[News] Roald Dahl being updated for modern times

[chickens]

I can't work up the energy to even think about why people are bothered about this. In a world where people are struggling to heat, feed and cloth themselves with their own money – while, at the same time, acknowledging that people can worry about more than one thing at a time – I simply couldn't give a shite about some words being changed in a book.

The people who are 'offended' by the changes are probably the least likely to every pick up a RD publication anyway! And if they are that bothered, order an old one online – they've been out for decades, I'm sure there will be loads available. Maybe from the people who don't like the original words.

Honestly, there are a lot of reasons to be afraid of revisionist history, my posts elsewhere in the thread give some of them.

Can I also just say it’s a monumental shift in things for anyone on the left to be advocating the rewriting of books.

Freedom of expression was sacrosanct to every single left-leaning individual I’d ever met prior to about 2015, historically in Britain it has tended to be the right calling for things to be banned or censored. It’s genuinely quite discomfiting to me to see posters who I’d previously considered myself at least partially politically aligned with, cheerily advocating revising historical texts (once you accept text revision for a ‘good’ reason you’ll accept it for a ‘bad’ one) and once again leaving me feeling politically homeless.

Finally, drifting back onto topic for a bit, it’s natural for culture to change and authors to fall out of favour, that’s what makes room for new authors.

By revising texts to keep them current, you deny oxygen and space to new authors. In the same way that a forest fire leads to a forest’s fresh regrowth, old works becoming problematic or falling out of favour is what makes space for the person who’s scribbling away between part time jobs right now.

 

[Brovion]

Honestly, there are a lot of reasons to be afraid of revisionist history, my posts elsewhere in the thread give some of them.

Can I also just say it’s a monumental shift in things for anyone on the left to be advocating the rewriting of books.

Freedom of expression was sacrosanct to every single left-leaning individual I’d ever met prior to about 2015, historically in Britain it has tended to be the right calling for things to be banned or censored. It’s genuinely quite discomfiting to me to see posters who I’d previously considered myself at least partially politically aligned with, cheerily advocating revising historical texts (once you accept text revision for a ‘good’ reason you’ll accept it for a ‘bad’ one) and once again leaving me feeling politically homeless.

Finally, drifting back onto topic for a bit, it’s natural for culture to change and authors to fall out of favour, that’s what makes room for new authors.

By revising texts to keep them current, you deny oxygen and space to new authors. In the same way that a forest fire leads to a forest’s fresh regrowth, old works becoming problematic or falling out of favour is what makes space for the person who’s scribbling away between part time jobs right now.

Well said. And according to the Guardian the French have no intention of following suit, but then they've always been more rebellious and more left-leaning than the polite and naturally-conservative British.

Like you I've been slightly 'disappointed' with those posters who've said "What about the cost of living eh? Isn't that more important?" Yes of course it's more important, but it's not like the two can't be mutually discussed; it's possible to have opinions about both. And those worried that this is some sort of Tory plot can rest assured: by the time of the next election this will all have been forgotten about. No one is going to vote Conservative simply because the word 'fat' has been taken out of a children's book.

 

[keaton]

I feel the time to get annoyed about this sort of thing was decades ago when people started doing this or when George Lucas recut the original Star Wars trilogy.

 

[BadFish]

Honestly, there are a lot of reasons to be afraid of revisionist history, my posts elsewhere in the thread give some of them.

Can I also just say it’s a monumental shift in things for anyone on the left to be advocating the rewriting of books.

Freedom of expression was sacrosanct to every single left-leaning individual I’d ever met prior to about 2015, historically in Britain it has tended to be the right calling for things to be banned or censored. It’s genuinely quite discomfiting to me to see posters who I’d previously considered myself at least partially politically aligned with, cheerily advocating revising historical texts (once you accept text revision for a ‘good’ reason you’ll accept it for a ‘bad’ one) and once again leaving me feeling politically homeless.

Finally, drifting back onto topic for a bit, it’s natural for culture to change and authors to fall out of favour, that’s what makes room for new authors.

By revising texts to keep them current, you deny oxygen and space to new authors. In the same way that a forest fire leads to a forest’s fresh regrowth, old works becoming problematic or falling out of favour is what makes space for the person who’s scribbling away between part time jobs right now.

