Roald Dahl books being censored by publisher

[woolfe9998]

Oh brother, it's the next "Dr. Suess" controversy. I'm sure we'll he hearing about this one on Fucker soon enough. He'll probably spend an entire week on it. And it's kind of bad.

Roald Dahl is the British novelist who wrote, among other things, Charlie and Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach. He died in 1990. His publisher has decided to censor his books, by editing out or altering words like"fat"or "ugly." Also, edited out the use of the words black and white to describe...anything. And many other things.

Changes to Roald Dahl's classic children's books spark censorship spat

The news that changes have been made to the works of best-selling children's author Roald Dahl has been met with anger from leading writers, including Booker prizewinner Salman Rushdie, who branded the changes "absurd censorship."

www.cnn.com

These revisions have been worked on by "sensitivity readers" from an organization called Inclusive Minds, which describes itself as "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion, diversity, equality and accessibility in children's literature, and are committed to changing the face of children's books."
In a lengthy report published on Saturday, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph revealed that it had found hundreds of changes across the author's many children's books. Close analysis by its journalists revealed that language relating to gender, race, weight, mental health and violence had been cut or rewritten. This included removing words such as "fat" and "ugly," as well as descriptions using the colors black and white.
Journalists working on the piece found 59 changes in "The Witches" alone, with hundreds more discovered in Dahl's other popular books, such as "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Matilda."

Pretty horrid idea in my opinion, to stealth edit works of literature by authors who can't object because they're deceased. Fans of Dahl are pissed, for obvious reasons.

And it gives more fodder to the far right. This kind of shit needs to be squashed. The far right is using stuff like this to overturn democracy. Next to that, the petty concerns of these authoritarian do gooders with their "senstivity" to anything and everything are less than trivial.

Oh, and you can say this is more of a British story, but that doesn't matter to the far right. To them a liberal is a liberal anywhere you find them, and what one is doing in one place they expect the others to do elsewhere.

 

[IronWing]

I, for one, look forward to the newly edited Heinlein and Glen Cook novels.

 

[rommelrommel]

That is very stupid.

 

[interchange]

Censorship means being inclusive now. How fun.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

wait til they get to the Brothers Grimm…

 

[IronWing]

wait til they get to the Brothers Grimm…

The Reader's Digest Condensed Grimm's Fairy Tales:
Never trust short people.

 

[brycejones]

This is just dumb.

 

[allisolm]

That is very stupid.

Sorry but "stupid" is not an approved word.

That is very stupid not intelectually superior average smart since everyone is equally smart.

 

[alien42]

I loved Roald Dahl as a child but also recognize that he was a shitty person. Cultural norms and what's acceptable changes over time, get over it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I loved Roald Dahl as a child but also recognize that he was a shitty person. Cultural norms and what's acceptable changes over time, get over it.

Yes cultural norms change. That doesn't mean we change existing literature to go along with it. And it doesn't matter if Dahl was a shitty person. Should we edit/censor/remove the works of everyone who was a shitty person? Who gets to decide who was shitty enough?

 

[nakedfrog]

Who was even asking for this?

 

[Brainonska511]

Who was even asking for this?

Probably some misguided view from the estate, to keep the books relevant and purchased for the current generation of children.

But if anything, instead of using these altered books for school children, just find other works that don't have such problematic writing for modern sensibilities. It's not like there is a dearth of literature to choose from.

 

[alien42]

Yes cultural norms change. That doesn't mean we change existing literature to go along with it. And it doesn't matter if Dahl was a shitty person. Should we edit/censor/remove the works of everyone who was a shitty person? Who gets to decide who was shitty enough?

The publisher makes those decisions based on what makes them more money. Isn't this ultimately capitalism at work?

 

[rommelrommel]

The publisher makes those decisions based on what makes them more money. Isn't this ultimately capitalism at work?

They obviously can. However from a social standpoint the value in altering books to save theoretical feelings is certainly debatable.

 

[woolfe9998]

They obviously can. However from a social standpoint the value in altering books to save theoretical feelings is certainly debatable.

