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

But pretty much everybody in human history was ghastly and dreadful in some way. Every book and author and historic figure could be cancelled for something. Aristotle believed in slavery, and argued that women were inferior to men. Plato wanted a fascist state. Dante puts Muhammed into Hell in the Divine Comedy. Gandhi slept with underage girls and thought Africans were inferior. Martin Luther King visited prostitutes while married. Hemingway was a vile bully and liar who picked fights and was cruel to animals. George Orwell was a misogynist who indulges rape fantasies in his novels.

Maybe we ought to investigate the private lives of the men who built the Taj Mahal or Durham Cathedral. Something tells me their attitudes to women, or people who didn't share their religious beliefs, would have been pretty unpleasant. Should we knock them down? Greek and Roman civilization was built on slavery, so maybe we ought to bin the whole of ancient philosophy and literature while we're at it.

Also, who's to say our behaviour today won't disgust and shock people in 200 years time. Maybe novelists writing today who eat meat will be cancelled in the year 2300, because the whole of society will be militantly vegetarian.

When you make a friend, you don't like every single thing about them, or agree with every single one of their beliefs. It's the same with figures from the past.

As for removing the word 'black' from the description of the tractors, it might be an attempt to avoid the connotation of the colour black (or maybe just the word 'black') with bad, malevolent things, eg witches dressed in black.

Although if that's the case, perhaps it's time to reclaim the word 'black' solely for the colour black and not for people who have brown, not black, skin colour? Which now makes me wonder if other languages use 'black' to describe people or is it just in the English language?

The Dahl estate will own it

The Dahl estate will own it

Nope - Netflix has those rights too:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58648566.amp

I think that Netflix have bought the copyrights to all of them from the heirs to the dahl estate. For half a billion pounds. So they can do what they please.

penguin will hold the publishing rights but presumably agreed to publish this new version. Probably because they see tons more material coming down the pipeline as Netflix thoroughly exploit the rights and want to remain the publisher of choice.

I’ve read some of the edits again and again and whilst some of them I see the obvious offence (though I still disagree entirely with the changes) others I just can’t get. I mean all of these from Esio Trot are unnecessary and pointless edits, but particularly the first 2.

Why does it matter that most of the tortoises came from North Africa? And we already know the story has been set in England so why add a random reference to the UK instead of ‘the country’?

Publishers don't usually own the copyright, it's owned by the author (or their estate, after they die).

In Dahl's case, the rights were owned by The Roald Dahl Story Company, which Netflix bought (the whole company) in 2021. The amount they paid wasn't disclosed but this article says the The Roald Dahl Story Company's turnover (filed in 2020) was £26 million.

variety.com/2022/biz/news/netflix-roald-dah-story-company-revenue-1235147022/

It's big business. “New TV productions and feature films are important to introduce new generations to the stories of Roald Dahl.” No wonder they want to sanitise the books - they want to keep their products alive and profitable. It's all about the $$$.

Dammit! One of the things I liked about Mrs Silver was that she was middle aged and attractive, as middle aged women are often assumed to be. It didn't say she was slim or blonde or anything to exclude anyone from attractiveness, just that she was attractive!

/s/often assumed NOT to be.

This was mentioned on R4 today, I think it’s a likely a factor.

Yanbu op the rewriting has taken some of the writing and made it bland, dull and awful in some cases.

Did the Oompa Loompas have a sex? Been a long time since reading the books but I don't recall memtion of it. So it was either not mentioned or totally unimportant. So makes no difference. Unless I skipped the chapter on Oompa Loompa dating.

I don't understand the twits change at all .I thought the entire point of the book was that their ugliness reflected their bad inner core of personality? And that anyone who was good on the inside was automatically not ugly??

I did find the entire esio trot book was bizarre. I read it with dd and we discussed the odd behaviour of the neighbour and how he really should be arrested for stalking and voyeurism.

Yes, but the other versions were still available. I’m off to ebay.

I love Ronald Dahl. The Twats was a masterpiece.

The one bit I do agree with is that they've added an explainer to The Witches, saying that women might wear wigs for all sorts of reasons, not just because they're witches in disguise. That's a positive change

It's not the authors words though. What else do we change to be "positive"? Maybe get the red pen out and rewrite American Psycho to make Patrick Bateman a philanthropist who works with women on the streets?

Eh history is rewritten all the time! New evidence, new perspectives, new emphases - it’s not a fixed narrative!
this on the Dahl rights holders who basically want to ensure their ‘product’ keeps selling

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

I actually think it's racist af to look at the word black in the context of a colour descriptor, associate it with people and airbrush it.

This actually had me in a complete wrinkle. 🤣 brilliant response.

I think if we really wanted to be super pc about it Roald Dahl would have been cancelled for being openly antisemitic. I think it's one of those things where kids can be exposed to certain things but it's up to the parent/ teacher etc to reflect a little on why certain things aren't OK to say. I think his books have an air of the mischievous about them and it would be fairly easy to be reading with your child and say oh that's a little cheeky etc or open up conversations about why some people might look a bit different to others etc and that it doesn't mean they're a witch but it's what the witches in this particular book happen to look like. Same as you'd challenge any stereotypes really. In a way I think it gives an opportunity for us to teach children to read and think critically rather than just absorbing everything as correct. I do think they were right to edit anything relating to racism though because you also want the books to feel accessible to any child reading it. And ultimately I think it's the parents and teachers who make the decision on what they want their kids to be reading at the appropriate age. So if Roald Dahl isn't what feels right then don't have those books out on offer. I was a little surprised at mathildas changes- the entire point is that the adults in her life are abusive and untrustworthy (something many kids identify with in real life) and she spoke out against them and listened to her gut on who was a trusted adult. That's a really good message and I don't think I'd have edited it.

Can you please elaborate on this, @SandraCumin? I don’t remember any ‘people of colour’ in those books

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

Yes let's ban all books that don't exactly conform to today's social standards, and live in a weird, context-free bubble with zero understanding of the social history, changes and events that have brought us here. Sounds super healthy.

Why is Mrs Silver no longer attractive but still middle-aged? Perhaps I find that term offensive and prefer it to be air-brushed out.

Things should not be edited by anyone other than the author. Add a caveat to say it contains terms not acceptable in today's society and leave it to people's personal judgement. Or don't print them, like we don't see re-runs of "It Ain't Half Hot Mum".

Surely if it's edited that much, it's no longer "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" written by Roald Dahl. More inspired by Roald Dahl and edited by the Penguin Sensitivity Team.

Not into this at all. Maybe print both versions, updated for those who like the idea of the edits and original for those who don't. And changing the Famous Five so that they're wearing jeans and Dick and Fanny becoming Rick and Franny, is just pointless nonsense. Not everything a child reads needs to be completely relatable.

Let’s deal with David Walliams first who could change some of his dire writing before it hits the shelves in the first place. Or better still, just put him out to pasture.

Looking forward to the powers that be addressing misogyny and homophobia in The Bible next!

I think the Church of England are currently re writing the New Testament 😂

No, because that actually ruins the entire premise.

A line explaining that not all ladies who wear wigs are witches is no different to the line in George's Marvellous Medicine about how most grandmothers are nice. Dahl probably had more experience of grandmothers than female hair loss, so the latter wouldn't have been on his radar.

I guess the book has also lost the line about there being something indecent about a bald woman. It doesn't change anything significant if so.