 

ETA: Anne was a thirteen year old, however, so it is of course reasonable to suggest that what she would have wanted could have changed as she matured. Based on how she felt at the time of her death, though, I think publishing it in its complete version is an appropriate option.

[Trish]

http://now.msn.com/gail-horalek-says-anne-frank-diary-is-porn-fights-to-pull-it-from-school/

What will they try to ban next?

 

 

At least now I know there are multiple versions, and we can avoid the one with information that doesn't need to be there for the kids' sake. Thanks!

[stripe]

Several months ago I read Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife and it discusses how heavily Anne herself edited and rewrote her diary with an eye for publishing it after the war. IIRC, both the version Otto Frank published in 1947 and the "definitive" edition published a decade ago are not the "true original" (I think Anne destroyed much of that)....

 

So I don't think we can say that Anne's diary was intended to remain private, and then the argument about which version to publish becomes murkier. Whose wishes are to be respected? The father or the author herself? Both, perhaps, have a place in the canon.

 

I have read through a good portion of The Diary of a Young Girl: the definitive edition, which does clarify that she was keeping a diary to keep a record, not solely as a personal activity, which I totally did not realize, and what and why her father took material out, including comments about not getting along with her mother as well as a frankness about sexuality that was not "done" at the time.

 

I have read the parts that people are objecting to, and I have a few thoughts. One is that the parents themselves were pretty direct with their daughter about sexuality and anatomy. Secondly some of the entries are about facts, such as her comments about her own development as well as a fairly lengthy description of female external genitalia from an anatomical angle, others are about her activities or feelings (attractions or desires), others are about chats she had with others about anatomy, contraceptives, and sex; and still others are about her opinions. And I think her comments about basically adults wanting to keep kids in the dark because they will realize the business about purity (avoiding premarital sex) is baloney (I am paraphrasing AF here) and that having experience is a good thing (paraphrase of AF), are upsetting to adults and are seen as promoting teen sexual activity, in addition to whatever else AF says that she did or wanted to do.

 

I did not find it to be inappropriate in the way that maybe seeing someone's pants fall down or walking in on someone on the toilet is, where you feel you have invaded their space. It just doesn't have that feeling to it of having invaded her personal space, when you are reading multiple times that she thinks it's important to have direct conversations without giggling about sex. Her diary is pretty open and direct, in an almost clinical way. It seems more to me that the objection to it maybe is that someone might not want to read about teen sex or sexuality, or want teens to read about or talk about such things at school.

 

So I wouldn't personally choose it based on feeling this is "too personal" and offends her memory, but that maybe its essentially about a teen who is experiencing many forms of personal growth, and that certainly includes sexually, and maybe one would prefer not to read about it, no matter who's doing the talking.

 

And of course, if someone read a copy with this material removed and didn't understand it had been returned, then they might be surprised at the extras.