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.

@hryllilegur can you give some specific examples? I'd really like to know what books/parts of the books you're referring to. Dahl openly says if you're a nice person it doesn't matter what you look like it will radiate out of you (not exact words but can't remember the specific quote). His books were always empowering towards children, the reader... who they were aimed for!

Trunchbull was an arsehole, bully and was meant to represent all arsehole adults that children have in their life. If a child had a shit parent/teacher/aunt/uncle Matilda gave children hope that they too could stand up to them and move on to better things. Books for children are escapism and sending them to a better place.

Maybe my memory is going, as I can't remember reading a single book of his where children weren't the heroes and shitty adults were put in their place and I can't remember reading about lots of shitty antiquated attitudes? Maybe I'm wrong

Here's another example of the re-writes making the text sound (as a pp described it) like a PowerPoint presentation -

“A witch is always a woman”, went the 2001 version of the book. “I do not wish to speak badly about women. Most women are lovely. But the fact remains that all witches are women. There is no such thing as a male witch.” That became, simply, “A witch is always a woman. There is no such thing as a male witch.”

Oh, it won’t be because of concerns about misogyny. Nobody in any position of power gives a shit about that these days. Haven’t you noticed?

It’ll be because there has been a determined effort to change the meaning of ‘woman’ so it encompasses trans women. ‘Female’, being closer to a biological meaning, has so far been a more difficult term for them to co-opt and so most readers would view this solely as a biological woman. That’s why they want to change it.

I think the best edit was changing the name Fanny in an Enid Blyton book to Franny!

@Waitwhat23 FFS! Whoever did that rewrite should be ashamed.

That makes me want to weep and rage at same time.

I wonder who wrote it and who approved it. How do they work in publishing. No grace or effort.

Imagine if all art was subjected to this kind of thing.

Trans activists hate the word female as it excludes then. They’ve taken control of the word woman and see themselves as included in that definition. So what may seem like a minor tweak is actually deliberately rewriting a children’s book aimed at girls to suit the demands of adult male activists re their sexual issues, and I’m uncomfortable with that.

The original Telegraph article is worth a read because it lists all the changes at the bottom of the article: web.archive.org/web/20230219093240/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/

Yes, looking at the detailed lists of changes it's clear it goes way beyond Miss TrunchbulI. It looks very like US Gender Ideology at play, probably care of new owners Netflix. 'Ladies and Gentlemen' have been changed into the US word favoured by transactivists 'folks', 'girls and boys' are now children, mother and father are now 'parent' or 'parents', sexed pronouns 'he', 'she' are now desexed and non-binaried into they, them, 'females' to 'people'.

Several times Dahl uses several sentences as the description. This allows repetition of similar sounds and a detailed grotesque description. In the examples words have been taken out that lose the rhythm as well as the meaning. It really is bowdlerised, the artistry has been removed.

It's cultural totalitarianism. The whole thing is just so sinister and scary and the implications are massive. It's no different to what they did to artists in the Soviet Union. I hate the dishonesty in calling censorship 'sensitivity reading' as well. If you are going to ideologically purge literature then own up to it. Wherever censorship has taken place the people doing it always believe it is for society's greater good.

At least when a classic film is remade or a classic song is covered you still have access to the original (and, let's face it, usually better) version. What's so disturbing here is that the purged version of the book is replacing the original, so public access to the author's original creation becomes limited. I feel disturbed and enraged (and that's not hyperbole) that I have effectively lost the right to buy a true copy of an author's work unless I can find a second-hand version.

I really hate that any reaction to this is being written off as right-wing or 'gammon.' I know some left-wing cultural commentators are outraged by modern censorship but some actual leadership from the left is really needed here. So many artists are self-censoring because they know no publishing company or film company or art gallery would green light what they want to do. Often the gatekeepers in these organisations are fresh out of university. So many academics are living in fear. I even know academics at British universities who have to have their lectures and teaching materials vetted by officials in the Chinese Communist Party before they can go ahead and use them because their institution has a lucrative deal with China. It feels like we have a younger generation who fear mental and creative freedom.