Yes, and the most basic point is, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I have my doubts that this would even help their bottom line. They had to know the flak they would take, and if they didn't foresee it, then they don't know what they're doing. I mean, it isn't just fans. It's authors like Salmon Rushdie and even the Prime Minister of the UK coming out against it. Since it should have been obvious they would get crapped on for it, and probably lose more business than whatever they hoped to gain, I think the motivation had to do with personal politics, not profit.

 

[WelshBloke]

Who was even asking for this?

I mean the Dhal estate has just agreed a deal with netflix. Not saying that's why this has happened but...

 

[Amused]

Um, before the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie came out in 1971 considerable changes had been made to the book. Primarily the oompa loompas were originally black African pigmies. This was changed to the orange people we know now.

 

[woolfe9998]

Um, before the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie came out in 1971 considerable changes had been made to the book. Primarily the oompa loompas were originally black African pigmies. This was changed to the orange people we know now.

I read the book in the mid 70's as a child, and I recall the black African pigmies because it wasn't like in the movie I had already seen. I also recall that the pigmies ate smashed green worms until Wonka introduced them to cocoa beans.

Are you sure changes were made to the book itself? Anyway, even if so, it would have been with the author's permission at the point.

 

[Moonbeam]

The fascinating thing about reading books full of the bigotry of the past, in my opinion, when a young person actually notices the inequity his or her current cultural evolution reveals about the past. The importance of that, in my opinion again, is that if one can see how the past contained injustices that were acceptable and unnoticed, those unconscious unexamined assumptions, it can cause a person to wonder what of his own time will become a barbaric attitude at some future date. Such musings can lead to a revelation that the assumptions ordinary people hold as gospel in their heads may actually be so much bull shit.

I'm sure there are cultural forces at play that would not like such questioning to arise even if it is something small like not wanting patronymic or avonymic associations with a bigot.

 

[Amused]

I read the book in the mid 70's as a child, and I recall the black African pigmies because it wasn't like in the movie I had already seen. I also recall that the pigmies ate smashed green worms until Wonka introduced them to cocoa beans.

Are you sure changes were made to the book itself? Anyway, even if so, it would have been with the author's permission at the point.

I'm not sure when the book was changed, but the changes were made for the movie. Maybe you had an earlier printing?

 

[mikeymikec]

The original text of 'The Twits':

I'm wondering if those responsible for the revisions missed the freaking point that the author made. I'd say the original text is pretty wholesome and the kind of message that I'd want to convey to my kids: ugliness is not about appearance. I'm not even sure one could write 'The Twits' if you want to avoid the topic of ugliness.

If the publisher thought this was a good idea, why not just publish an additional 'sensitive version' for people who actually want this. This kind of thing already exists, like simplified / toned-down versions of James Bond novels, the Bible, etc.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the original artist decided to revise their work because they acknowledge its shortcomings / dated / problematic content, but continuing to put the artist's name on a piece of art when it's been revised without their permission seems wrong to me.

It's been a long time since I read Roald Dahl and I wasn't a prolific reader of his books back in the day, but 'The Twits' was definitely one I read, as well as the autobiographies 'Boy' and 'Going Solo', neither of which I remember having particularly problematic content.

One point though - 'The Daily Telegraph' is basically a right-wing rag for those who think they're better than 'The Daily Mail' readers. Not quite so on-the-nose as TDM, but just as much BS and hate with (generally) better penmanship. I say 'generally' because Boris Johnson is (or maybe just was) a regular writer for them. Having said that, TDT has occasionally done some decent investigative journalism, AFAIK TDM never has.

 

[HomerJS]

It's their books. Why not just make the changes and eliminate the announcements. Would have desired effects with far less blowback.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's their books.

I'd be pretty surprised to learn that Puffin had sole ownership over Roald Dahl's work. Usually there's an estate of such a big-name author that has overall authority AFAIK.

 

[Perknose]

Can't wait for "them" to revise the Bible! And take out all that sex and violence.

 

[mikeymikec]

Can't wait for "them" to revise the Bible! And take out all that sex and violence.

You mean that specific kind of revision... because the Bible has been revised millions of times already across a multitude of versions, across a multitude of languages, across millennia

I liked this bit in Dogma: