[News] Roald Dahl being updated for modern times

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

I really cannot believe you have got so wound up about this.

 

[BadFish]

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.

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.

I have to ask you chaps: what solution to this problem are you advocating for?

The people who own the rights and the legacy want to make these changes to sell more books (presumably). Are you suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to?

 

[chickens]

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 think we’re respectfully going to have to agree to disagree. To my mind these are specific published works of fiction, by a named author.

It’s actually reassuring to my mind that some of the depictions and language in them have begun to seem troublesome, because that suggests that we’ve moved as a society from where we were then to where we are now.

Where does a committee whose interest could potentially be purely financial get off with editing the author’s work for greater commercial acceptability?

I’d advocate for a short disclaimer reminding readers that these books are of their time and place, and that they may contain language or actions now considered inappropriate.

To my mind, if an author isn’t available to give their blessing to a revision, it shouldn’t be made.

Let these books fade into the past, remembered fondly by those who read them as kids, and replaced (preferably by somebody other than David Williams) by an author who’s working now, and isn’t a ‘celebrity’.

I understand that what’s happening here isn’t a precedent, it’s happened before and will happen again, but just because somebody holds the financial interest in something doesn’t (to my mind) bestow the right to edit at will.

In the same way that Hooked on Classics is not what has kept classical music popular, and Jive Bunny is not responsible for the enduring popularity of 60s music, updated or sanitised versions of original works are rarely equal to the original.

The first edit may lose no nuance at all, by the tenth the work could be unrecognisable, and absolutely not the author’s.

I’m going to leave it here, I fear I’ve been added to a lot of ignore lists tonight.

 

[BadFish]

The individuals that form the Dahl estate are all perfectly capable of writing their own fiction and seeing if it sells. These books aren’t theirs to


I think we’re respectfully going to have to agree to disagree. To my mind these are specific published works of fiction, by a named author.

It’s actually reassuring to my mind that some of the depictions and language in them have begun to seem troublesome, because that suggests that we’ve moved as a society from where we were then to where we are now.

Where does a committee whose interest could potentially be purely financial get off with editing the author’s work for greater commercial acceptability?

I’d advocate for a short disclaimer reminding readers that these books are of their time and place, and that they may contain language or actions now considered inappropriate.

To my mind, if an author isn’t available to give their blessing to a revision, it shouldn’t be made.

Let these books fade into the past, remembered fondly by those who read them as kids, and replaced (preferably by somebody other than David Williams) by an author who’s working now, and isn’t a ‘celebrity’.

I understand that what’s happening here isn’t a precedent, it’s happened before and will happen again, but just because somebody holds the financial interest in something doesn’t (to my mind) bestow the right to edit at will.

In the same way that Hooked on Classics is not what has kept classical music popular, and Jive Bunny is not responsible for the enduring popularity of 60s music, updated or sanitised versions of original works are rarely equal to the original.

The first edit may lose no nuance at all, by the tenth the work could be unrecognisable, and absolutely not the author’s.

I’m going to leave it here, I fear I’ve been added to a lot of ignore lists tonight.

No ignore list here. I get and respect your opinion on this. And to some degree I agree with it, although as much as I agree with you I also feel that the alternate option of not allowing them to make changes is far worse. I would also add that it is really not up to us. ultimately the market will decide, if these changes are popular or not . . . personally I can live with that.

We will certainly have to agree to disagree but I thank you for the discussion.

 

[pb21]

I have to ask you chaps: what solution to this problem are you advocating for?

The people who own the rights and the legacy want to make these changes to sell more books (presumably). Are you suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to?

It's an interesting point. Should the state, or some other body, dictate what private persons can print, or should they be free to do print what they want, depending on what they think is in their best interests.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

When Disney re-release Snow White.

View attachment 157454

Actually there was a blow up about a live version of this having a non snow white person and no dwarves.

 

[sydney]

Nope, give me a clue?

refugees fighting with locals in rural Ireland , robbing shops and battering grannies , if you use twitter look up a guy called David Atherton , alternatively you could worry about "offensive" words being removed from 50 year old literature....it's your choice ultimately.

 

[sydney]

Dahl's stories always had an edgy almost perverse angle to them , i think the publishers and family of Mr. Dahl have undertaken this manoeuvre to create publicity around the author and therefore boost sales of his work , the inevitable upswell of outrage from the non - woke faction only furthering the affect. Masterclass , considering some of the language and content in popular media these days surely editing Dahl's work is laughable.

have any of you watched Babylon ....??

 

[Razzoo]

Dahl's stories always had an edgy almost perverse angle to them , i think the publishers and family of Mr. Dahl have undertaken this manoeuvre to create publicity around the author and therefore boost sales of his work , the inevitable upswell of outrage from the non - woke faction only furthering the affect. Masterclass , considering some of the language and content in popular media these days surely editing Dahl's work is laughable.

have any of you watched Babylon ....??

I think you're correct, apparently his books have been selling like hot cakes. Kerching! I also understand that Netflix now own the rights to his works.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

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............

I'm not 'worked up' about anything, thanks - just don't see the point in it. Especially as changing a few words in a children's book is not exactly 'revolutionism' or 're-writing history'

As a writer myself, I'm used to my words being changed all the time by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, so maybe I'm a bit immune to it.

 

[GT49er]

I'm not 'worked up' about anything, thanks - just don't see the point in it. Especially as changing a few words in a children's book is not exactly 'revolutionism' or 're-writing history'

As a writer myself, I'm used to my words being changed all the time by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, so maybe I'm a bit immune to it.

