Ronald Dahl books being edited [split topic]

[phantom_power]

Billy Bragg is currently getting completely piled on by the TERFs for something that isn't even trans-related. They just hate him for that one opinion. Now I am not sure myself whether I agree with his point but I can see where he is coming from and it is a place of well-meaning. They, though, are calling him an arsehole, moron and every other name under the sun for disagreeing with him on this point, all because of his views on trans people. Obviously they side with the more right wing view on the subject as well (though I understand there is a valid left-wing reason to disagree as well)

What is all the more ridiculous is that the right wing in America are currently banning hundreds of books from schools, forcing schools to get every book in their library "approved" and all sorts of other censorship but we are supposed to think that changing a Roald Dahl book slightly to remove offensive comments is the most important thing to discuss on this subject at the moment

[Moj]

Fuck's sake. Release two versions. A slightly edited modern version to buy for your kids with offensive shit taken out, and a classic edition (with a foreword) for scholars, historians, other people who want the original published text, and cunts. Everyone wins. From kids and their parents who don't want to be reading descriptions of black dolls being called Sa**o or whatever, to racists who want to wank themselves stupid looking at those letters on a page.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Fuck's sake. Release two versions. A slightly edited modern version to buy for your kids with offensive shit taken out, and a classic edition (with a foreword) for scholars, historians, other people who want the original published text, and cunts. Everyone wins. From kids and their parents who don't want to be reading descriptions of black dolls being called Sa**o or whatever, to racists who want to wank themselves stupid looking at those letters on a page.

They already changed the golliwogs in Enid Blyton stories to goblins if they were bad guys and teddybears/toy soldiers if they were good guys and it didn't matter one shite. The stories are a) less racist b) more relatable to kids who don't know what the fuck a golliwog even is.

[Armin Meiwes]

Fuck's sake. Release two versions. A slightly edited modern version to buy for your kids with offensive shit taken out, and a classic edition (with a foreword) for scholars, historians, other people who want the original published text, and cunts. Everyone wins. From kids and their parents who don't want to be reading descriptions of black dolls being called Sa**o or whatever, to racists who want to wank themselves stupid looking at those letters on a page.

I might be misremembering but I thought this was always what the publisher said they were going to do?

[jamiefairlie]

Fuck's sake. Release two versions. A slightly edited modern version to buy for your kids with offensive shit taken out, and a classic edition (with a foreword) for scholars, historians, other people who want the original published text, and cunts. Everyone wins. From kids and their parents who don't want to be reading descriptions of black dolls being called Sa**o or whatever, to racists who want to wank themselves stupid looking at those letters on a page.

Yeah that would be sensible but for god sake don't call new series "Enid Blyton.....FOR PUSSIES!", that would be crazy.

[Scrapey Fish]

I might be misremembering but I thought this was always what the publisher said they were going to do?

No they introduced the classic edition following the shitstorm.

Fuck's sake. Release two versions. A slightly edited modern version to buy for your kids with offensive shit taken out, and a classic edition (with a foreword) for scholars, historians, other people who want the original published text, and cunts. Everyone wins. From kids and their parents who don't want to be reading descriptions of black dolls being called Sa**o or whatever, to racists who want to wank themselves stupid looking at those letters on a page.

My guess is there isn't actually enough buyer demand for the original versions to make them particularly economical to print. People just want to complain about the principle. Puffin were responding to demand by producing the amended versions and will quietly let the classic ones die on the vine.

The hypocrisy is it's right wingers refusing to accept market forces because it doesn't suit their bigotry

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

just looked up this controversy and as usual all the worst people are against changing a single word of Roald Dahl's holy texts

[king_tubby]

Why are they going in to bat for Roald Dahl, who was a virulent antisemite?

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Why are they going in to bat for Roald Dahl, who was virulent antisemite?

because cancel culture and cultural memory and blah blah fuck fuck

[Kankurette]

Because antisemitism is fine when right-wingers do it.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Because antisemitism is fine when right-wingers do it.

now Kanks all he said was "Jews control the media" which no really, he actually said that

[king_tubby]

now Kanks all he said was "Jews control the media" which no really, he actually said that

Oh he said worse than that. c/w antisemitism.

Spoiler alert

There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.

[close]

[Barry Admin]

Can this thread not be about antisemitism please.

