Bastardising Ronald Dahl

[Pasithean]

Is it not really wrong to change his descriptions in his books as reported in the guardian today. I’m so cross that people think they can change the classics

Yes as someone who is reading Roald Dahl to my 6 year old and also am bald as a coot thanks to cancer treatment i dont mind this at all.

I get really annoyed by the updates to the Famous Five and Secret Seven because they're both crap and unnecessary. There's no reason the kids have to say "You bet!" which sounds silly even now, or for them to wear jeans. By all means remove the racism and corporal punishment, but please, leave them still set in the original time!

I agree with this. I had to eBay the original Malory Towers books because only the new editions are available now. Bloody ridiculous when you can buy things like Taming of the Shrew

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/20/roald-dahl-books-rewrites-criticism-language-altered

I loved Roald Dahl's books as a child, and bought several of them for my daughters a decade or so ago. I've just had a good read of the changes, and think that some of them are justified, e.g. anything racist, sexist or derogatory about people's appearances. RD was a right git by all accounts, and racist too (many people were back then). The rest of the changes (gender neutral oompa-loompas; removal of any references to being crazy/ daft etc... not so much! Agree that children should be educated about the rights and wrongs of historical writings/ behaviour, so we should be teaching them why some terms are no longer acceptable.

Some of the examples on that Twitter thread are just really odd. Why remove “double chin” as a symbol of physical ugliness, but leave “stick out teeth” and “crooked nose”?

Personally it is my view that the only alterations to a body of work should be done by the author themselves. It's bastardisation and where does it end?

The tortoise thing is also ridiculous. I applaud the removal of sexist and racist language (it would be even better to include an editor's note explaining why) but some of the changes go too far and seem arbitrary.

Tbf, the language the arrogant, bullying misogynist used in his books is the least we should be taking umbrage at.

Exactly this. I don't think anyone would argue that the books aren't problematic in some ways, but they represent attitudes from the past and to simply brush over all that is to risk repeating it.

And some of the changes are just fucking weird:

"The word “black” was removed from the description of the terrible tractors in 1970s The Fabulous Mr Fox. The machines are now simply “murderous, brutal-looking monsters”.

WTAF?

😂😂😂

I’m trying to stifle a laugh at this sat in a hospital waiting room 😭😭😭😭

😂

The machined were both black. They were murderous-looking monsters

Your reaction to removing the first line and keeping the second is “wtaf”

When i first saw the post, my reaction was ‘meh’.
From many of the posts on here, it’s clear that they’ve made the right decision. Apart from removing problematic descriptors for children, it seems to be encouraging a much-needed conversation. Every time ignorance is addressed and learning occurs towards empathy and inclusion, I think it’s a good thing.

I know my DC will enjoy the book as much, without the undertones of barbarism, etc being used to describe black people.

Pp mentioned David Walliams. What’s his excuse? I can’t believe the stereotypical rubbish he writes. Maybe it’s Little Britain for kids.

When we know better, we should do better. That’s what they’re doing here

I have an edition of a well-known classic that says at the beginning:

‘In this book are some expressions and depictions of prejudices that were commonplace in British society at the time it was written. These prejudices were wrong then and are wrong today. We are printing the novel as it was originally published because to make changes would be the same as pretending these prejudices never existed.’

That seems to cover it well and a child is capable of understanding that. Why can’t they just do that?!

Another daft interference 🙄

I wish folks would leave literature and art etc to remind us all what we are standing against, how far we have come (or not) in how we treat others, why we have a responsibility to be kinder/more accepting/less derogatory etc and most importantly defy

And most children whilst they enjoy the books, know better than to go around calling others flabby etc. With the exception of those who are mean and would always find a way to be.

As for David Walliams...! Totally agree that someone needs to tackle him over his racist, ageist, stereotypical (not to mention shite) children's books. I'm not sure how he's been allowed to print that rubbish.

If they want to provide a 'modern version' I suppose they can.

It would only be a travesty if they attempt to rewrite history and ban/stop printing the originals.

Sanitising and rewriting history, including literature, is always a bad thing.

It was ever thus. Even if you look at the Bible that has been updated in its various versions over the years.

They are machines. Painted black. I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that it's problematic to describe an inanimate object as black?

Because if so, down that path utter madness lies.

And you are incorrect about encouraging a "much needed conversation". Airbrushing the rough edges off history, culture and literature and pretending bad things didn't happen is doing the exact opposite of that. We can't learn from our mistakes if we just pretend they didn't happen.

I’d rather just ban it to be honest, The Lord of the Rings holds some terrible stereotypes against people of colour that are just not acceptable in this day and age.

It's horrifying. There are some genuinely dark and disturbing works out there - Lolita, the sex scenes in 1984, well, pretty much any classical work of literature is not sunshine and roses, which is what makes it so ''triggering'' and so key for capturing the full complexity and reach and flaws of the human condition.

But because Dahl is passed off as ''Children's Literature'', it can be airbrushed and tweaked - many of the edits not actually making much sense at all - and all the publisher thinks they need to do is stick a disclaimer on the dustjacket.

All of literature will be next and we should be extremely worried.

This was an item on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, with the author Philip Pullman and someone whose name I didn't catch.

Very interesting conversation: that the 'spikiness' in Dahl's books was what kids liked about them and Pullman said if the books were so problematic then he'd be happy for them to fade into obscurity and would encourage kids to read contemporary children's authors instead (and reeled off about 12 names). He said it's in the copyright owner's interests to keep the books current and not let them fade.

The last point interested me: a quick Google tells me that Netflix owns the rights to Dahl's works, and Hachette to Enid Blyton's. While we might think of the works as 'just' stories that we read as kids and want to pass on to the next generation, they are in fact commercial products that these companies have invested in. They don't want the works to become dated and lose their customer appeal, they want (need) to adapt them to maintain their acceptability by society's changing standards so that they can continue to profit from them.

They will never print the unedited originals again because that publisher owns the Dahl brand, and how could they now go backwards from what they have started? So should the original works of Dahl and other authors only ever be found furtively hidden in second-hand bookshops? Perhaps there will be a secret code to ask for them under this new literary sensitivity prohibition.

Netflix owns the tv/film production side of things (hence the Matilda film), but surely Penguin own the print publishing.