The woke brigade mucking about with Roald Dahl

[Mister Six]

Mate of mine knows someone in the biz who says it wasn't a publicity stunt and this is all a last minute scramble after unexpectedly bad press.

[madhair60]

are either your mate or the person in the biz they know - and i realise this is a long shot - Roald Dahl?

[Phoenix Lazarus]

He had an Indian cousin called Channa.

[willbo]

only just occured to me this is happening with Dahl and Bond at the same time, and he and Fleming were long time friends/fellow WW2 spies.

[Mister Six]

The Livid Dahlites.

[Twit 2]

He had an Indian cousin called Channa.

He also had a pet otter.

[Petey Pate]

Interesting point of comparison:

https://lithub.com/why-i-decided-to-update-the-language-in-ursula-k-le-guins-childrens-books/?ref=transfer-orbit

I'm still not a fan of such revisionism, but in this instance it seems more justified and in line with LeGuin's own sensibilities.

[Senior Baiano]

Dahl and my mother could not be more different as writers and as humans

Say, 'Dahl was a cunt and his books are shit' without saying...

[Petey Pate]

Say, 'Dahl was a cunt and his books are shit' without saying...

LeGuin herself wasn't much of a fan:

That Mr. Dahl's books have a very powerful effect on children is evident. Kids between 8 and 11 seem to be truly fascinated by them; one of mine used to finish Charlie [and the Chocolate Factory] and then start it right over from the beginning (she was subject to these fits for about two months at age 11). She was like one possessed while reading it, and for a while after reading she was, for a usually amiable child, quite nasty. Apparently the books, with their wish-fulfillment, their slam-bang action, and their ethical crassness, provide a genuine escape experience, a tiny psychological fugue, very like that provided by comic books.

Perhaps we all need an escape vent now and then, whether it's Charlie, whisky, Goldfinger, or righteous indignation. Anyhow, kids are very tough. What they find for themselves they should be able to read for themselves. But I boggle at the thought of an adult-parent, librarian, or teacher — actually sitting down to read such a book to children. What on earth for? To teach them to be good "consumers"? The idea of education is a leading forth, isn't it? — not a stuffing with endless candy, on the model of Mr. Dahl's factory.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Chocolate Factory is bollocks when you think it over.  Seeming sole proprietor Wonka wanted someone to pass his empire to.  Does he become a partnership or joint-stock company? Does he interview experienced directors to become his successors by default?  Does he negotiate a lucrative sale?  He does neither but chooses five kids at random and gives it to the least objectionable, whose background is the furthest of all from the business and professional worlds.

[Mister Six]

Interesting point of comparison:

https://lithub.com/why-i-decided-to-update-the-language-in-ursula-k-le-guins-childrens-books/?ref=transfer-orbit

I'm still not a fan of such revisionism, but in this instance it seems more justified and in line with LeGuin's own sensibilities.

True, LeGuin would probably approve of the changes. But I still don't think they should be made posthumously, even if her works deserve a much longer shelf-life than Dahl's.

[Midas]

I don't see much that differentiates revisions made by a corporation or an "heir" honestly

[Midas]

My job is to bring my mother's work to new generations of readers

This is essentially the same euphemism that the Dahl lot conjured up

[Famous Mortimer]

This is essentially the same euphemism that the Dahl lot conjured up

I think intention is important, but this is a pretty stupid time to be talking about doing this.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I don't see much that differentiates revisions made by a corporation or an "heir" honestly

yes.

hot take: i dont see what politically differentiates one set of didactic moral fables from another. dahl and leguin were working in the same part of the same industry.

leguins elevation in academia is very puzzling to me. obviously i see why people enjoy her works, but you see quotes from her passed around for their morality clarity. Nah.

[ZoyzaSorris]

Yea that's a bad take. No this changing books is rubbish in this case too and should only ever be done by the authors themselves in my opinion. Books are cultural artifacts and can represent the time and society in which they were written.

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't think it's always A Bad Thing, though. Whatever your (stupid, wrong) opinion on Le Guin is, language changes and if you can be fairly certain of an author's feelings on X, then there can be a place for it. Also, this is a distance from the changes made to Dahl's stuff. Probably the wrong time to bring it up, still.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Is the Exillons by Ursula Le Guin any good?  My dad had that book when I was in the 70s.  I never read it but I recall it had a creepy-looking cover with these thin figures in long, dark cloaks in what looked like some sort of cavern.

[Pranet]

I think you might have mixed her up with someone else or remembered the name of the book wrong. I have searched Amazon and abebooks and I can't find a book of that name by anyone.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

I think you might have mixed her up with someone else or remembered the name of the book wrong. I have searched Amazon and abebooks and I can't find a book of that name by anyone.

I've just done a search and I think I meant Planet of Exile.

