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.

"formidible female" isn't just alliterative in the simple sense. You get the whole first syllable involved, and that keeps the shape of the mouth the same and also leads to a similar stress pattern which you do not get with woman. Dahl's word is the choice of a poet, these people's is not. They have cloth ears like the people who rewrite hymns.

Personally I do find female used as a noun offensive

Can you say more on why (I don’t watch Star Trek but am interested)

This is very strange tbh. It makes me feel a little uneasy.

I don't actually like a lot of the language and messages in Roald Dahl's books, which is why I won't read them to my children. I think if you don't like a book for whatever reason, just don't read it. Surely it isn't right to change an author's words, posthumously, to make it agreeable? It sets an uncomfortable precedent imo.

The change from 'female' to 'woman' doesn't bother me at all on a gender/related ideological level, I suppose. But it's not what the author intended, and PP have made good points imo that there may have been specific reasons that Dahl chose "female".

Of all the things in Roald Dahl texts that could or should be changed, this is certainly one of the least offensive.

I don't actually like a lot of the language and messages in Roald Dahl's books, which is why I won't read them to my children. I think if you don't like a book for whatever reason, just don't read it. Surely it isn't right to change an author's words, posthumously, to make it agreeable? It sets an uncomfortable precedent imo.

Roald Dahl is one of my favourite writers of all time. But he is not at all agreeable. And if you don't like his kids' books, definitely steer clear of the ones he wrote for adults! He is a master stylist, a master of suspense, cruel and witty and incredibly satisfying. Very few contemporary children's writers come anywhere near his level of talent. And as a pp said, growing up in a somewhat abusive household, Dahl was a beacon of sense and justice. He was on my side. He was always on the child's side, and I actually think that's why some adults dislike the messages in his book. Because the message is actually, "adults are not necessarily always good, they can be bad people who do bad things, but cleverness, independence, and humour can defeat them."

But I totally agree with your approach as the only sane one. If you don't like his books, then don't read them. Anything else is totalitarian.

None of them should be changed.

If you take offence at a children's story, that's your right, but it's all on you.

Eh?

Completely agree with this

@MarshaBradyo basically the Ferengi are a hugely misogynistic race in Star Trek and refer to women as 'females'. So I'm saying I do find 'female' used as a noun offensive but I may have internalised that from watching Star Trek as a teenager 😄

What is the difference between burning books, banning authors and editing them to make them suitable for whatever agenda? Will we start having illegal editions of books?

Do we re-write history or do we learn from it? Do we never encounter anything anyone would consider offensive? Are we allowed any books that fit in a particular check list?

This is a sinister path to be led down, and it should be met with outrage.

We have some of Enid Blytons books. Mostly her short stories, There's been an odd story that has led us to a discussion. Discussion is good. I remember seeing the newer editions have simpler language too.

But you are ok with 'femaling' which I presume is the verb?

But Dahl meant it to be somewhat dehumanising of Mrs Trunchbull. It wasn't that he thought he was using a neutral word and now it turns out it's a bit offensive. He chose it specifically for the alliteration, the sound, and the connotations of the word. He was an artist. He did it on purpose.

Changing it to suit some woke idiots' sensibilities is utterly abhorrent.

Reading Dahl's 'Boy' and 'Going Solo' also gives an insight into why his message is often 'adults are not always necessarily good' - his early experiences at boarding school was a mix of inspiring, good adults and some really awful adults who should not have been in any position which involved the education of children. One of the matrons described clearly actively disliked children and the boy's small rebellions against her were very brave.

I have read most of them. As a child. With my children too. They’re full of quite horrible attitudes about all kinds of things.

They’re very much of their time, and haven’t aged well. The twits, for example, with its very clear message that ugly people are ugly because they’re bad inside. There’s clear misogyny in much of the female characterisation across the books, even more so if the female character has the temerity to be old.

Similar to what the OP says about Mallory Towers, the books are utterly seeped in societal values when they were written. Of course they are. Contemporary books won’t age any better - 60 years from
now they’ll be equally full of problematic ideas and words. Attitudes and values change over time. What contemporary sensitivity readers thing is important will not be what people think is important (or even positive) in the future.

