to think Roald Dahl's 'Revolting Rhymes' should be banned?

[SquareholeRoundpeg]

I know Dahl is a national treasure and children love a bit of gore and all that - but DH and I were shocked at some of the language used in some of the stories (it is not easy to shock DH!)

There is a line in the Cinderella story where the prince says of Cinderella, 'who is this dirty slut'. Had to pause on that part when reading to DS!

The language in the story shows how deeply engrained misogynistic attitudes are, and continue to be carried through in our children's literature.

How can this be allowed?!!!

This from the start of a Warner Bros film, should explain it. In fact, slut was never used perjoratively. But it's about historical context.

Ok so you all think I'm being unreasonable in not relaxing with reading these kinds of words with a child at such a young age.

I think we will agree to disagree!

Yeah. Burn the books.

Now you can go back to raking through your pile of children's books with a big black marker pen scribbling out all words and phrases you consider to be suspect.

Ok you bunch of sluts

Not me...I've had a bath today

My house is immaculate, ta.

Then don't read revolting rhymes with a 6 year old, in fact don't read anything you are not comfortable with.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.

I mean just look at some of the stuff in the bible..

Neither of my kids have ever used the word slut or asked what it means despite reading revolting rhymes over and over

Kids don't hear things the way adults do. A bit like changing the three little pigs so the wolf doesn't eat one and two

I live roald Dahl- he literally defined my childhood as a reader!

Incidentally, have just finished a biography of him , he had the most astonishing life and it's just as fantastical as his stories. He was by no means an easy man to encounter but a fascinating one nonetheless. it's well worth the read!

YAButterlyU and I think deep down you know it

Hmm...
I read that to my DSs a little while back and I must admit I did change the word slut to something else, I can't remember what now though. Purely because I didn't want them using the word. I don't know why though, because we live in a mining/iron works area and where the old washeries are, there's loads of slag (beautiful blue coloured rock), a waste product of the iron works. My children know what slag is in that context, and I didn't think twice about explaining what it was to them. So I should really have just used the word slut and explained what it meant in the context.

I see no reason to ban or edit any books, but if parents want to edit as they read then so be it.

Replace it with something that rhymes and it will be fine. Don't stress about it.
I used to read Just William Stories to my DS and he loved them, but due to the old fashioned language I changed words to the more modern type or explained what was being said so he could understand. I agree that 6 is too young to explain slut to! We all can agree to differ on what our children read or hear.

What's wrong with Esio Trot?!?!

Beware the very frightening (for parents) story "the swan" in the Henry Sugar book. Some people wanted that banned because it had alarming parallels to something unspeakably nasty.

That was always one of my favourites when I was young :)

I like using the word slut in it's old fashioned context.

Censoring books, rewriting classic books, talk of banning books? Scary talk IMO.

OP please think again about this viewpoint.

You didn't know what it meant did you op?

Mine love Ronald Dahl. Ds is 6 and can read them himself so I can hardly censor.

Mind you mine love the abc book Gashlycrumb Tinies by Edward Gorey, has anyone else read it? It makes abc learning far less monotonous. Il see if I can find it

YAB massively U for reading it to him at 6. The joy of the book is discovering the subversive nature of the revelling of the stories that have been read to you over and over again surely?!

Reveiling? Retelling.

Edward Gorey is awesome!

Oh here it is, a nice bedtime poem

A is for Amy who fell down the stairs.
B is for Basil assaulted by bears.
C is for Clair who wasted away.
D is for Desmond thrown out of the sleigh.
E is for Ernest who choked on a peach.
F is for Fanny, sucked dry by a leech.
G is for George, smothered under a rug.
H is for Hector, done in by a thug.
I is for Ida who drowned in the lake.
J is for James who took lye, by mistake.
K is for Kate who was struck with an axe.
L is for Leo who swallowed some tacks.
M is for Maud who was swept out to sea.
N is for Nevil who died of ennui.
O is for Olive, run through with an awl.
P is for Prue, trampled flat in a brawl.
Q is for Quinton who sank in a mire.
R is for Rhoda, consumed by a fire.
S is for Susan who perished of fits.
T is for Titas who blew into bits.
U is for Una who slipped down a drain.
V is for Victor, squashed under a train.
W is for Winie, embedded in ice.
X is for Xerxes, devoured by mice.
Y is for Yoric whose head was bashed in.
Z is for Zilla who drank too much gin.

I used to love Roald Dahl children's books when I was little but now my children are the right age for them I'm disappointed to find I don't really get on with them so much. There seems to be so much judginess (the whole of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory feels like a series of bizarre humiliating punishments for types of children who have annoyed the author; this kind of very critical stuff comes up against children in lots of contexts; and of course women - classically, the two nasty aunts in James and the Giant Peach are both hideous and vile, one because too fat and the other too thin - a fantastic example of how females just can't win when a caricaturing, male, confidently privileged author is going for it) - and it all feels a bit grim and hokey.

In the 30 years between me and my children being the right age, Dahl has definitley become "heritage" rather than "fresh" and I'm glad about that - glad that enough has changed and developed, and emotional and aesthetic range in children's literature has become more subtle and sophisticated and richer - that the Dahl feels spiky and dull and old fashioned. I am not necessarily glad about it in the sense that I think it deserves a permanent place in the canon.

Of course at one time it was the only remotely subversive thing that children could get hold of to read, which I think is a huge part of its popularity at one time.