<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with forwhomthebelltolls</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/forwhomthebelltolls</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'forwhomthebelltolls' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:03:42 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:03:42 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>Obscenity these un-printable censors</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/106636/Obscenity%2Dthese%2Dunprintable%2Dcensors</link>	
	<description>I&apos;m reading &quot;For Whom the Bell Tolls&quot;, for the first time, that I got from the library.  Every obscenity is printed as &quot;unprintable&quot;, &quot;un-nameable&quot;, or &quot;obscenity&quot;.  Obviously Hemingway didn&apos;t write that, and it&apos;s annoying.  Would a modern printing still have these edits? I&apos;m a grown adult.  I am not offended by the work &quot;fuck&quot;.  I am offended by the disruption in the meter and phrasing, since I have to run it through my mind and figure out the tense and form of the intended word.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Was there any renegade publisher that printed uncensored books?  Do the modern printings still do this?  The one I&apos;m reading is from the 70s, I think.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2008:site.106636</guid>
	<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:03:42 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>censorship</category>
	<category>forwhomthebelltolls</category>
	<category>hemingway</category>
	<category>library</category>
	<category>obscenity</category>
	<dc:creator>hwyengr</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

