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

[GoChasingWaterfalls]

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

It's literary terrorism.

This makes me really sad. As a child I read all kinds of books and the differences in descriptions, vocabulary and references taught me so much about the world. I read Huckleberry Finn, which contains the N word, for example, and it taught me that racism is evil and stupid.

I can't believe that people are defending writing over old books (and yes, it is exactly equivalent to painting over old paintings) because there are words in them that they don't like. It makes me feel very afraid.

Yes like when in the past roman statues had the penises broken off etc as it was thought immodest. But now we see that was wrong which gives me hope this is a phase.

Yes.

It was the party's final command.

I'm angry about the edit because I refuse to accept that the word "female" is offensive, but I do agree with you on this point.

The original Mallory Towers books have been abridged to clean up the language used, but they are still books that celebrate some horrible bullies and are awful about girls who aren't sporty or show their emotions.

Yes I agree with this. From the estate's POV they need a bit of sanitising to stop people ditching them altogether.

Realistically, very few parents will ditch a book because it has the word "female" in it.

The entire plot is often driven by social ideas that just aren’t ok by contemporary standards.

Like what? What do you mean, "driven by social ideas"? Which "social ideas"? How are his plots driven by these ideas? Give an example, please.

It’s not merely calling people fat and ugly

Is that what you think Roald Dahl's books are all about? Have you ever read any of his books? From what you've written here, it doesn't sound like it.

Bought box set of 16 Roald Dahl last night because of this (have children in the family who'll be if an age for these stories,who are being raised with the intent if giving them enough critical thinking that they can place anything off in there context of the time, but still enjoy the good bits: you know,like I thought grown ups were meant to be able to do) . After reading this,just bought the c s Lewis Narina box set for exactly the same reasons. It's memory holing,and cultural ignorance to changes others work,let alone well loved and established works that have had cultural impact.

It’s not the word it’s the act of this. Once it’s accepted widely this will be terrifying. Why do people want to erase the past?

Hmm I read Blyton's Five go to Smuggler's Top recently, where there is a boy called "Darkie" due to his colouring. I assumed he was black, it was only when I read that his sister had blonde hair I realised he was probably a white kid with black hair. It doesn't make sense to a modern reader but it did spark a conversation with my son about how attitudes have changed and why we don't give people nicknames based on their appearance.

I think it might be justified to make changes in kids books though it sounds like in the Dahl case they've gone a bit too far.

We must go out and buy up all the old paper copies of children's books before they're all bastardised in this way. They must be kept safely. And they must be kept as the author wrote them. Not because 'female' is better or worse than using 'woman' or vice versa, but simply because that is the word the author chose.

'Sensitivity readers' do not exist. They are censors.

It does seem very silly (and self-indulgent) to be making these changes. The cynical part of me sees this as attention-seeking and a very easy way to create work for a talentless group of people.

When my children read my original Enid Blyton's, I used it as a discussion base. Some of her writing (tiny proportions of the overall story), taken out of historical context, is problematic. However, they are a product of their time, with the social/class norms of that time. We discussed those elements, why the author might have used that description and why it isn't acceptable now. Eldest (now a young adult) gets very angry at these changes, she says they make the stories anodyne and paper over why authors have written in that way.

I believe this has helped my children understand authors can be flawed people. In child appropriate ways we ended up discussing racism, class issues, and feminism - amongst other things. Surely it is more helpful to teach our children to recognise these elements and critique them - rather than produce a new version pretending they never existed?

Sanitising?

That's such a sinister word. They're not dirty. They don't need sanitising.

And you're wrong. People will ditch sanitised books because they are shallow and patronising. People want to be told a story that feels true, not to be preached to about what is right and wrong. That goes double for children.

I find your attitude completely abhorrent and illiterate.

Sanitising history. Hmm that sounds like a great plan!

What could go wrong?!

Yeah let's rewrite novels and history. It'll be fine. Trust me!

'The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.

– George Orwell

1984. Appendix.

This is incredibly bad. The writing has gone from story book, sharp and rhythmic to PowerPoint level.

I was thinking about him too. I confess to not having read any of his books as my kids aren’t that age yet but I am aware many teachers dislike his work because of the offensive stereotypes in them. And he doesn’t even have the excuse that times have changed!

Yes. And good idea. No point buying them on kindle because amazon will be able to reach in and 'update' your books.

@Beamur would we say the same if people were trying to alter work like Shakespeare or the Brontë sisters? No we wouldn’t because they are historical pieces of literature. I see that in books like Roald Dahl. I can see why people are upset. We don’t change things written in the past to suit our modern day narrative.

I read this change differently - I think they’re trying to avoid that dehumanising way that certain (often older, golf club bore-type) men talk about women as females.

That said, I’m completely against it and all the changes. If you want a writer who’s “nice” and never spiky or judgemental or liable to offend, maybe don’t read Dahl.

I said 'from the estate's POV' because commercially the books are going to become increasingly problematic in terms of income generation.

I am not personally that concerned about language change in stories, but the use of the word 'sanitising' was not a compliment.

The estate's interest =/= my interests.

Try not to get so aggressive, you know nothing about me. It is better to not be so personal.

'Sanitising ' books makes a chill go down my spine.

What’s the issue with the word female btw?

You should be concerned because once that road is built we are in trouble.