Apparently the BFG's coat is no longer black.

malificent7 · 2023-02-22T06:09:04+00:00

Roald Dahl's books have been edited to be more PC. Some of his references are offensive but they have removed "white as a sheet" and " black coat" from the BFG. aibu to think that these contexts are not offensive? If my trainers are black, it it offensive to call them black, or if white, can I call them such in the modern age? I am white so have not suffered the indignity of racism.

MrsTerryPratchett · 22/02/2023 06:11

Linky?

ChessieFL · 22/02/2023 06:14

There’s already been lots of threads on this.

Gwdihooooo · 22/02/2023 06:19

I’d be Interested to know this from a black person’s perspective… I’m where and live in the arse end of nowhere with very little multicultural presence.

CowboyHat · 22/02/2023 06:26

His coat is black because it means he’s less visible when he goes out at night. It’s ridiculous to change it.

I also can’t get offended by a white person being described as “white as a sheet” when they are shocked or scared.

Original poster

malificent7 · 22/02/2023 06:29

I do like the change from "fat" to "enormous" though. Funnier imo...but now i'm probably " enourmous" shaming.

OP posts:

PotKettel · 22/02/2023 06:33

It’s pretty common for editors to tinker with books for young children to extend their shelf life amongst families today. Same done with Enid Blyton etc.

We are trying to bring up our kids reading books that show how we want them to speak/think. I agree it is better to avoid overly simplistic imagery that equates blackness with being bad. Editors are stripping out certain words that could encourage name-calling and fat-shaming too. A “baddie” may be skinny or fat, black or white but in most traditional kids books the hero has a regular body type and is typically white. It isn’t explicit on the page, but undertones can give a strong impression of the author’s bias and as an adult reading books aloud to kids I would often edit out bits as I read to tone down the way something was presented.

These books are aimed at little kids who may not be ready to encounter ideas that they need to think critically about.

As a kid I found a lot of Roald Dahl’s stories pretty unsettling and unpleasant, and I have to say I get a similar vibe off David Williams in some of the exaggerated presentation of characters in the name of getting a laugh.

Both are authors I would probably steer my kids away from.

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 22/02/2023 07:28

Are you sure this is true?
Are these terms offensive?
The reasoning behind these changes may not so black and white.

Gwdihooooo · 22/02/2023 12:14

malificent7 · 22/02/2023 06:29

I do like the change from "fat" to "enormous" though. Funnier imo...but now i'm probably " enourmous" shaming.

What i find daft is the woman on jeremy vine was arguing that if a child called a woman on the bus fat it would be negative and not very nice, which is why it’s been changed to enormous!… But surely bring cake enormous is just as negative?!

Gwdihooooo · 22/02/2023 12:16

PotKettel · 22/02/2023 06:33

It’s pretty common for editors to tinker with books for young children to extend their shelf life amongst families today. Same done with Enid Blyton etc.

We are trying to bring up our kids reading books that show how we want them to speak/think. I agree it is better to avoid overly simplistic imagery that equates blackness with being bad. Editors are stripping out certain words that could encourage name-calling and fat-shaming too. A “baddie” may be skinny or fat, black or white but in most traditional kids books the hero has a regular body type and is typically white. It isn’t explicit on the page, but undertones can give a strong impression of the author’s bias and as an adult reading books aloud to kids I would often edit out bits as I read to tone down the way something was presented.

These books are aimed at little kids who may not be ready to encounter ideas that they need to think critically about.

As a kid I found a lot of Roald Dahl’s stories pretty unsettling and unpleasant, and I have to say I get a similar vibe off David Williams in some of the exaggerated presentation of characters in the name of getting a laugh.

Both are authors I would probably steer my kids away from.

So would you say that roald dahls books have had a negative impact on you as an adult? Do you struggle to know what to say and what not to say in certain situations because you read those books as a child?

GoBackToTheLibraryWhereYouBelong · 22/02/2023 12:42

I'm hardline on this. "Sensitivity reader" is a job title that should not exist. Let writers write. Editing is a process that should happen as a dialogue with the author before publication. Once the book is published and the author is happy to put their name to it, it should not then be tampered with.

As readers, the entire extent of our part in this is the choice to buy or not to buy, to read or not to read, to recommend or not to recommend. That's it.

