Roald Dahl books (1 Viewer)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Now to be edited to remove anything deemed ‘offensive’. I don’t really see what’s wrong with the originals to be honest

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive | Roald Dahl | The Guardian

Augustus Gloop now ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, Mrs Twit no longer ‘ugly’ and Oompa Loompas are gender neutral

amp.theguardian.com

 

---

[Evo1883]

Now to be edited to remove anything deemed ‘offensive’. I don’t really see what’s wrong with the originals to be honest

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive | Roald Dahl | The Guardian

Augustus Gloop now ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, Mrs Twit no longer ‘ugly’ and Oompa Loompas are gender neutral

amp.theguardian.com

Many years ago when people were moaning about this type of nonsense just getting out of control , people were told they were bigots and wrong ..

Now I'm just totally numb to it all .. it's all nonsense

Pathetic soft as shit society full of weirdos .. end of story

And it will continue to get worse and worse

 

[clint van damme]

It's nonsense, in fact it's worse than that, its dangerous.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

These changes are just absurd. Augustus Gloop now to be ‘enormous’ rather than ‘fat’-the whole point is he’s a glutton!

 

[clint van damme]

Many years ago when people were moaning about this type of nonsense just getting out of control , people were told they were bigots and wrong ..

Now I'm just totally numb to it all .. it's all nonsense

Pathetic soft as shit society full of weirdos .. end of story

And it will continue to get worse and worse

Just to be clear, this was a desicion taken by the publishers, an idiotic one right enough, but it's their product they can do as they wish. I think they might regret this.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Just to be clear, this was a desicion taken by the publishers, an idiotic one right enough, but it's their product they can do as they wish. I think they might regret this.

I can only think what Dahl would have to say on it. His books don’t need changing

 

[torchomatic]

Philip Pullman got it spot on today. Let them all go out of print. The only choice then would to read the original versions. No one will miss out as they sold millions, they would always be readily available for new readers.

 

[clint van damme]

 

[Grendel]

It's nonsense, in fact it's worse than that, its dangerous.

It is

 

[Evo1883]

View attachment 28473

 

[Nick]

Stop the world I want to get off.

 

[Grendel]

Even lefty wokey Brian Cox thinks it’s a new form of Macarthyism

I’d love to know if anyone on here supports this shite

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Even lefty wokey Brian Cox thinks it’s a new form of Macarthyism

I’d love to know if anyone on here supports this shite

I have my money on someone

 

[fernandopartridge]

Puffin the publisher commissioned it, it's almost perfect advertising

 

[Grendel]

I have my money on someone

And me

 

[Ian1779]

Even lefty wokey Brian Cox thinks it’s a new form of Macarthyism

I’d love to know if anyone on here supports this shite

I’m guessing only the people that will now go out and buy them. It’s just a nonsense.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If it were me I'd be using it as a marketing ploy. Make these changes but then soon after reprint them with the original texts. Could see them sell quite a few original texts afterwards as people make a 'protest' and to show their feeling.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Books have always been edited to reflect a change in society.

 

[SBT]

Seems pretty dumb, but seeing as it’s been met by near universal criticism then I can’t force myself to get too worried about What It All Means.

 

[RegiswasGod]

An absolute joke. This current generation have absolutely no chance at life

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

We've reached a new low in being offended. When children's books written by one of Britain's favourite authors are effectively censored because they "offend" then what's next ?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We've reached a new low in being offended. When children's books written by one of Britain's favourite authors are effectively censored because they "offend" then what's next ?

Those books were some of my favourite growing up. Thankfully still have all of them so as and when BSB Jnr wants to read they can have the originals.

 

[SBT]

We've reached a new low in being offended. When children's books written by one of Britain's favourite authors are effectively censored because they "offend" then what's next ?

A publisher voluntarily editing a new edition of a book in co-operation with the author’s estate (and getting roundly, rightly criticised for it) isn’t censorship.

 

[TomRad85]

James and the it's not even that big wtf you body shaming for you bigot peach

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[clint van damme]

A publisher voluntarily editing a new edition of a book in co-operation with the author’s estate (and getting roundly, rightly criticised for it) isn’t censorship.

You're right, but it's still nonsense.

 

[SBT]

You're right, but it's still nonsense.

It is - I just think it’s maybe a bit hysterical to start writing off an entire generation over it.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

A publisher voluntarily editing a new edition of a book in co-operation with the author’s estate (and getting roundly, rightly criticised for it) isn’t censorship.

A publisher voluntarily editing his books ? Wow. How charitable of them .
His words have been removed from the text.

Someone needs to go through Shakespeare and a host of other authors to try and find what will be huge chunks in order to remove/ censor/"update"

There'll be lots that are deemed " unsuitable" and no doubt a queue a mile long of publishers who will ' volunteer' with the blessing of the author's estate.

Roald Dahl books will no longer contain stories written by the author in their entirety because they offend and have been censored, effectively, in order to placate those who want something to feel offended by.

If people find his books offensive I suggest they buy something else..

 

[SBT]

Someone needs to go through Shakespeare and a host of other authors to try and find what will be huge chunks in order to remove/ censor/"update"

If you’re worried about this being a slippery slope towards a time when Shakespeare plays are routinely edited and updated, then I have some deeply upsetting news for you.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It is - I just think it’s maybe a bit hysterical to start writing off an entire generation over it.

Victorians expurgated Malory of sex and violence. Think they were also responsible for Chaucer not being Chaucer, too. Authors themselves have edited their texts during their own lifetimes - Dahl himself removed some overly racist content, the Oompa Loompas were originally African pygmies, rescued to this country for their own good and made to work at Wonka's factory. Here's some of the context to that... which was done in the 1970s.

