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

I also get irritated by old children’s books being updated to decimal currency. Shillings were just as archaic to kids in the 80s and 90s but we coped fine with the concept of books being written/set in different times and learned something in the process.

I think if you find a book very offensive you should probably not read it. There are other books. If I’m being honest I imagine the edits are to make sure they can still be sold. I mean who would stock original Enid Blyton on the bookshelves happily (as an ethnic minority I feel this quite keenly so I’m not being dismissive of racism in books).

Children love dark books, I know I did. Sanitising books just removes some of the joy kids get from reading. As a parent my job is teach my child about context, nuance, shifting mores, help them to develop moral character. It’s not to make sure they never encounter difficult subjects or experience conflict about artists vs their work.

I find it hard to get worked up by this. Language evolves, society evolves. I loved the Roald Dahl books, but there are some elements of the books that I’m not sure I’d want my kids saying to others in a classroom. If he was writing the stories today, he’d probably not have used some of the language he used - same with Enid Blyton books. Keep the stories, and update the language. The originals will always be available online and in second hand shops, and without the update some parents might be put off sharing such great stories with their children. That would be much sadder that a few tweaks.

Pleasantville

Keep the stories, and update the language

I did To Kill A Mockingbird for English Lit when I was in school. I seem to remember it makes use of the n-word. Would you advocate removing that word for school texts? What about if they removed all the references to colour in it altogether?

I don't think that's a good example, because it's made very clear that the word is unacceptable. Atticus even tells Scout not to use it.

Yeah, that annoys me. There's a case to be made for removing content that's offensive, like racism, but shillings and farthings?

I have stick out teeth and I'd much prefer a double chin. At least of I wanted to lose weight I could very easily but I'd have to pay thousands to fix my teeth and that's why they still stick out!
It's very ridiculous.
(disclaimer I had a double chin after baby so I know I'd prefer that)

Bloody ridiculous.

But then so are disabled toilets and our woke local authority bureaucrats never deign to change that and other similar idiocies.

that's so funny, I read the 2 quotes and imagined completely different women.

Yes! I have crooked teeth too, which I can’t afford to get fixed. But that passage has never bothered me (and I’ve read it many times, because my children LOVE The Twits), because I appreciate the sentiment that character is more important than looks.
It makes me wonder if the edit was done by some sort of algorithm, programmed to remove references to being fat. Because if an actual person has removed the double chin bit, they’ve failed to grasp what RD is saying in that passage, and if they’ve equated it with “body shaming” why not remove it all together?

I must say if I were a famous author and someone changed my work after I died… I would haunt the hell out of them (if that’s possible) 😂

Exactly.

To give an example, the new bowdlerised version of Malory Towers has taken out the bit where Darrell slaps Gwen but left in the rest of the plot. The rest of the plot now makes no sense - everyone's reaction to Darrell having "scolded" Gwen seems wildly over the top and the arc Darrell is on where she learns to control her temper loses so much of it's resonance.

I understand what a PP was saying about Heyer but what do you do with, say, Tess of the D'Urbervilles then? Jane Austen is pretty sexist too and there is some serious victim blaming when Lydia is groomed at 15 by a child trafficker... Where does it end? I would much rather leave it all alone and then people can make their own choices

the new bowdlerised version of Malory Towers has taken out the bit where Darrell slaps Gwen but left in the rest of the plot. The rest of the plot now makes no sense - everyone's reaction to Darrell having "scolded" Gwen seems wildly over the top and the arc Darrell is on where she learns to control her temper loses so much of it's resonance.

Oh ffs. Blyton is very problematic for many reasons and Darrell Rivers is a twat, but that entire story was about how wrong Darrell was to slap Gwen rather than rescue Mary-Lou and tell Gwen off. And you're right, it would make no sense, especially since Katherine immediately rebukes Darrell too!

Did they leave in the bit in a later book (fourth form, I think) where she grabs and shakes June? She loses head girl status for that, won't make any sense if she only snaps at her.

Insulating children from the world's cruelty is doing them a huge disservice.

Also, valuable teachable moments are lost when everything gets sanitised. I despair at how soft everyone has become.

I think if you find a book very offensive you should probably not read it. There are other books. If I’m being honest I imagine the edits are to make sure they can still be sold.
No doubt.

Some people seem to think this is nefarious ‘woke’ scheme when, in reality, it’s just the publisher/copyrightholder trying to boost (presumably, flagging) sales.

When you are immersed in a book, your mind is in contact with another mind. Somebody who died 500 years ago can be inside your head, using language in their own way, revealing their deepest thoughts about life, etc. It’s incredible. It really is a miracle. And the book is the absolute core of civilisation. The first step on the road to barbarism is an attack on the canon, and an attempt to control what people read.

Think of it like this. Imagine your friend writes you a long letter, but the postman opens that letter, gets his red pen, and re-writes the bits he dislikes. Imagine how furious you’d be. Well that is what’s happened here. And this is just the beginning. It won’t stop with Roald Dahl. How long before they are chopping bits out of Pride and Prejudice, or Great Expectations, or Wuthering Heights, or Sons and Lovers?? How long before bookshops refuse to stock them altogether? They already promote certain books over others - putting them on stands, turning them to face the customer, etc.

Are Authors allowed to decree that their work is not allowed to be changed after their death? Because I can see a lot of them doing that from this point forwards.

And this is just the beginning. It won’t stop with Roald Dahl. How long before they are chopping bits out of Pride and Prejudice, or Great Expectations, or Wuthering Heights, or Sons and Lovers?? How long before bookshops refuse to stock them altogether? They already promote certain books over others - putting them on stands, turning them to face the customer, etc.
Well this is just where art and business collide, isn’t it?

Unless it’s due to poor sales, I don’t imagine many book shops refusing to stock many books, and that is quite far removed from what’s happening here.

The company that owns the right to the stories and the company that publishes them have made the changes in the hope that it will enable them to sell more books.

It’s cynical but that’s the world we live in.

Based on the voting criteria here they’ve misjudged.

As a teenager I particularly liked to very old books from all kinds of ages and times int he library as they gave me such insight into the past and the views in the past. Luckily words are so powerful that even if the RD books are censored it is going to be very hard to expunge all of mankind's past so I think it will all be okay.

The bible and shakespeare at still available uncensored. The Little House on the Prairie books have not been purged as yet which I found a very good description of attitudes of the time when I read them (there is even a 13 year old of which the narrator talks who is married and going to have baby and the way the author writes about that in a time when it was not illegal always interested me even as a teenager myself). it really does help people understand the past to see the views people had over time. I used to like Roman and Greek stuff too (in translation) and also the wonderful gruesome fairy tales of children eaten and kept in cages - much more interesting to read to chidlren night after night than later banal stuff.

the wonderful gruesome fairy tales of children eaten and kept in cages - much more interesting to read to chidlren night after night than later banal stuff.

I probably wouldn't read the "getting eaten" stuff to them at bedtime!

Why not? Hansel and Gretal was always a favourite here and the witch ends up in the oven!