Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Roald Dahl books have been edited to remove the word "female" along with other edits.

374 replies

GoChasingWaterfalls · 19/02/2023 08:39

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

It's literary terrorism.

OP posts:
YukoandHiro · 21/02/2023 16:38

They're changing the word female (incel vibes) to woman (...fine).

YukoandHiro · 21/02/2023 16:39

I have problems with other changes FYI - but I don't understand why you've picked out the least problematic of the changes

Emotionalsupportviper · 21/02/2023 16:44

pollyhemlock · 21/02/2023 09:47

Roald Dahl wasn’t a very nice man. It’s fine to change the odd word here and there in older books. If you don’t want his books in your house that’s up to you. But wholesale rewriting makes the books not Dahl. It’s the weird and grotesque characters that children like. If you get rid of the gr

There're a lot of "not very nice" men in the world. A lot of "not very nice" women, too.

Does that mean that anyone has the right to enforce changes on their work?

NO!

If you don't like what Dahl has written (or Blyton, or anyone else for that matter) the WRITE YOUR OWN BOOK IN COMPETITION WITH THEM.

But you DON'T change theirs. That is not your right.

You have a right to disapprove, be offended, wish things were different . . . but you don't have a right to enforce changes and Bowdlerise them.

Emotionalsupportviper · 21/02/2023 16:52

beastlyslumber · 21/02/2023 13:11

Changing the odd word here and there must be fine , mustn’t it , because some words are now rightly totally unacceptable.

No. You shouldn't rewrite books because in doing so you're rewriting history. Books can be allowed to fall into obscurity, to be of interest only to academics or historians. But to rewrite books is to obscure their context and place in history. It's just not okay.

Agatha Christie is one example. But another example would be Mark Twain. His books for children use the N-word extensively. Because he is writing about racism. Same as To Kill a Mockingbird. If you take the racial epithets out of that book, you are not demonstrating what the problem was they were fighting against. You can't have an effective fictional book about racism without showing racism.

When I was a kid, I read all sorts of books with all sorts of words in them that were "totally unacceptable" then as they are now. But even as a child, I was able to understand the historical and cultural context and these books taught me a lot.

One question we haven't asked is, what is the purpose of removing "unacceptable" words from books? What is this achieving? It doesn't end racism, sexism, fatphobia etc (it might counterproductively cover those things up.) Coming across an "offensive" word in a book is an opportunity - to discuss, debate, deepen understanding, open a door into the past. What is the purpose of taking away this opportunity?

No. You shouldn't rewrite books because in doing so you're rewriting history. Books can be allowed to fall into obscurity, to be of interest only to academics or historians. But to rewrite books is to obscure their context and place in history. It's just not okay.

Thank you beastly. That is exactly right - and we are back to the adage "If you don't learn from history you are condemned to repeat it." If we alter the written word we can never discuss the implications of what has been written, the subtle nuances between choices of word ('female' vs 'woman' for example), that writers can choose words not just for meaning but for alliteration, cadence, emphasis etc especially when a book is likely to be read aloud.

Fairislefandango · 21/02/2023 17:27

They're changing the word female (incel vibes) to woman (...fine).

Or they're changing the word female (biologically factual) to woman (supposedly biologically ambiguous). Who knows what their motivation for that one was.

beastlyslumber · 21/02/2023 17:40

YukoandHiro · 21/02/2023 16:38

They're changing the word female (incel vibes) to woman (...fine).

It's not what he wrote.

Read the thread if you don't understand. It's been explained several times.

DemiColon · 21/02/2023 17:47

watchfulwishes · 21/02/2023 07:07

Quite a lot of children's literature now is very bland and beige.
I don't think this is any worse than ever. Children have access to so much literature, some is definitely light/formulaic but there are books galore for kids covering all sorts of issues.

A lot of literature we read in the past was pretty bland in topic really. We presumably just felt more comfortable with it because we were the target audience.

It's been a long time since I've seen a picture book which I thought had a really great story. And I work in a library.

I don't think it's the same.

EsmaCannonball · 21/02/2023 17:49

A few second-rate authors have said they see no problem with this. In the unlikely event that their works are still in print 30 years after their deaths, I wonder if they would be happy for them to be rewritten to reflect the prevailing ideology of the time, whatever that may be, or the commercial demands of the time?

DemiColon · 21/02/2023 17:58

beastlyslumber · 21/02/2023 13:11

Changing the odd word here and there must be fine , mustn’t it , because some words are now rightly totally unacceptable.

No. You shouldn't rewrite books because in doing so you're rewriting history. Books can be allowed to fall into obscurity, to be of interest only to academics or historians. But to rewrite books is to obscure their context and place in history. It's just not okay.

Agatha Christie is one example. But another example would be Mark Twain. His books for children use the N-word extensively. Because he is writing about racism. Same as To Kill a Mockingbird. If you take the racial epithets out of that book, you are not demonstrating what the problem was they were fighting against. You can't have an effective fictional book about racism without showing racism.

When I was a kid, I read all sorts of books with all sorts of words in them that were "totally unacceptable" then as they are now. But even as a child, I was able to understand the historical and cultural context and these books taught me a lot.

