Poor Pigs

Why is a pig considered "unclean" anyway? I know it was on the original list of unclean animals but I don't think anyone really knows why - unless it was because pork could cause food poisoning quite easily in hot countries. I don't eat it anyway because I'm vegetarian but I like pigs in stories!

There are some marvellous pig stories that OUP would ban, one of them, Dick King Smith's The Sheep Pig, a favourite in my family. They are being very silly!!

If this story is true, it confirms my view that some very wacky people work at OUP. Other publishers should rub their hands with glee and hog (pun intended) all the porky stories.

Pig will eat anything. One of their food sources was human faeces, at a time when loos were away in the future (no loos in a tent) and sanitation was "take two tablets and go out into the wilderness". They were tolerated, because they did clean up the place, but were not fit to eat. The same goes for shellfish - they ate anything that fell to the bottom of the sea.

Muslims will not eat with their left hand, as it was traditionally the hand used to wash the behind (no toilet paper in tents, either)

I think to give some more light on this stupid pronouncement, we really need to see what exactly the OUP themselves gave as their reasons for this stupid decision.

I don't think we should just rely on the account of this issue that has been presented by the Daily Mail. That paper is not averse to putting its own spin on issues like this.

I doubt if anyone is actually saying they intend to ban Pepper Pig, Garth pig and the Ice cream lady and all those other much loved British Pig stories.

It's derived from Leviticus 11 3-8 - only animals who have both cloven hooves and chew the cud (2 stomachs) are considered "clean" to eat.
The pig has cloven hooves but doesn't have 2 stomachs.

Is a Guardian report more acceptable to you, Nellie?

www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/14/pigs-textbooks-oup-authors-pork-guidelines

It actually gives more information about other 'banned' words and subjects contained within the OUP guidelines.

Hmm. Why aren't I surprised that it would seem to be all about money? Selling textbooks in countries where pig meat is not eaten by a good proportion of the population. I see horoscopes are mentioned too. Sigh.

With things like this, I often wonder just how many people are behind an edict.
Five? Three?

Schoolbooks are supposed to educate.
Pretending that pigs and pig products dont exist is not education.

Dogs are not supposed to be mentioned either, according to the Guardian article. But cats are OK!

That Guardian link gives a whole heap of banned subjects.

Right. Am I getting the wrong end of the stick a bit.
Are say pigs and pig products banned in some countries, but not Britain?

I suppose the publishers would prefer books for mass markets, so say talking about fluffly kittens[sorry Galen]!, could sell to 200 countries, but Peppa Pig can only sell to say 44 countries?

So they are not doing it for censoring reasons, but, as thatbags says, it is all about money.

Perhaps Change.org will start a petition?

What about Freedom of Speech and Expression?!! something world leaders have been seen marching in support of! Presumably only when it suits. Hypocrisy smells and behaves far worse than any poor old pig!

I have read books that contain descriptions of violence and violent sex that I have found very offensive, but I don't see any one banning them. They are usually promoted as being "Realistic" and "Challenging".

Deedaa I did one of those Amazon reviews (the ones they are always nagging you to do for every book you buy) on a detective book that I had thrown out in disgust. I said that the treatment of the injuries and disfigurement inflicted was too lovingly done, to the point of pornography (there were also injuries to cats, and a vivisectionist having erotic ailurophile fantasies while at work), I got a comment accusing me of being "unable to hack it".

Realistic and challenging my arse, it was nasty - yet everyone but me seemed to think it was marvellous literature.

I replied to the comment to say that anyone who had nursed a loved one through a terminal disease learnt to hack real pain and real blood because it had to be done, but reading about it for pleasure was a perversion.

If you want to sell books produced in the UK in another country, especially if it is an important market, you tailor the content of the book to the market. Indeed, you do that wherever you want to sell them – just like any other product. I write cook books and the US market is essential because the masses of colour photography in such books is expensive and the US market is big and lucrative. Consequently, I tend to avoid including recipes with gooseberries, physalis, ice cream wafers, red, white or black currants, taramasalata or pickled beetroot, for example. I also tend to include more Italian, Chinese, Japanese and Latin American recipes than Indian ones in global cook books. (I even call them cook books rather than cookery books ).

In the case of the English-language teaching books and others, it's not simply a case of avoiding giving offence but of making the books attractive – and therefore saleable. Jolly little pigs, family dogs, mixed sex groups of young people sharing a house or drinking alcohol, families going to church on Sunday mornings, etc., while not necessarily offensive, are simply not attractive in some markets and there will be many other books to buy.

Don't let's fall into the trap of "It's the American Way so it must be the best". Just because something works in the culture of the UK doesn't mean it is right elsewhere.

Totally agree with your post Elegran.

Just read Ana's link from the Guardian and Absent's post and it seems that writing for a totalling global market covering every eventuality is boring in the extreme. Not worth doing. Impossible. Surely it's far better to write differently for different cultures?

A friend has emailed this to me, from a mosque newsletter which has been addressing this last week's issues of free speech and references to pigs, pork etc. Her father works in the mosque and she helps to provide after-school cultural education to local Muslim children.

'With regard to making your children avoid seeing pigs, if what is meant by that is a passing glance or seeing a picture of a pig in passing, this is something that is difficult to do, and we do not think that it is necessary. Rather all that is required is that the child should not become used to them or care about them or pay any attention to them.'

A bit different from banning them from the books they read.

So no Peppa Pig and little brother George then.

So bearing this in mind is the mosque newsletter banning children from watching Peppa Pig and visiting the local petting zoo whenim64 ?

I cannot understand a religion that is so backward that a simple picture or cartoon of a farm animal could cause so much trouble.

I've no idea whether the mosque has advised about the petting zoo, but I do know my Muslim friend (and her extended family) is active within her culture and religion but indifferent and sometimes defiant about extreme doctrines.

Not care about them or pay any attention to them? Surely Islam would honour and care for all living things? Isn't that what that slaughter pray is all about?