50 Books Challenge 2023 Part Three

[Southeastdweller]

Welcome to the third thread of the 50 Books Challenge for this year.

The challenge is to read fifty books (or more!) in 2023, though reading fifty isn't mandatory. Any type of book can count, it’s not too late to join, and please try to let us all know your thoughts on what you've read.

The first thread of the year is here and the second one here.

RD has a real tendency to equate being physically unattractive (and, by implication at least, having a disability) with being an unpleasant person.

In The Twits he writes: 'A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. 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 and you will always look lovely.'

So it's not so much that being physically unattractive makes you an unpleasant person; it's more the other way round.

I haven’t really waded in on the Dahl debate, largely because I haven’t ever read him, but I did see quite a few of the changes made and they seem to me to be more than slight. For example, this (not sure this image will load correctly but they've taken out Conrad and Kipling and replaced them with Jane Austen and John Steinbeck)

Are these authors considered ‘problematic' for young readers now? Do we just erase them? I don’t know but it troubles me.

Should have added - yes, there’s a debate to be had, obviously, about colonialism. But do we just deal with that by making those authors disappear? They existed, they wrote, they were significant in their times. They had tremendous cultural significance. And Dahl put them in his books - you can’t just pretend they didn’t exist and replace them with two writers who (I presume) are on the current exam syllabus.

Lots of schools have 'cancelled' Steinbeck from their curriculum - they've (imho) assumed that his books are racist, because some characters are racist. I find the cancel thing very problematic.

These authors could certainly be considered ‘problematic', for young – or any – readers; but yes, the idea of erasing them troubles me too.
One wonders whether the new ones are any 'better'. Jane Austen could be accused of being parochial, narrow, a snob. John Steinbeck wrote about grinding poverty but grew up with household staff, stayed in the best hotels and was supposedly a womaniser. And tried to avoid paying child support after his divorce.
Who gets to decide whether that is more acceptable than Kipling's colonial mindset or Conrad being a racist?

Gove pretty much cancelled Steinbeck, to be fair (for different reasons). This got OMAM moved down the age groups and I, for one, would never teach it before year 10. I also oce had a black student very very eloquently explain to me how hearing people use the n word repeatedly whilst he was in the 'safety' of a lesson made him feel , and I revised my views. It is a wonderful book, but it is hugely problematic on disability, women and race

I actually hate Dahl - - I find the books hard to read aloud and hard for children to read.

I am afraid I am team edit but not up for the row as I find it stressful!I am very bored of everything facially disfigured, black, unattractive , fat as being evil. Facial disfigurement is (Wonder aside) presented so badly in children's literature.

I will say , though, people (including the Time literature editor) who say they want to keep the 'originals' for their DCs probably don't mean the actual deeply racist original CATCF which Dahl himself edited. I was listening to the edited Friday I'm In Love in the car earlier. It's still a great tune. If the DT hadn't highlighted these changes for their own agenda , literally no one would have noticed, I reckon. I know that's potentially a whole other argument against it.

Also , Netflix are buying the rights. This is actually Capitalism driving this not really the Woke liberal left...

Weird African language is an example of a rewrite I approve of.

Btw the sensitivity editors have done loads of books and work with several modern authors. Why the DT fuss about Dahl?

One of their ringing endorsements on their website is from one Quentin Blake!!

On TOCS tread we are pondering how we feel about Quilp's dwarfism.
You could rewrite it and remove tis element of him. He'd still be deeply deeply sinister.

I'm not liking the book as much because it troubles me. I'm an adult so I'll be fine!

Really interesting points @Piggywaspushed , I completely agree. Including on OMAM which I absolutely don't think is a straightforwardly anti-racist text. I was at secondary school in the early 2000s but even then, looking back, I don't think I studied anything about race which wasn't by a white man. I worked out a few years ago that I didn't even study a book by a woman. I'd like to think the curriculum has moved on. That's a digression from Roald Dahl though!

I'm a little baffled by replacing Conrad and Kipling with Steinbeck and Austen but maybe it's just intended to reflect the kind of books children will go on to read at school these days?