Why change it though?

Oh, and I also hate the 'it's just updating a few words' argument. Books should date; they should sit in their historical context. So much about reading is about travelling to different times and places and ways of thinking. Children and perfectly capable of learning about the complexities of the past. Literature should spur thinking in an exciting way, not shut it down. Remember when publishers turned down the Harry Potter books because they thought 1990's children wouldn't be able to relate to a story set in a boarding school? I don't see how you can work in children's publishing and not know how much children's minds love to travel.

We’re getting to the point where books are being written by committee but the committee obviously only has right thinking people in it, not nasty wrong thinking people like those who are gender critical etc, surprise surprise.

There was also an article in The Telegraph about theatre and how playwrights are so afraid of causing offence so are self censoring or just making sure everything has ‘balance’ so it all becomes rather bland.

Surely "formidable female" was chosen for alliteration?

I agree with literary terrorism.

I remember reading and loving The Flambards books as a child. Even at the age of seven I was able to realise that I could abhor fox-hunting but vicariously enter the world of fox-hunting through a book and still come out at the end with the integrity of my own principles intact.

Why change "female" to woman, then? Tell me - If it doesn't change anything, why do it at all?

It alters a perception - and it shouldn't be messed with.

Either publish what the author wrote, or don't publish it at all. I'm sure that there will be plenty of other publishing firms more than happy to rake in a huge profit from the original words.

THIS ⬆

Roald Dhal used word play when he wrote, its why he used 'female' after 'formidable'. The sentences are supposed to roll off the tongue when you read them aloud.
As for ''Most women are lovely. But the fact remains that all witches are women. There is no such thing as a male witch.” the new version sounds like NewSpeak by comparison.

Note the word ‘male’ is still acceptable. Why could that be?

I don’t get angry about much. But editing literature to appease modern standards is absolutely horrific. What’s acceptable and what isn’t changes constantly and if it is now acceptable to adapt literature to
fit the current zeitgeist then where does it
stop? There are plenty of writers whose work is out of kilter with is now acceptable: Enid Blyton, Jane Austen, William Shakespeare to name a few. These works provide a fascinating insight into a different time, (as well as being great stories).

And as for people “binning” beloved books as they now deemed racist and sexist?! Wtaf? They don’t merit being binned! They are tools for opening up an actual discussion with your children about historical context. Books are windows into a different mind and a different time. Use them! Don’t bin them.

Thank you for the link. There are many examples on there in which the changes seem to do nothing but remove the description, rhythm or rhyme of the words to make them into bare statements. It does nothing but diminish the pictures produced in the reader's mind by the author's words.

Similar with Danny Champion of the World.

I once visited a museum which had a large number of lovely wooden medieval sculptures of saints and virgin Mary etc. which had been collected from various medieval churches. Most of them had arms cut off and noses erased, because of the reformation of the church after Martin Luther etc. Those who did this to the sculptures felt very strongly that they were in the right, holy and righteous.

Most of us would see that as vandalism today, whatever the justification. So I believe it is a good thing to remember that our era, too, will in the future be found wanting in some ways we still can't quite fathom (perhaps the idea that people tortured and killed other animals and then ate them after prolonged imprisonment).

I can see why different editions and versions are necessary for non-fiction work which is still used such as the holy books of religions (not all allow any changes as the book is seen as literally divine in each (translated etc.) word) and encyclopedias. But even in those cases readers are informed about the fact that changes have been made, either by numbering the editions or by using forewards or explanations in the text.

Should we alter works of fiction or art which individuals created and copywrighted (so-to-say)? I don't think so, though perhaps such altered works could be called something different, say, "based on original works by Roald Dahl"?

I'm livid, Puffin was ground breaking in publishing quality children's fiction. I see they have also removed mention of Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling. Absolutely indefensible. Are they going to cease publishing works by these authors.
This is an attack on creative freedom, somebody needs to sort this out.