One question we haven't asked is, what is the purpose of removing "unacceptable" words from books? What is this achieving? It doesn't end racism, sexism, fatphobia etc (it might counterproductively cover those things up.) Coming across an "offensive" word in a book is an opportunity - to discuss, debate, deepen understanding, open a door into the past. What is the purpose of taking away this opportunity?

There is a deeper question here about what offensive language really is. At the moment there is this sense in the culture, or at least the progressive side, that it is something that is deeply traumatizing, equivalent to real violence. The other view, still found among some, particularly in my experience more wc people, is that while words can be used to offend, they aren't inherently hurtful or damaging. And that's not just white wc people, in my experience the split follows pretty much the same lines among black people, and I suspect it might be similar with other groups.

From what I can tell from talking to people it actually comes down to a somewhat different attitude towards language.

I also found John McWhorter's book on swearing, Nine Naughty Words, interesting on this topic too. He doesn't address it directly, but thinking about how people relate to swear words of different kinds adds some useful context.

Brokendaughter · 21/02/2023 18:21

Dahl cared enough about the particular words he wrote that he had rows with his editors about them when they were being written/published.

They should be left to stand or fall on their own merit.

My instant response to hearing that was to take our copies out of the charity shop box, pack them up to put in the attic so that any grandchildren I have don't have to endure the abominations that are the modern versions of classics including Dahl.

There are good writers for children nowadays, but just as there were few books good enough to become classics in the past, the majority of the current crop are rubbish too.
Very few are likely to still be known in fifty or a hundred years time.

Most of the classics have been dumbed down, or 'cleaned up' to the point they are pale shadows of themselves & not worth reading.

Is it any surprise when you wrap a child in cotton wool, never letting them read anything that might shock them or cause them to think (which was written at a time when it was acceptable) that they arrive at Uni & jump into harmful cancel culture behaviour?

Children do need to be challenged.
They know the world is not fair & that bad things happen, or that not every person is lovely.
They don't need to be shielded from opposing views at every turn.
They can disagree with what is written or said & should learn the skills to do so.
You can't do that if you never hear more than the party line.

They can learn (just as kids learned years back) to read words with more than two syllables, or about attitudes people used to have without the distastefully sanitised trash that passes as sensitivity reader approved drivel.

Children need to be told not to use particular words which now have different meanings.
They have to hear the word to know what not to say, especially when e.g. nowadays it is common for some of those words to be frequently used in music, but only allowed for certain sections of the population without getting in trouble.
They shouldn't be limited to just the words their parents & peer group use, so they need guidance on what is acceptable or not, along with the skills to learn a broader vocabulary than is being plated up for them.

Sensitivity readers are a stain on society.
They make the film Idiocracy look more like a snapshot from the future than the not actually all that good film it was.

Funny how they don't seem to have an issue with VAWG.
There are entire genres based on murdering mostly women, but apparently that's fine.

This makes me so angry.
Leave the talented Mr Dahls work alone & if you don't appreciate his stories, there are plenty of other books you can read where you won't ever have to think, or come up against an idea you don't agree with.

Sensitivity readers are leeches, sucking on the talent of a deceased man to do this.

LouDeLou · 21/02/2023 20:39

‪For me, the appeal of RD was that it WAS irreverent…Augustus was FAT AND GREEDY, you didn’t want to end up like him! And Trunchbull was all the worse because she was a woman, if it’d been a man it wouldn’t have been so bad (as rough behaviour is expected from men). By changing female to woman, we’re buying into “transing” that character.

If the books are offensive as they are, people will stop buying them and they’ll die a natural death.

Until then, let a 10 year old giggle at the image of nanny getting electrocuted!

Moomoola · 21/02/2023 22:59

Emotionalsupportviper · 21/02/2023 16:52

No. You shouldn't rewrite books because in doing so you're rewriting history. Books can be allowed to fall into obscurity, to be of interest only to academics or historians. But to rewrite books is to obscure their context and place in history. It's just not okay.

Thank you beastly. That is exactly right - and we are back to the adage "If you don't learn from history you are condemned to repeat it." If we alter the written word we can never discuss the implications of what has been written, the subtle nuances between choices of word ('female' vs 'woman' for example), that writers can choose words not just for meaning but for alliteration, cadence, emphasis etc especially when a book is likely to be read aloud.

This.

Margot78 · 22/02/2023 00:01

Dahl never patronised his readers, he trusted children to be able to deal with his spiky humour and dark themes. What a shame that publishers have such a narrow view of children’s minds. How can we study how literature reflects the way society has evolved if we keep doctoring older books? It seems Orwell was right when he predicted a society where “history has stopped.
Nothing exists except an endless present”.

