I think the issue here is that we're not talking about changes in the abstract, we're talking about the government demanding a particular change: censoring Monkey's irrepressibility (just to be totally accurate, Gaiman's anticipatory hypothetical change). When a totalitarian government goes and demands a character be more, um, 'repress-able' I don't see the problem with assuming that change is because of their style of governing.
There's a relationship there between totalitarianism/irrepressibility that doesn't exist between--looking at the rest of the discussion and the parts about Queen Elizabeth I and George Washington--constitutional monarchy/murder or federal republicanism/philandering and drug abuse. Just changing the country isn't enough--there also has to be that connection between the style of government and the type of change being requested. It's more like a theocracy requiring that a blasphemous character be written out of a story.
Also, looking through the rest of the discussion, there's a key difference to keep in mind that might be getting lost: it's one thing when the government restricts your access, and another when a private party does so. If a private citizen owns the location, there are issues involved there regarding private property rights that are not involved when it's the government demanding changes.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 03:26 am (UTC)There's a relationship there between totalitarianism/irrepressibility that doesn't exist between--looking at the rest of the discussion and the parts about Queen Elizabeth I and George Washington--constitutional monarchy/murder or federal republicanism/philandering and drug abuse. Just changing the country isn't enough--there also has to be that connection between the style of government and the type of change being requested. It's more like a theocracy requiring that a blasphemous character be written out of a story.
Also, looking through the rest of the discussion, there's a key difference to keep in mind that might be getting lost: it's one thing when the government restricts your access, and another when a private party does so. If a private citizen owns the location, there are issues involved there regarding private property rights that are not involved when it's the government demanding changes.