[jobotic]

Exxilons is a Dr Who thing

https://docohobigfinish.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-exxilons-written-and-directed-by.html

[Pranet]

Planet of Exile is early Le Guin and not seen as one of her major works but I remember liking it when I read it.

[Swift]

I see Agatha Christie is next up for sanitisation. Doesn't removing the objectionable language from her works just give the impression to future readers that she was this nice cosy old lady when in actuality she was quite the prejudiced old bird? Though I guess that's the estate's aim.

What problem is this stuff solving exactly from a societal perspective? I suspect that like myself most of her readers roll their eyes when they come across one of her descriptions of foreigners and think "there goes ol'Agatha again". If anything the language is a useful indicator/reminder of how much of society thought at the time.

[Kankurette]

I prefer And Then There Were None to Ten Little N*****s, tbh.

[Pink Gregory]

Considering Christie still gets mined for TV and film her estate are probably living in fear of the inevitable article noticing the obvious.

Also, like Dahl, genuinely *who* is buying new Agatha Christie books.

[jobotic]

Of course. The original title of that book should not be displayed on book shop and library shelves, as it once would have been in this country. I found a copy with the original title on the shelves at work once, a beaten up seventies edition that I'm sure was put there by some racist prick to make some sort of point.

The language in the books though? It's being changed for commercial reasons, not because of the woke brigade but in case that language puts people off paying for the books. Well, tough all round, that's how they were written. If they stopped being read because of that so be it.

There's the issue of language of the time and also language used by characters who use it because they are supposed to be cunts. Will we have racist characters in novels who never say anything racist? Look forward to reading the rewritten James Ellroy novels.

[Swift]

Also, like Dahl, genuinely *who* is buying new Agatha Christie books.

They're actually very popular with young, female readers particularly in the social media sphere, the corners known as BookTube and Bookstagram. New editions are always on bookshop shelves, especially when there's a tie in movie.

[convulsivespace]

Interesting point of comparison:

https://lithub.com/why-i-decided-to-update-the-language-in-ursula-k-le-guins-childrens-books/?ref=transfer-orbit

I'm still not a fan of such revisionism, but in this instance it seems more justified and in line with LeGuin's own sensibilities.

The words in question were "lame," "queer," "dumb," and "stupid," a total of seven instances across three books.

I'd rather raise a nasty little Dahlian brat than one who is shielded from seeing the word "dumb" in a book.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

The language in the books though? It's being changed for commercial reasons, not because of the woke brigade but in case that language puts people off paying for the books.

The "woke brigade" is commerce. There is an issue here in trying to make the distinction between stuff done for commercial or profit reasons, and genuine "woke" (or whatever term) adaptations. The problem is assuming that there is a singular, authentic and united, idea of what is and isn't acceptable to say. There are a few clear cut ones - the N word, archaic slurs for indigenous people, grotesque depictions of the disabled or fat - but beyond a pretty small range it is debatable. "Cunt" and "transsexual" come to mind because they're both potentially as bad as the N word in some contexts but in open use in others. The debate around the changes to Dahls books invokes the idea that there is are inauthentic set of changes to be made based on commercial, and authentic one that comes from grassroots or some sort of united opinion of the people affected by the changes.

The "market" for books and most old media wants it both ways - a singular marketplace, united and global, that all shares an Anglo-American attitude language and culture, and cleaves around a single conservative-progressive culture war. But it also wants to celebrate difference, appeal to each demographic and open and disrupt with "new markets" and "new voices" - this isn't compatible.

Changes in languages and old books falling out favour is undoubtedly a good thing, and just the way things have always been before the internet made people hypersensitive in a way that only people who wrote to the Mail were before. But there is something nightmarish here in the unifying of authenticity with capital and commerce. You can't argue that language is an endlessly polymorphous and ever-changing river at the same time as foisting a context-independent list of boo-words and yays-words on people who don't have any role in deciding the list themselves.

To me what makes this debate different from "political correctness" as a whole is that that culture war debate around "woke" amendments and representation is an argument between two sites of authenticity - authenticity of certain original texts or works, versus cultural authenticity or experiential authenticity. Both are fairly conservative positions, which befits something that begins an argument in marketing meetings and institutions. Whereas "political correctness" could be broadly characterised as a disregard for authenticity or heritage in order to make the most effective changes in the here and now. Which doesn't even seem to be part of the debate any more - you're either pro woke or anti woke, there's no sense of concern for why certain changes are being made and towards what end. Which is also different from political correctness as something which was mocked as a hyper-focused on the hows and whys of language use - the Dahl changes and other commercial decisions seem cut adrift from any greater awareness or motive. One of the biggest arguments for considering "woke" as a real phenomenon and not just re-dressed political correctness is that political correctness was famously anti-conservative in its disregard for heritage and authenticity, whereas the elevation of authenticity by the market is characteristic of the woke moment.

if anything the problem is that political correctness never went far enough in the first place