I don’t want to ban them. Or redact them. I think it’s best to leave them as they are. If people want to read them with their children, then they should do so in the form in which they were published. And have conversations about how things were in the past.

If publishers are going to bowdlerise them, they should probably rewrite them entirely. Rather than edit out some superficial
stuff and pretend it’s all fine now.

Just chiming in to say I hate the idea of censoring his books. Totally ridiculous. What is the point of making a piece of art in the first place if someone will come along and edit it later and you have absolutely no say in the process. Shame on these people.

I have read most of them. As a child. With my children too. They’re full of quite horrible attitudes about all kinds of things.

Like what? This is very vague.

They’re very much of their time, and haven’t aged well. The twits, for example, with its very clear message that ugly people are ugly because they’re bad inside.

Yes, he says that bad people are ugly because they're bad. Whereas if you think good thoughts, no matter whether you're conventionally pretty, they will shine out of your face and you'll always look quite lovely. What's wrong with that message? As a plain child, I found it comforting to be told looks don't matter, it's who you are inside that counts. I'm baffled why you don't approve of this message?

There’s clear misogyny in much of the female characterisation across the books, even more so if the female character has the temerity to be old.

No, there isn't. Dahl is scathing about adults in general. His writing isn't misogynistic.

I don’t want to ban them. Or redact them. I think it’s best to leave them as they are. If people want to read them with their children, then they should do so in the form in which they were published. And have conversations about how things were in the past.

Well, I agree with you there.

I think some will like his books and others won’t for reasons given below, which is fine.

But taking the art of writing with it’s rhythm, punch and effect and rendering it bland is so bad.

I didn’t realise how sanitised and awful until that piece below. And of course female worked as intended in the other.

It’s really sad to take the beauty of the simple set of words away. Even if the books in their entirety aren’t for everyone.

Now you've got me thinking Mrs Trunchbull was a queer theory inclined TRA. I wonder if no one respected her pronouns or followed her rules and she was constantly having a hissy fit? It explains everything!

It's not what he wrote.

I saw this this morning and have just purchased the collection from 2007. All of my children have the box set bar the youngest who I was planning to get it for in about 2 or 3 years.

I don't personally believe that any book should be changed. Literature is a vast part of our history - major world events, fiction, facts etc and I don't think it should be censored, erased or changed. I don't understand why we can't use out dated literature to teach people how views have changed. I think there is a bigger lesson from that, than changing the work of the author. We can't go through life just changing things because we don't like it.

It's not what the author wrote. And 'female' is used, I think, in the book to slightly distance Miss Trunchbull from feminine women (sexist, I know). Using 'woman' instead of 'female' (a more biological term) removes that distancing. Messes up the author's intention. Shall we have Lady Macbeth say 'unfemale me' instead of 'unwoman me'? The author's intention there is to suggest that Lady Macbeth (and his audience) considered ambition to be unwomanly - saying 'unfemale' does not resonate the same way. Ditto in reverse, Dahl.

Speaking of Macbeth, the none of woman born section means that anyone with a transman mother could harm him. Probably not an issue back then but now... 😉

The reason for changing "female" to "woman" will be that "female" was and is used as a misogynist insult. Of course, "woman" is also used as such, but "female" is one step up in that it's a more scientific term so intended to place women alongside animals.

I think it's appalling to edit Dahl's masterpieces. I was worried that the Guardian article quoted his estate as saying the books have been edited over the years anyway. I wish I had my childhood copies still!

I learned a lot about sexism, racism and classic from reading Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl as a child. My parents, while reading to us or watching TV, used to point out and discuss prejudice, misogyny, racism, colonialism and how they were shown in certain attitudes or phrases. Erasing these texts means children won't have the resources to learn how we can change social attitudes for the better, or even to understand them in context.

I noticed some shocking sexism in Harry Potter when I read them to my child a few years ago and was surprised I hadn't noticed it when I read them when they were first published. Rather than calling for them to be rewritten, I found it useful to be made aware of how my own awareness must have altered in the intervening years and was glad I could point the sexism out to my child and open a discussion.

Absolutely this. As an Eng Lit grad the changes make me wince. These people are completely tin-eared, without a literary bone in their body. They shouldn’t be allowed within a million miles of a good author’s work.