Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive

[infullview]

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive

Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances. The word “fat” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word “ugly” has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive

Give me a f'ing break!! I'm sure Dajl is rolling in his grave. I don't often side with repukes, but this looks like "woke" to me.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Publishers did something similar to "Dr. Doolittle".

Example: Severe editing where Dr. Doolittle meets an African prince whose grand desire is for his face to be bleached white so he can court a princess who is European/Caucasian like the Grimm Fairy Tales. And the uproar when the doctor succeeds.

Politically incorrect? Perhaps. But it is the author's original text.

[FalloutShelter]

2. This is ridiculous.

I am an author and sometimes I ascribe terrible thoughts and actions to my terrible characters. Are we now to censor the character development central to our storytelling. Are our
villains not going to use bad or offensive language?!

[marybourg]

7. It's not thoughts and actions being

edited out, but perjorative physical characteristics.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Terrible actions. When do we learn that we can't change the ugliness of life by calling

things by 'pretty' words?

[sanatanadharma]

4. Lots of precedence for such 'literary editing'; 200 years easily

Lots of precedence for such 'literary editing', the Bible for example.
Who can know the truth?
Easy when you are the editor with a pre-judged list of 'unacceptables' .

[Blues Heron]

5. I dont have a problem with it - social mores change

Its a new edition not a rewrite. Click bait to call it a rewrite.

[jimfields33]

6. I think it's funny they think enormous is acceptable.

If they go down this path, they need to ensure another rewrite won’t be needed next year.

[marybourg]

8. "Enormous" is not considerer pejorative. "Fat" is.

[jimfields33]

17. So if I say, "wow! Your enormous"

That’s ok? I don’t know about that.

[marybourg]

23. These are children's books, and yes,

“the new neighbor was enormous “, is not the same as “the new neighbor was fat”.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Considering Dahl was a rabid racist and anti-Semite, these edits are tame. Nt

[Archae]

24. Anti-Semite?

I know his original version of the "Oompa-Loompas" were African Pygmies, but how was he anti-Semitic?

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Long, long history of anti-semitism

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/dec/06/roald-dahl-family-apologises-for-his-antisemitism

[Harker]

10. A similar treatment would shorten the works of Limbaugh or Coulter

to a few pages each.

ETA... If a book can't withstand the changes in readership, it deserves to go unread.

[marybourg]

11. Limbaugh and Coulter are not being read to children.

[Harker]

12. That's good. n/t

[SCantiGOP]

13. Rewriting an author's works without their permission

is one step below banning it.
Fortunately, the original editions will always be available.

[infullview]

18. I agree with you.

Removing societal context from the period in which the book was written is a perversion of history. We were not a perfect society early on Erasing the remnants sociological influences that marked the time in which the work was written removes that window into the past that shows where we were and how far forward we've gone. You can say what you will, but this is a bastardization of that work and should never be done, and only serves to remake the work so the publisher can sell more books! Well, to them I say Fuck you!

[Easterncedar]

22. I don't like arguing for censorship

But in some cases it seems we are left with ether throwing out the whole work as not fit for children or altering it. Honestly, I think it isn’t a question that can be answered by easy generalization.

[DavidDvorkin]

16. Bowdlerizing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler

[Easterncedar]

19. Sensitivity editors however

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2023, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Two academics I am in conversation with, one an anthropologist and one a translator of African literature, have had their work interfered with by sensitivity editors who have no grounding in or understanding of the material, and seem to exist only for protecting the publishers. Some of their objections are so petty and ham handed and laughably ignorant, and in some cases so sexist and racist in themselves, that it’s clear that the pendulum has swung itself beyond equilibrium and into chaos.

Looking for the golden mean.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. That's yet another reason I'm glad I switched to self-publishing.

[Easterncedar]

21. What to do?

Last edited Tue Feb 21, 2023, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

A minister I know loathes the King James Bible, particularly because it says “thou shalt not kill” when he thinks it should say “thou shalt not murder”. He says it traumatizes soldiers.

I honestly don’t know what to make of this.

[Scrivener7]

25. This isn't OK.

[Easterncedar]

27. I am rethinking my earlier position

Some of the changes do seem perfectly absurd to me. The personhood of Oompa-loompas for instance.