Not worked up person confuses revolutionism with revisionism ............ hmmm ........ okey dokey, not bothered at all.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Not worked up person confuses revolutionism with revisionism ............ hmmm ........ okey dokey, not bothered at all.

Yeah, OK, that's what it was. You win...


FFS

 

[Klaas]

You did not get it did you, my daughter asked why the mother was beating the children, I explained that is what happened back in the day when the book was written, it was acceptable to beat your children, and I was beaten and abused as a child in a foster home in Worthing and at home.

That is why I felt uncomfortable, not because I am woke, I think you would find I am one of the least woke people you could meet.

have a good one.

Although there is a sensible debate to be had about the need or not to edit historical works, this fool's attitude to your original post sums up a lot of one side of the debate. No attempt to understand what it was you were getting at, just a patronising put down and a bit of virtue signaling.
Like with the tedious snowflake pejorative, again it's the people who use the word the most, getting the most worked up.

 

[Klaas]

What seems to be missing from much of this debate is an acknowledgement that this is being done by the Dahl estate, not some shadowy Government Institute of PC Wokery or whatever, and it's being done to keep the books marketable to new audiences with views that differ from those that prevailed at the time the books were written. They're doing it because they want people to keep buying Roald Dahl books, it's that simple.

In other words, what the Telegraph, GBeebies, et. al. are complaining hysterically about is literally just capitalism and the free market at work.

Exactly this, although I doubt a lot of the contributors to this thread could be bothered to stop and consider this for a moment.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Apols if already mentioned, but apart from his anti-semitism, Dahl was by all accounts a fairly unpleasant piece of work in his personal life. Of course no one is as perfect as they’d wish to think, but he seems to have been a particularly unsavoury character, and the fact that his books are still lauded and still sell in great numbers in spite of this is surely more NSC binfest-worthy than the subject of toning down the content of his books today...

In related news, has there ever been a single NSC thread dating back to the start of NSC in 1997 that hasn’t descended into ‘bin-festery’ ? Is it an Internet record?

 

[Bakero]

In related news, has there ever been a single NSC thread dating back to the start of NSC in 1997 that hasn’t descended into ‘bin-festery’ ? Is it an Internet record?

It's inevitable. As natural as the sun rising each morning and Albion failing to take chances in a game we dominate. You can't stop Bozza's law:

Bozza's law, short for Bozza's law of Binfestery, is an internet adage asserting that as an NSC discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a descent into Binfestery approaches 1.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Some of Roald Dahl's stuff needed editing back in the 60s because he was a bit unswerving in his language.

I'm not against the correction of terminology in new adaptions at all. It's not an issue. It's not about offending people, it's just the right thing to do.

Some of the Dahl corrections are a little odd though. I saw some extracts and couldn't work out why they needed altering.

Agree entirely. Why can’t the BFG have a black coat. It’s a colour. (Or rather the total absence of colour)…….. or is it obviously intended to emphasise some sort of evil appearance.
but why can’t somebody be “as white as a sheet”.
but as it’s his publisher and his estate doing it, that’s up to them, I suppose.

 

[Brovion]

No ignore list here. I get and respect your opinion on this. And to some degree I agree with it, although as much as I agree with you I also feel that the alternate option of not allowing them to make changes is far worse. I would also add that it is really not up to us. ultimately the market will decide, if these changes are popular or not . . . personally I can live with that.

We will certainly have to agree to disagree but I thank you for the discussion.

No, thank YOU. I'm on the side of the ever-eloquent @chickens, but it was an interesting discussion and I accept your points are valid, even if I don't 100% agree with them. And we managed to have it without anyone frothing at the mouth and shouting "Snowflake!", "No you're the snowflake!"

 

[Bakero]

Agree entirely. Why can’t the BFG have a black coat. It’s a colour. (Or rather the total absence of colour)…….. or is it obviously intended to emphasise some sort of evil appearance.
but why can’t somebody be “as white as a sheet”.
but as it’s his publisher and his estate doing it, that’s up to them, I suppose.

The colour of his coat does seem an odd thing to change. At the end of the day though, as others have mentioned, this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by big business to maximise the profits of their newly acquired IP. Much like Disney decided to remove the scenes of rape, cannibalism and torture from Grimm's fairytales to make them more palatable to young 20th century audiences.

 

[jcdenton08]

Agree entirely. Why can’t the BFG have a black coat. It’s a colour. (Or rather the total absence of colour)…….. or is it obviously intended to emphasise some sort of evil appearance.
but why can’t somebody be “as white as a sheet”.
but as it’s his publisher and his estate doing it, that’s up to them, I suppose.

Tangentially related, but slightly off topic…

Sometimes people shout very loudly and things gain traction, especially on Twitter. It’s hard for people/businesses to turn a blind eye when it appears a campaign is underway on Twitter.

As an example, a black woman started a campaign against a manufacturer (dark chocolate or something I think) because the packaging contained the word “‘negro”. The packaging was obviously being sold internationally and had the word “black” in five other languages. In this case, “negro” is of course the Spanish word for black, the (non) colour. The person was outraged that a racial slur was inexplicably printed on a bar of chocolate and attempted to cancel the manufacturer for racism. This post attracted tens of thousands of likes.

Interestingly, most attempted cancellation attempts are nullified by simply ignoring it completely until a new target is sought. Statements, apologies (whether or not merited) and de-escalation/justification only ever add fuel to the fire.

Sometimes it’s easier to do nothing if you know you’ve not caused actual offence.