[Kankurette]

Even when it's coming from Linehan? Because he's jumping on the 'I love Jews unlike the woke left' bandwagon.

Dahl was a huge misogynist as well.

[Grunt Work]

Why are they going in to bat for Roald Dahl, who was a virulent antisemite?

James and the giant banana

[TommyTurnips]

Well if they like Roald Dahl so much then I say that we catapult Linehan into the centre of the sun like the enormous crocodile that he is.

New page  JKRolyPolyBird.

[Pink Gregory]

I will put my principles of "it's cynical to change them and present a false controversy to keep selling new copies because there are enough used books in circulation" aside, purely because the worst people in the world are against it.

[Gusty OWindflap]

The BFGC

The Tits

Fantastic Mr Flaps

[Fru]

Ebohp Snart

James Dreyfus and the Freeze Peach

The Twitches

[Grunt Work]

Boy: Tales of not being girl

[phantom_power]

I will put my principles of "it's cynical to change them and present a false controversy to keep selling new copies because there are enough used books in circulation" aside, purely because the worst people in the world are against it.

I think it matters that the reason they are against it is completely different from yours. They just want to be allowed to be racist and bigoted without being made to feel bad.

And, to bring it back to the thread topic, the only reason the TERFs are kicking up such a fuss is because it is Billy Bragg making the comments. Obviously their agendas align with the right wing but if, say, JK Rowling (JK Rowling) had said what Bragg had said (as unlikely as that would be), they would have said fuck all

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Funny thing about the Dahl stuff is I oppose changing the books because it's a cash grab by copyright owners who realise that the cash cow they own isn't quite in tune with the times and needs altering. It's deeply cynical and the books should, if they don't wash in 2024, be allowed to disappear as any amount of beloved kids literature has to be replaced by stuff that speaks to contemporary kids.

I remember being given a set of Just William books as a kid by my grandparents which I found completely baffling. Now maybe they could change the stories to make them more relevant or whatever but the truth is they were written in the 1920s so had no relevance to kids in the 1990s and you never hear of them now because they have even less relevance to kids now. The same will apply to Roald Dahl eventually.

EDIT: sorry I mean "woke kids cancelled Just William, what will they come for next????"

[jamiefairlie]

Funny thing about the Dahl stuff is I oppose changing the books because it's a cash grab by copyright owners who realise that the cash cow they own isn't quite in tune with the times and needs altering. It's deeply cynical and the books should, if they don't wash in 2024, be allowed to disappear as any amount of beloved kids literature has to be replaced by stuff that speaks to contemporary kids.

I remember being given a set of Just William books as a kid by my grandparents which I found completely baffling. Now maybe they could change the stories to make them more relevant or whatever but the truth is they were written in the 1920s so had no relevance to kids in the 1990s and you never hear of them now because they have even less relevance to kids now. The same will apply to Roald Dahl eventually.

EDIT: sorry I mean "woke kids cancelled Just William, what will they come for next????"

Not sure they will as they're not anchored in any set time or indeed reality.

JW and its ilk are the opposite and therefore become dated and hard to identify with.

[phantom_power]

Funny thing about the Dahl stuff is I oppose changing the books because it's a cash grab by copyright owners who realise that the cash cow they own isn't quite in tune with the times and needs altering. It's deeply cynical and the books should, if they don't wash in 2024, be allowed to disappear as any amount of beloved kids literature has to be replaced by stuff that speaks to contemporary kids.

They are such minor changes though that if they weren't made the books would still be sold and enjoyed but if they are made and not publicised I doubt anyone would notice that much. They certainly don't change the stories in any meaningful way as far as I can see.

I think on the whole I am not in favour of the changes but I don't give enough of a shit to really argue against it, particularly when that disagreement just aligns me with a load of pricks who I disagree with on most other things.

[tomasrojo]

I remember being given a set of Just William books as a kid by my grandparents which I found completely baffling. Now maybe they could change the stories to make them more relevant or whatever but the truth is they were written in the 1920s so had no relevance to kids in the 1990s and you never hear of them now because they have even less relevance to kids now. The same will apply to Roald Dahl eventually.

The Just William books still have a certain cachet, though probably not among children. I've read a few glowing articles about them in the last few years, one in the NYT. Think the centenary of the first publication spurred a bit of interest.