I'm guessing the change in authors is more likely because they think children are less likely to have heard of Kipling & Conrad? or perhaps because they don't want to inflict Conrad on anyone regardless of age?

And it's just not true that beautiful people are never unpleasant, is it. Too many women I know have suffered under outwardly charming attractive men for me to find that any more helpful

am very bored of everything facially disfigured, black, unattractive , fat as being evil.
That's a bit of a misreading of Dahl, IMO, as I mentioned earlier with ref to The Twits.

I said this on another thread; sorry to bang on, but: it's also a misreading/lack of proper thinking, IMO, behind the change of Miss Trunchbull from being a 'formidable female' to a 'formidable woman'; the word is used deliberately a) for alliteration (do we want children to stop learning about and recognising literary devices?) and b) to get across that she's scary and formidable because she's more like a female animal than a human/woman. Specific and deliberate choice of words: something else that surely we want children to continue to learn about?

I agree (again, said on another thread; apologies) about the rights/capitalism; some Dr Seuss books are no longer being printed in the US because of the same issue and I think other publishers/authors' estates are running scared of the same thing happening to them.

On sensitivity editing in modern books, do you mean pre-printing/publication? That's a bit different. We're operating now with different and better knowledge and awareness of things like race, abilities etc. I don't mean to say that 'he was of his time' is an excuse for some of Dahl's characters and choices; but it is a reason for them.
I haven't read David Walliams, but I know from here and elsewhere that he is considered problematic by some people and I know some of the reasons why. Given the cultural context he's writing in, I would argue that he should know better. I don't think the same argument can be applied to someone like Dahl.

I think the Dahl thing has caused a fuss partly because he's widely accepted as a classic/canonical author. I tend to agree with the position that his work should be left to stand, but read and discussed with an awareness of the issues and the context.

Not had time to read this yet in full but I very much doubt Dahl sat thinking 'I must use alliteration so children can learn it' in all honesty! I hate 'female'. I always correct students who use it to talk about women!

My comment about disfigurement and ugliness was a general one, rather than just about dahl, It's everywhere. There was an awareness campaign about this recently.

I remember reading this article
www.buro247.com/culture/life/the-witches-remake-disfigurement written by Jen Campbell who is a writer & booktuber, on the disfigurement representation in the recent film of Dahl's The Witches. Makes for a very interesting and disturbing read. Clearly no thought was given to how people with disabilities would feel.

Never is... sigh.

I don't disagree on the general principle. My point is just that I don't think, going by the text itself, Dahl is coming at it from the other way round; that being an unpleasant person makes you physically unattractive.

I didn't say, and I don't think, Dahl thought 'I must use alliteration so children can learn it.' I said I think we want children to learn about and recognise literary devices. I'm sure you can see the distinction.

And I can't speak for Dahl, obviously, but as an editor who works closely with authors I can say with some confidence that in general authors very much do spend a lot of time thinking about the specific words and devices they use. An author taking the opportunity to use alliteration is really not a wild idea.

I love Dahl (as a child and with my own children) which I'm sure influences my opinion, but there are lots of really good points here (on both sides) that I hadn't really considered. So I'm glad a posted my (deleted) comment in order to hear the arguments. Thanks all - food for thought.

I don’t have school-age children so I didn’t know Steinbeck had gone from the curriculum in many schools. But Piggy you’ve incidentally reminded me I need to catch up with TOCS, so thank you!

I mean look at Disney.whqt do all the woman look like.then look at their opposite villains.
Look at storylines- always the fat best friend( the comedy character.
So is it hoe society and culture deems looks,size,,colour etc and links it to worth,success,nice,accepted etc

You are welcome!

I am going to pop this link here for anyone who is interested in the really fascinating research and work by the 'I Am Not Your Villain' campaign form Changing Faces.

www.changingfaces.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/i-am-not-your-villian/

It's really fascinating.

And this is a great article (actually about 'The Witches'! Disneyfied)

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-witches-limb-difference_uk_5fa5868ac5b623bfac4f1005