I disagree that 'once you accept test revision . . . .' we can be discerning enough to judge cases on their merits.

Freedom of expression is an interesting point. I am not really seeing this as censorship, more just updating something to enable it to continue to be consumed. The opposite of censorship really.

Also, what about freedom of choice? The publishers should be free to make this decision and test it in the market. Surely the safeguard we have around this stuff is the market itself? If people oppose this then these new versions simply will not sell. Is this not freedom of choice?

Lastly I agree with your last point about space for new authors but don't feel comfortable denying the publisher's right to attempt to mitigate that change. I would also suggest that the space left by the absence of Dahl is more than likely going to be taken up by Walliams, so there is that.

 

[GT49er]

I can't work up the energy to even think about why people are bothered about this. In a world where people are struggling to heat, feed and cloth themselves with their own money – while, at the same time, acknowledging that people can worry about more than one thing at a time – I simply couldn't give a shite about some words being changed in a book.

The people who are 'offended' by the changes are probably the least likely to every pick up a RD publication anyway! And if they are that bothered, order an old one online – they've been out for decades, I'm sure there will be loads available. Maybe from the people who don't like the original words.

But you are clesrly worked up enough to give a shite about people who aren't happy about revisionism and re-writing history. Then you go on to spout stereotyping about 'the people who are offended'.

Pot, let me introduce kettle............

 

[GT49er]

I disagree that 'once you accept test revision . . . .' we can be discerning enough to judge cases on their merits.

Freedom of expression is an interesting point. I am not really seeing this as censorship, more just updating something to enable it to continue to be consumed. The opposite of censorship really.

Not censoring? Not censoring? Banning the use of the word 'fat' to describe someone who is .................. err ....... fat. THAT'S censorship!

 

[BadFish]

Not censoring? Not censoring? Banning the use of the word 'fat' to describe someone who is .................. err ....... fat. THAT'S censorship!

Who has 'banned' anything?

 

[GT49er]

Who has 'banned' anything?

Alright, hair-splitter. Removing it from the text of a book.

 

[BadFish]

Alright, hair-splitter. Removing it from the text of a book.

The important part of the question is 'who' has removed the word? Is it really censorship when the owners of the text and the family of the deceased author have made the changes in order to stay instep with modern times and sell more books?

 

[chickens]

I disagree that 'once you accept test revision . . . .' we can be discerning enough to judge cases on their merits.

Freedom of expression is an interesting point. I am not really seeing this as censorship, more just updating something to enable it to continue to be consumed. The opposite of censorship really.

Also, what about freedom of choice? The publishers should be free to make this decision and test it in the market. Surely the safeguard we have around this stuff is the market itself? If people oppose this then these new versions simply will not sell. Is this not freedom of choice?

Lastly I agree with your last point about space for new authors but don't feel comfortable denying the publisher's right to attempt to mitigate that change. I would also suggest that the space left by the absence of Dahl is more than likely going to be taken up by Walliams, so there is that.

I mean no disrespect, but if we’re not discerning enough to take each piece of work as of its time and place, we’re not going to be discerning enough to judge each case on its merits, and what’s more, we’re not going to be offered a choice.

Changes are going to be decided on by the very small number of people who control that author’s estate and it will not be going to a public vote.

The estate may allow changes for the most well-meaning of reasons, e.g. not wanting a deceased relative to seem racist or problematic, or simply for greed (sorry, commercial considerations)

This is absolutely censorship, it’s the censorship of then, by now.

As far as I’m aware, there is no legal requirement to even inform anyone that changes are being made, although the publisher would have to be pretty shady not to. I believe Rupert Murdoch currently owns the world’s largest publisher, though I haven’t checked recently.

Bad enough with fictional works, move into non-fiction and it has the potential to be even worse.

 

[BadFish]

I mean no disrespect, but if we’re not discerning enough to take each piece of work as of its time and place, we’re not going to be discerning enough to judge each case on its merits, and what’s more, we’re not going to be offered a choice.

Changes are going to be decided on by the very small number of people who control that author’s estate and it will not be going to a public vote.