[tomasrojo]

The Just William stories, like Jeeves and Wooster, had a floating timeline, so some of them are set in the 20s, some in the 30s, 40s, 50s.

[bgmnts]

Probably my most tory reactionary position but just not a fan of this at all.

They have their place in time and should be a reflection of that.

[Scrapey Fish]

Funny thing about the Dahl stuff is I oppose changing the books because it's a cash grab by copyright owners who realise that the cash cow they own isn't quite in tune with the times and needs altering. It's deeply cynical and the books should, if they don't wash in 2024, be allowed to disappear as any amount of beloved kids literature has to be replaced by stuff that speaks to contemporary kids.

I remember being given a set of Just William books as a kid by my grandparents which I found completely baffling. Now maybe they could change the stories to make them more relevant or whatever but the truth is they were written in the 1920s so had no relevance to kids in the 1990s and you never hear of them now because they have even less relevance to kids now. The same will apply to Roald Dahl eventually.

EDIT: sorry I mean "woke kids cancelled Just William, what will they come for next????"

I respectfully disagree - I'm reading the Famous Five to my son at the moment and they are brilliant adventures that can't easily be replaced, as well as a great window into what life was like in the past. But i would love some of the old fashioned attitudes to be smoothed out by a modern edit, e.g. removing the bits where they threaten to hit dogs, use violence to solve problems more generally, and the negative depictions towards travellers.

Likewise editing Dahl is perfectly legitimate - they're great stories but I don't want my kids reading the bits where they poke unecessary fun at people's physical characteristics. Puffin are responding to market demand from people like me for them to be changed, it's not just a marketing ploy.

What I would say is that some of those Dahl changes were a bit weird in practice, and so poor implementation undermined the principle that it should be ok to update childrens' literature.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Probably my most tory reactionary position but just not a fan of this at all.

They have their place in time and should be a reflection of that.

its shit. its about preserving a money making brand. i don't believe anyone should be defending this.

dahl was a wanker and his books are crap, probably would have been forgotten had it not been for Gene Wilder and the decent BFG animation. the character of Willy Wonka as everyone knows him is Wilder's creation, Dahl just wrote the name and gave him a top hat.

if books for children have offensive content, new books should be written by audiences that have a rapport with this generation of children. its as simple of that - but that would require getting people into the publishing industry, expanding 'author' into something more people can participate in. but then it would lose its prestige and status.

if a book or movie is still current for good reason, and its bowdlerised for public consumption - that's shit, its censorship and treating audiences like children. im sorry that cultural standards change over time - tough titty if you don't like it. the past is not a consumer wonderland - and whereas university classes and the like should change to accomodate people, the idea that publishing houses and media outlets should have a role in censoring and changing historically or canonically significant texts and images to make the more marketable is reactionary, conservative, repugnant.

but if its something that would fall out of favour if it wasn't amended and updated, then it should be left to fall out of favour. the idea that there is some sort of special "magic" to Blyton, Dahl, Lewis, Mickey Mouse, whatever the fuck is just pathetic wank. Its about brands and investment capital defending itself. let them go and hire people who know to write a story for children that can be creepy and funny without evoking the action historical slave trade

taking out the arse patting and bouncing tits from Benny Hill would leave the sexism and leering chauvanism intact. likewise with Dahl, Lewis, Blyton, etc. you take out the bad words and 'stereotypes' and you're left with a very nasty, reactionary and sadistic piece of work. but the thing is that Benny Hill is no longer a profitable brand but Dahl is, so we have to pretend there is some "magic" there that it would be a shame for future generations to miss out on. there isn't. those books are some bigoted old creeps moneymakers while he was writing his adult literature about rape and dismemberment. i'm sorry if Redditors feel this spoils their heckin nostalgia vibes but just let things go out of fashion. stop putting your children to sleep in Ecto 1 beds and singing them to sleep with the Mario theme. like pop culture's past go, but hang on to the actual past.

[tomasrojo]

Matilda is a bizarre book. It starts off as one book about a bookish unappreciated child, and then, for no discernible reason except maybe page count, it turns into a knockoff of Carrie.

But my children love it. They like quite a few of Dahl's books, and I didn't encourage them. They genuinely like them. I think if it was purely about marketing and publishers pushing books, they'd like David Walliams's books, and they hate them.