Roald Dahl

56 replies

Hijinks75 · 18/02/2023 19:15

I just read an article about Dahl's books being “rewritten “ to remove offensive language, e.g. fat in Charlie and the chocolate factory, making the oompa lump as gender neutral, changing fantastic mr foxes sons to daughters and numerous other things, am I alone in finding this more offensive than leaving the books as they are

OP posts:

Saschka · 20/02/2023 00:39

Bluebellbike · 19/02/2023 20:50

I can understand the need to change offensive words.

However the article also says:
"References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.

Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and The Giant Peach have become Cloud-People."
Surely that isn't necessary?

Pretty much the only people I hear referring to women as “females” (as in “I work with two females”, or “she was a formidable female”) are Incels. It’s dehumanising.

Possibly didn’t have the same connotations in the 1970s, but it comes across as very misogynistic now.

GatoradeMeBitch · 20/02/2023 00:39

They have removed "crazy" but not "nutty"... Seems kind of random.

One of Dahl’s most popular lines from The Twits is: “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams.” It has been edited to take out the “double chin”.

Sooner or later someone with crooked teeth will complain, and they will need to do another reprint.

fluffylampbear · 20/02/2023 08:37

I seriously hope nobody buys this!

MaybeSmaller · 20/02/2023 10:12

Saschka · 20/02/2023 00:39

Pretty much the only people I hear referring to women as “females” (as in “I work with two females”, or “she was a formidable female”) are Incels. It’s dehumanising.

Possibly didn’t have the same connotations in the 1970s, but it comes across as very misogynistic now.

Show quote history

I assume Dahl only used 'female' here for alliteration purposes, though ('formidable female'). He wasn't some sort of proto-incel.

To keep the alliteration, you'd have to change it to something like 'wonderful woman', but then that's greetings-card-tier blandness that I'm sure Dahl would have cringed at.

One of the changes that bothers me is in Matilda, where references to Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling have been changed to Jane Austen and John Steinbeck respectively. These are all great authors, but why change Dahl's words here? Are Conrad and Kipling now considered so problematic by publishers that they can't even be mentioned in passing in a children's book?

SamSueGreggs · 21/02/2023 09:40

This is absolutely insane. These are children's books that have been beloved for decades. I won't be buying the new versions for my two little ones. Of course language changes over time and terms that were acceptable once are not longer accepted. But seriously, what's going to be targeted next? Shakespeare? It's such a silly argument.

KP29 · 04/10/2023 11:43

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Flip

1 2 3