Personally I think Randy of the New York Times is confusing harm with annoyance, and ought to change the title of his column to "The Moralist", in the sense that he is prescribing morals (agreements about socially condoned or not condoned behavior). He is only marginally discussing ethics in the sense of individual rationality for the understanding of right choice.

That said, he was right that taking your audience into account makes the difference, especially if you are being paid to entertain. I don't sing "Keep On Trucking, Mama" to the garden club or the local fifth-graders, but that doesn't mean I don't know the whole song by heart!! :>)

Bowdlerizing serves no real purpose. There are plenty of fine songs to be sung without introducing songs which will stir up and alienate the audience, not because they'res anything wrong with stirring people up for good cause, but because it breaks the line of communication with the audience, and isn't what you're presumably there for.

The notion of rewriting Macbeth to cater to ignorance offends ME!! Howja like them apples! That makes it politically incorrect, right? As a member of a minority ("humans of literary sensibility" )I am filing a protest against this sort of rampant discrimination!

LOL!

Is it "appropriate" for a white person to imitate a dialect? Aw, gyamme wan break, mon! The fact that a dialect is associated with a particular color is almost irrelevant -- no-one would complain if you were to tell jokes in a French accent, would they? How about a Cajun dialect? How about "No steenkin' badges"? Boris and Natasha? Jokes about stupid Nazi officers? C'mon, man. Communication is communication, no? "Appropriate" to what purpose? The word means "fitting to a subject or purpose", and has been weaseled into meaning "completely feelings-neutral", pablumized, shorn of all tension and impact. Which I find inappropriate! :>)

A