It's actually outrageous that some anonymous, officious little nobodies can take a red pen to works of an author who, like him or not, is one of the most successful and beloved ever.

user1492757084 · 22/02/2023 12:52

You are not unreasonable. No one should be changing one word of an authors' book. It is so disrespectful. If people don't like the way a story is written then don't read it.

petermaddog · 22/02/2023 13:07

laughingsquid.com/the-original-folk-and-fairy-tales-of-the-brothers-grimm/

been doing for centurys

Justforlaffs · 22/02/2023 13:11

It's actually outrageous that some anonymous, officious little nobodies can take a red pen to works of an author who, like him or not, is one of the most successful and beloved ever.

This. I don’t understand how they can even get away with it? Aren’t his stories still owned by members of the family, why don’t they put a stop to it?

”white as a sheet” and the BFg wearing a black coat are offensive how? I really don’t get it?

SammyScrounge · 22/02/2023 13:11

GoBackToTheLibraryWhereYouBelong · 22/02/2023 12:42

I'm hardline on this. "Sensitivity reader" is a job title that should not exist. Let writers write. Editing is a process that should happen as a dialogue with the author before publication. Once the book is published and the author is happy to put their name to it, it should not then be tampered with.

As readers, the entire extent of our part in this is the choice to buy or not to buy, to read or not to read, to recommend or not to recommend. That's it.

It's actually outrageous that some anonymous, officious little nobodies can take a red pen to works of an author who, like him or not, is one of the most successful and beloved ever.

Well said!

MrsMitford3 · 22/02/2023 13:15

GoBackToTheLibraryWhereYouBelong · 22/02/2023 12:42

I'm hardline on this. "Sensitivity reader" is a job title that should not exist. Let writers write. Editing is a process that should happen as a dialogue with the author before publication. Once the book is published and the author is happy to put their name to it, it should not then be tampered with.

As readers, the entire extent of our part in this is the choice to buy or not to buy, to read or not to read, to recommend or not to recommend. That's it.

It's actually outrageous that some anonymous, officious little nobodies can take a red pen to works of an author who, like him or not, is one of the most successful and beloved ever.

100% this!!!!!

This reeks of censoring-what's next?
Book burnings?

Bluebellbike · 22/02/2023 13:17

I was taught as a child to describe a person without referring to skin colour. For example "the girl in the white dress" not "the black girl".
Would it now be offensive to say "girl" or "white" to describe?

PeekAtYou · 22/02/2023 13:17

I assumed black coat was camouflage at night. Black clothing is a common stereotype for criminal/shifty types in fiction and real life.

I agree that enormous is hardly a more acceptable version of fat.

Justforlaffs · 22/02/2023 13:21

Bluebellbike · 22/02/2023 13:17

I was taught as a child to describe a person without referring to skin colour. For example "the girl in the white dress" not "the black girl".
Would it now be offensive to say "girl" or "white" to describe?

But even this is a bit crazy to me.

If you are describing someone why shouldn’t that include the colour of their hair/skin? Why is that offensive? I’m sure the vast majority of non-white people are proud of their skin tone or at the very least totally unbothered.

This smacks of some kind of “white saviour” mentality, swooping in and meddling with things that don’t need to be meddled with for woke credentials.

CornflakesOnTheSolesOfHerShoes · 22/02/2023 13:29

Bluebellbike · 22/02/2023 13:17

I was taught as a child to describe a person without referring to skin colour. For example "the girl in the white dress" not "the black girl".
Would it now be offensive to say "girl" or "white" to describe?

I don’t like David Walliams, but there was a recurring sketch in Little Britain that was quite perceptive about how awkward this can be- eg tying yourself up in knots to avoid referring to the ethnicity of the only person from that ethnic background in the workplace/school. “Oh you know Julie…wears trousers, great sense of humour, makes good tea…”

ohfook · 22/02/2023 13:32

The people that insist baa baa black sheep is offensive, remove words like black from books, suggest we ask for coffee with or without milk and believe blackboards were removed from classrooms because of racial connotations and who ask for Christmas to be renamed winterval, are never ever black people who believe it or not have far more rational thoughts on how to address societal racism than editing the word black out of every childrens book.

They are invariably jobsworths who have brainstormed (sorry thought-showered) ideas without speaking to one actual black person or they are newspaper reporters trying to stir up a bit of 'pc brigade/woke millennial' culture war.