My suggestion is that it is simply awkward. The translation you suggested is clearer. The original makes me stop and question what you mean. I think that even if it is "correct" (which I suspect it may be), it is awkward. So why do it?
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Please advise whether, and if so how, the following sentence is grammatically flawed. I was told that the adverb "freely" could not precede the noun "fodder" in such a way.
"The episode is now more freely fodder for publication."
If I'm not wrong the word fodder in your sentence is used as a verb.
I assume it would be correct to write, "the episode is now more freely available as fodder for publication". Why is it incorrect to shorten this to "freely fodder"?
If I have a good understanding of the phrase "More freely available" it means that there are fewer restrictions to get/give something.
The non literal meaning of "being fodder" or "fodder for" come from cannon fodder with means: soldiers who are regarded as expendable in the face of artillery fire. It's expendable there is no value attached to it.
The phrase freely fodder sounds to me like a repetition.