I find it slightly odd I get the mocking laugh emoji for stating a fact, that editing of texts has always happened for contemporary sensibilities - it has. I make no judgement about whether it should or not in that statement. FWIW my own view is that many of the edits are so inconsequential as to not be worth discussing. Some do change the meaning and are maybe heavy handed - and of course the point of Dahl has always been that he would challenge, write childrens books but not for children, allow the introduction of critical thinking rather than a safe, saccharine version of life... and that's why he was popular, so to remove that takes away some of that very essence - it ties into a debate about childrens' literature that's been going on not just for years, but centuries - what's appropriate for children to read.

But, it has always happened! Grimm fairy tales over the years have waxed and waned in their depiction of violence and misogyny after all!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Victorians expurgated Malory of sex and violence. Think they were also responsible for Chaucer not being Chaucer, too. Authors themselves have edited their texts during their own lifetimes - Dahl himself removed some overly racist content, the Oompa Loompas were originally African pygmies, rescued to this country for their own good and made to work at Wonka's factory. Here's some of the context to that... which was done in the 1970s.

I find it slightly odd I get the mocking laugh emoji for stating a fact, that editing of texts has always happened for contemporary sensibilities - it has. I make no judgement about whether it should or not in that statement. FWIW my own view is that many of the edits are so inconsequential as to not be worth discussing. Some do change the meaning and are maybe heavy handed - and of course the point of Dahl has always been that he would challenge, write childrens books but not for children, allow the introduction of critical thinking rather than a safe, saccharine version of life... and that's why he was popular, so to remove that takes away some of that very essence - it ties into a debate about childrens' literature that's been going on not just for years, but centuries - what's appropriate for children to read.

But, it has always happened! Grimm fairy tales over the years have waxed and waned in their depiction of violence and misogyny after all!

Modern copies of Of Mice and Men still contain racist language, as do those of To Kill A Mockingbird. Both to reflect the contexts in which they were written.

Calling Augustus Gloop enormous instead of fat doesn’t serve much purpose.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Modern copies of Of Mice and Men still contain racist language, as do those of To Kill A Mockingbird. Both to reflect the contexts in which they were written.

Calling Augustus Gloop enormous instead of fat doesn’t serve much purpose.

Doesn't serve much purpose, but also not really worth discussing as it's so inconsequential as to be irrelevant. If you want to complain about some of the changes in the Witches however, and I'm with you all the way brother.

And often when texts become canon, rather than widely read as entertainment, is when they revert to how they were - the author becomes venerated as author, the sex and violence reappears in Malory, the Wife of Bath is allowed to become bawdy and sluttish, the casual racist is allowed a voice - when nobody reads Dahl for enjoyment, we'll be back to African pygmies before you know it.

As it happens, to stick To Kill a Mockingbird in there is disengenuous because of course its whole point is to critically challenge the convention, not to uncritically re-enforce the stereotype. That's why it's canon, after all!

And even that doesn't avoid censorship, even if it's nonsensical censorship: To Kill a Mockingbird removed from Virginia schools for racist language

If only they read it.

What exactly is a n—– lover?”

“It’s hard to explain. Ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody’s favoring Negroes over and above themselves. It’s slipped into usage with some people like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody.”

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

If you’re worried about this being a slippery slope towards a time when Shakespeare plays are routinely edited and updated, then I have some deeply upsetting news for you.

I'm not worried at all, but we live in times when a hyper sensitive minority seem to dictate what I can or can't have access to read in Roald Dahl books.
I don't read Shakespeare because I find the language difficult, but I don't demand it to be rewritten in modern language to accommodate my lack of understanding. I accept it for what it is even though certain aspects of it may "offend"
..However, this may be a slippery slope to rewriting anything that refers to any gender, race etc.
The term " boy" or " girl" may offend someone on the planet so should it be removed from all aspects of our language ? No. It's not a perfect world. Live with it.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Modern copies of Of Mice and Men still contain racist language, as do those of To Kill A Mockingbird. Both to reflect the contexts in which they were written.

Calling Augustus Gloop enormous instead of fat doesn’t serve much purpose.

It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[SBT]

I'm not worried at all, but we live in times when a hyper sensitive minority seem to dictate what I can or can't have access to read in Roald Dahl books.
I don't read Shakespeare because I find the language difficult, but I don't demand it to be rewritten in modern language to accommodate my lack of understanding. I accept it for what it is even though certain aspects of it may "offend"
..However, this may be a slippery slope to rewriting anything that refers to any gender, race etc.
The term " boy" or " girl" may offend someone on the planet so should it be removed from all aspects of our language ? No. It's not a perfect world. Live with it.

I don’t think they’re running around burning old editions of Matilda, you’ll be perfectly able to read the version you want.

I suppose you could impose some sort of rule that would prevent any work of fiction from ever being edited or updated. I’m just not that keen to restrict free speech like that.

 

[skybluetony176]

If you feel you have to put a warning on them somewhere saying at the time of writing some of the language was culturally acceptable then do but don’t rewrite them. They do something similar with Only Fools and Horses re-runs. It’s not acceptable today to refer to a corner shop in a manner it was regularly referred to in the 70’s and 80’s due to the owners origins for example, as Del Boy often does in Only Fools and Horses. Even though a lot of the owners were in fact from India not its neighbouring country.

For me it’s educational, it’s social commentary, it’s a measure of how far (the majority of us at least) have come in reshaping attitudes for the better. Writing out history is dangerous, whether that be a character’s name in a book or getting upset that the National Trust tells you where the money came from to build certain buildings, stately homes etc. Both left and right want to do it and it’s dangerous regardless of which “side” is doing it.