Emotionalsupportviper · 22/02/2023 07:23

Exactly, @Margot78

Transparent2 · 22/02/2023 10:38

In 1857, R M Ballantyne’s children’s book The Coral Island was published. It’s about three teenage lads marooned on an uninhabited pacific island. Eventually they are discovered by cannibals. In the original version, missionaries conveniently turn up and convert the cannibals to Christianity. In the version I read, the Royal Navy conveniently turn up and rescue the lads by virtue of their superior firepower. I really don’t see that the changed version is any less problematic. Both have a vibe of backward natives needing to be dealt with by superior Englishmen.

peanutbuttertoasty · 22/02/2023 10:55

How long before Trunchbull gets transed? She's not very pretty and feminine is she?

beastlyslumber · 22/02/2023 11:09

peanutbuttertoasty · 22/02/2023 10:55

How long before Trunchbull gets transed? She's not very pretty and feminine is she?

Well I guess they might say she's a transman. But they would never claim her as a tw for exactly the reasons you describe.

InMySpareTime · 22/02/2023 11:11

There have already been attempts to claim Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment as Trans.

DadJoke · 22/02/2023 11:37

In Enid Blyton, the golliwogs - an inherently racist trope - were replaced with goblins so that modern kids can enjoy them. In the Famous Five, references to George "never being as good as a boy" and having "boy's hair," plus Anne suggesting that boys could never wear dresses were edited out.

Blyton's book about an bad black doll who is washed pink the rain is no longer available, and some xenophobic references to inherently bad ethnic characters adjusted.

The original versions are still available for literary historians and the curious. Oh, and unrepetant bigots who can still read them to their children.

This is simply more of the same. Using "females" as a noun outside of certain contexts is what incels and MRAs do.

CandlelightGlow · 22/02/2023 11:40

InMySpareTime · 22/02/2023 11:11

There have already been attempts to claim Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment as Trans.

In what way?

People will always interpret literature subjectively and relate their own experiences to stories and characters that resonate with them.

It's not in the same ballpark as actually physically rewriting the book, unless that's what you mean is happening?

ChristinaXYZ · 22/02/2023 11:46

plumduck · 19/02/2023 08:46

References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.

What's wrong with that?

I think they have done it because female might be said to exclude transwomen whereas for those who believe "transwomen are women" the word "woman" as they try to use it will include transwomen.

So changing it is very wrong because a) the basic priniciple that authors' words should not be messed about with regarding this word or any other and b) whilst it appears an innocuous change it is in fact a very political one and is part of the policing of language for political reasons.

InMySpareTime · 22/02/2023 11:48

@CandlelightGlow trans lobby groups have claimed that the Monstrous Regiment are all Transmen because they dress and act as male soldiers and adopt male names.
Pointing out that the plot is literally about them all knowing that they are female, and that they only pretend to be men because women are not allowed in the army is apparently transphobic.

CandlelightGlow · 22/02/2023 11:50

InMySpareTime · 22/02/2023 11:48

@CandlelightGlow trans lobby groups have claimed that the Monstrous Regiment are all Transmen because they dress and act as male soldiers and adopt male names.
Pointing out that the plot is literally about them all knowing that they are female, and that they only pretend to be men because women are not allowed in the army is apparently transphobic.

They're not rewriting the book then? They can think what they like really can't they, if the narrative doesn't say that then it's just an interpretation, no more or less valid than anyone else's. Sounds a pretty regressive if you ask me, but it's not rewriting.

CandlelightGlow · 22/02/2023 11:54

ChristinaXYZ · 22/02/2023 11:46

I think they have done it because female might be said to exclude transwomen whereas for those who believe "transwomen are women" the word "woman" as they try to use it will include transwomen.

So changing it is very wrong because a) the basic priniciple that authors' words should not be messed about with regarding this word or any other and b) whilst it appears an innocuous change it is in fact a very political one and is part of the policing of language for political reasons.

Some are saying the change from female to woman is because its dehumanising to women so it's good to change it, and some people say the reasons is it's excluding trans women so it's bad to change it. I don't really get it the latter.

I just don't think it's good to rewrite books. Sensitivity reading, I see why modern writers might want to use it, but I don't think it's right to change books that have already been published, read, and contextualised by society in past eras.

ChristinaXYZ · 22/02/2023 11:57

DadJoke · 22/02/2023 11:37

In Enid Blyton, the golliwogs - an inherently racist trope - were replaced with goblins so that modern kids can enjoy them. In the Famous Five, references to George "never being as good as a boy" and having "boy's hair," plus Anne suggesting that boys could never wear dresses were edited out.

Blyton's book about an bad black doll who is washed pink the rain is no longer available, and some xenophobic references to inherently bad ethnic characters adjusted.

The original versions are still available for literary historians and the curious. Oh, and unrepetant bigots who can still read them to their children.

This is simply more of the same. Using "females" as a noun outside of certain contexts is what incels and MRAs do.

Seriously partronising - and missing the point.

And you do know that goblins can be considered racist too? And you've been reading them to your kids? Perhaps some would consider you an 'unrepentant bigot' too. Keep up! Keep up! if you're fully signed up to woke langauge you'll need to be constantly on it you know ... can't leave anything to chance ... what was ok last week, indeed 10 minutes ago, will get you cancelled now!

Or you could use your brain - read the originals with your kids and explain about language changing and attitudes in the past and use the whole thing to deepen their understanding of the world. This will not only help their reading but also their study of history and English when they get to secondary school.

You do need an understanding though to do this ...