The estate may allow changes for the most well-meaning of reasons, e.g. not wanting a deceased relative to seem racist or problematic, or simply for greed (sorry, commercial considerations)

This is absolutely censorship, it’s the censorship of then, by now.

As far as I’m aware, there is no legal requirement to even inform anyone that changes are being made, although the publisher would have to be pretty shady not to. I believe Rupert Murdoch currently owns the world’s largest publisher, though I haven’t checked recently.

Bad enough with fictional works, move into non-fiction and it has the potential to be even worse.

I understand what you are saying although disagree. I just don't see this as censorship. The changes are made by the owners and caretakers of the text.

I am not sure what you are advocating for in this case but the idea that the owners and caretakers of Dahl's work should not be allowed to make changes to his work sits far more uncomfortably with me than them doing it.

That sounds much more like censorship to me.

 

[BadFish]

I mean no disrespect, but if we’re not discerning enough to take each piece of work as of its time and place, we’re not going to be discerning enough to judge each case on its merits, and what’s more, we’re not going to be offered a choice.

Changes are going to be decided on by the very small number of people who control that author’s estate and it will not be going to a public vote.

The estate may allow changes for the most well-meaning of reasons, e.g. not wanting a deceased relative to seem racist or problematic, or simply for greed (sorry, commercial considerations)

This is absolutely censorship, it’s the censorship of then, by now.

As far as I’m aware, there is no legal requirement to even inform anyone that changes are being made, although the publisher would have to be pretty shady not to. I believe Rupert Murdoch currently owns the world’s largest publisher, though I haven’t checked recently.

Bad enough with fictional works, move into non-fiction and it has the potential to be even worse.

Non fiction books are constantly updated and revised and our knowledge grows and changes .

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Fat or enormous he's still a lard arse.

 

[GT49er]

The important part of the question is 'who' has removed the word? Is it really censorship when the owners of the text and the family of the deceased author have made the changes in order to stay instep with modern times and sell more books?

Censorship.... self censorship ......... still censorship. Under pressure from the newly empowered woke? Although in this case the purely commercial aim to sell more copies (I onder who the target market is!) may well apply. Still censorship though.

 

[chickens]

Non fiction books are constantly updated and revised and our knowledge grows and changes .

In cases where the author has made the changes, yes.

There’s a huge difference between an expert in the field adding or revising information, and an author’s descendants (potentially with no further qualification in the field than being a descendant of the original author) adding or revising information.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I mean no disrespect, but if we’re not discerning enough to take each piece of work as of its time and place, we’re not going to be discerning enough to judge each case on its merits, and what’s more, we’re not going to be offered a choice.

Changes are going to be decided on by the very small number of people who control that author’s estate and it will not be going to a public vote.

The estate may allow changes for the most well-meaning of reasons, e.g. not wanting a deceased relative to seem racist or problematic, or simply for greed (sorry, commercial considerations)

This is absolutely censorship, it’s the censorship of then, by now.

As far as I’m aware, there is no legal requirement to even inform anyone that changes are being made, although the publisher would have to be pretty shady not to. I believe Rupert Murdoch currently owns the world’s largest publisher, though I haven’t checked recently.

Bad enough with fictional works, move into non-fiction and it has the potential to be even worse.

I mean, this kind of thing has literally been happening for decades. Look at music, going right back to the 60s how many bands would have separate lyrics for radio, different lyrics for the album, sometimes different lyrics on the single, and sing different lyrics live. Many books get edited for a UK audience then a US audience. What about all the translations of works to different languages and the various adaptions that requires.

I do agree just leave the damn books as they are, in fact, just let them go out of print to be brutally honest, there must be enough copies in the world to go around for generations anyway. But I also think editing out the odd word like fat, or ugly hardly qualifies as censorship and doesn't dilute the original narrative, themes and storytelling.

Forcing authors, publishers etc. not to be able to change things is just as bad as them being able to change them.

 

[Bakero]

 

[Giraffe]

When Disney re-release Snow White.

 

[zefarelly]

Not censoring? Not censoring? Banning the use of the word 'fat' to describe someone who is .................. err ....... fat. THAT'S censorship!

Cork it tubby!

 

[GT49er]

Cork it tubby!

Tut tut. More stereotyping!