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

@JoonT What a superb post. I completely agree. Why do people think that figures from the past should have been saints instead of human beings? Roald Dahl had faults but also strengths. He helped to teach his wife to speak again after a massive stroke. He invented a medical device after the death of his beloved child. I have yet to meet a perfect human being.

And anyway, works of art are not synonymous with their creators. We should grow up and accept that attitudes and beliefs change rather than start 'correcting' and - frightening idea - banning things from the past that we don't like. Talk about them and their problem aspects as a way to learn from our shared past.

I think it's a good thing for children's books to stop connecting people's physical attractiveness to their moral character. Not every beautiful person is good, and being bad doesn't make someone ugly. People shouldn't be described as beautiful or ugly at all.

The BBC has quoted what Philip Pullman said on Radio 4 this morning:

His Dark Materials author Philip Pullman told BBC Radio 4 that Dahl's books "should be allowed to fade away" rather than be changed if they are deemed offensive.

"If Dahl offends us, let him go out of print," said Pullman. "Read all these [other] wonderful authors who are writing today, who don't get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64702224

The rights-holders don't want people to stop buying the books/films/TV programmes/stage shows/merchandise - they want to keep the brands alive to continue profiting from them.

I agree with Pullman.

Would be lovely. Walliams books are absolute cack. But the publishing juggernaut has declared him to be the premier kids' author and it doesn't look like he'll be supplanted any time soon.

I think it's a good thing for children's books to stop connecting people's physical attractiveness to their moral character. Not every beautiful person is good, and being bad doesn't make someone ugly. People shouldn't be described as beautiful or ugly at all

Then new ones should be written, and people who wish to create a very sanitised environment free from the context of the past can purchase those instead.

I think I’ve still got the full set of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five in my attic, as well as probably dozens of her other books. Don’t know why I kept them really, as I stopped reading them!

Strangely, I can still remember (decades later) an extract from one of the Famous Five books, that started me thinking differently about them. The extract had the children talking about how awful someone was, because they cut thick slices of bread, instead of thin slices! 10 year old me liked thick slices of bread, so thought this was snobby! Because of realising the children were definitely portrayed as snobby and upper class, I decided I no longer liked the books! I stopped reading them and they were packed up and put in the attic.

They did not come out for my own children to read, so perhaps a bonfire is needed, or just put into my recycling bin!

A lot of the classism in Enid Blyton would go right over the heads of modern children. It went over mine as a child, but even more so now!

Funnily enough, one of her recurring plots was a snob getting their comeuppance. Gwendoline rebuffing the Honourable Clarissa Carter, Angela and Prudence insulting Carlotta for being a circus girl, Arabella keeping her money from the School Box. And Ellen trying to cheat in the exams because she was so worried about losing her place at Malory Towers when her parents couldn't really afford to send her.

This is one of the funniest replies I've ever seen on here.

I'm surprised at the racism accusations against Roald Dahl. I remember him standing up for a black man who was assaulted by the police in 1988. I can only find this article about it, though:

garryjenkins.co.uk/2021/07/07/the-giants-last-stand/

He was openly antisemitic and the Oompa Loompas were an overtly racist creation initially (he rewrote them).

It doesn't mean he loved racism in all forms, no matter what. People are complicated, especially when they're wrong.

Haha this made me laugh! I also don’t remember Oompa Loompa gender being significant! I have a vague memory of the chief possibly being a he- maybe he is now a they? Or was that just in the film when Willy wonka goes to the Oompa Loompa land and meets the chief?!

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

I agree with you (although maybe a better example would have been making Gone With The Wind more multicultural or cutting out the references to slavery altogether). This is how it starts. Someone finds something offensive but it's just one little change so it doesn't matter. Then someone else wants something changed, and there's already a precedent been set so...

Don't read it if you don't like, or explain it to your children when you're reading the book or don't buy the book in the first place. Better still, write your own book that reflects your views and current thinking but leave the original one alone.

To be fair there was a lot of opposition to Gone With the Wind when it was first published, So it's not as though that one is only problematic in retrospect.

John and the Giant Apricot 😂

Philip Pullman got it right. Nobody has to read Dahl, not children, not adults. Editing his books is a waste of time.

Dahl has the morality of his time. The majority of his children's books are about children beating the cruelties of the adult world, and its oppression of the imagination. That's why they are so popular. Children understand and appreciate the morality. Dahl gets that better than most children's writers ever will.

His adult books are similar and far more critical. Those too are excellent.

His adult books are essentially the same! Just with more adult themes and tone. Even the "adult" adult stuff is along the same lines.

@ReneBumsWombats - yes I am big fan. He skewers everybody. His adult collections, Kiss Kiss and Henry Sugar are terrific.

Dahl was excellent at dealing with the grubbiness of certain human beings. His books should not "be kind". They were never intended to be.

That's why he did that silly ending to Henry Sugar and even called him Sugar. Sickly sweet, to make fun of everyone who told him to write sweeter stories.

@ReneBumsWombats - yes they are dark stories. I also liked "Lamb to the Slaughter". Economical, accurate on human nature, paints a perfect picture of a patrician England, and a very good twist.

That's a great one, although you can see it coming!

I love The Swan.

😂Thank you for a much needed laugh!

Am I right in thinking the changes are made by his estate, as the copyright holders? If so, they can do what they want.

Yes the Swan is very good on the cruelty of bullies and children. This is why in part Dahl should not be censored. Sugary stories aren't remembered.

No one will bother to censor Gangsta Granny.

No leave the originals alone.

Just buy your children different books. There’s plenty of others.