Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Roald Dahl being updated for modern times



Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
15,727
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?
I think the 'count to 500,000' one is doing OK at the moment, but there's still a LONG way to go, so plenty of time for it all to go pear-shaped :lol:
 






Klaas

I've changed this
Nov 1, 2017
2,634


Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
2,971
London
Why not keep them in the original form, and re-release them in an updated form?

Keeping both options to be available is the better option?
That's not really how publishing works tbh. Once stock runs out/low of previous versions, books that remain popular will often be updated for one reason or another (new covers/introductions/additions of academic context around any controversy/removal of errors/updating of language etc.) to make a re-run a profitable venture.

It is exactly the same as the reason why, if you wanted a paperback copy of Harry Potter with Thomas Taylor's illustrations (as was on the original release) you wouldn't be able to buy a new copy. You can only buy Jonny Duddle's (fairly ghastly) illustrated version new from Waterstones. Offering both when there are an abundance already in circulation does not give enough people a reason to buy a new copy of it. It has got to make enough money back and doubling the print and storage costs just in case people want it would put that into doubt.

Much like Dahl's original texts however, these books aren't out of circulation, and will forever be available second hand at a considerably cheaper price to any "new" version. In a round about way, the industry is doing exactly what you've asked of it - both options remain widely available.
 


TheJasperCo

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2012
4,612
Exeter
...

Much like Dahl's original texts however, these books aren't out of circulation, and will forever be available second hand at a considerably cheaper price to any "new" version. In a round about way, the industry is doing exactly what you've asked of it - both options remain widely available.

I think my biggest gripe with this is that the edited version isn't written by the original author. So if you had one original copy of Roald Dahl's book alongside the newer version, they would bear only a passing similarity. Like comparing apples and oranges, his name might be on the cover, but the words are not entirely his. Fundamentally, the newer books are a partly rewitten version of his own tone and style. Surely the fact that the books have proved so popular means that there is no need to rewrite them.

It's as though someone goes editing one of my posts on here to make it more palatable to all readers, and passing it off as having been written by me.

There was a similar furore in the States last year I think, with Dr Seuss's classics getting ridiculed.

I'm not too wound up by this (other folks on here rightly mention there's greater problems in life these days). It just doesn't sit right with me. Not least when you read some of the suggested substituted lines from the edits of Dahl's books.
 
Last edited:




WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,441
That's not really how publishing works tbh. Once stock runs out/low of previous versions, books that remain popular will often be updated for one reason or another (new covers/introductions/additions of academic context around any controversy/removal of errors/updating of language etc.) to make a re-run a profitable venture.

It is exactly the same as the reason why, if you wanted a paperback copy of Harry Potter with Thomas Taylor's illustrations (as was on the original release) you wouldn't be able to buy a new copy. You can only buy Jonny Duddle's (fairly ghastly) illustrated version new from Waterstones. Offering both when there are an abundance already in circulation does not give enough people a reason to buy a new copy of it. It has got to make enough money back and doubling the print and storage costs just in case people want it would put that into doubt.

Much like Dahl's original texts however, these books aren't out of circulation, and will forever be available second hand at a considerably cheaper price to any "new" version. In a round about way, the industry is doing exactly what you've asked of it - both options remain widely available.
Oh, bloody brilliant. So what on earth are people meant to get angry about now :rolleyes:
 


Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
14,776
Almería
Much like Dahl's original texts however, these books aren't out of circulation, and will forever be available second hand at a considerably cheaper price to any "new" version.

IMG-20230222-WA0016.jpg


Cheaper? £7000 a pop according to the Daily Mail.




Nonsense, of course
 






DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
17,209
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.
One of my main tenets in life is “it’s not as simple as that”. The dark chocolate example you mention is a good example of something that needs to be taken in context. Many years ago on French holidays my two daughters were highly amused at the name of a French canned shandy - Pschitt - which might offend English speaking people but to the French is just a representation of the sound the ring-pull triggers.

Some things are going to be clearly offensive - if it looks like a duck and makes a noise like a duck it’s probably a duck. I wouldn’t ever want to give offence to anybody. I am sitting near my wife’s electric piano at the moment. It’s black. Saying that is purely a description of its colour - absolutely nothing more!
 


Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
2,971
London






Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
2,971
London
I think my biggest gripe with this is that the edited version isn't written by the original author. So if you had one original copy of Roald Dahl's book alongside the newer version, they would bear only a passing similarity. Like comparing apples and oranges, his name might be on the cover, but the words are not entirely his. Fundamentally, the newer books are a partly rewitten version of his own tone and style. Surely the fact that the books have proved so popular means that there is no need to rewrite them.

It's as though someone goes editing one of my posts on here to make it more palatable to all readers, and passing it off as having been written by me.

There was a similar furore in the States last year I think, with Dr Seuss's classics getting ridiculed.

I'm not too wound up by this (other folks on here rightly mention there's greater problems in life these days). It just doesn't sit right with me. Not least when you read some of the suggested substituted lines from the edits of Dahl's books.
This is ignoring the role of the editor in the original production of the book. The original version was written by the original author but was also, just like the new version, heavily edited before publication. The new "version" was written by the original author but like the original was edited (probably less so this time round) before publication.

Published books are not posts on NSC, they are carefully curated works for a mass audience. Editing is absolutely vital to the publication of any good book. We are not just talking a spell check and a proof read either. If you take each of Roald Dahl's drafts and compare them to what the public deem the original then you'd have exactly the same furore about every book ever published. He would've faced an unbelievable amount of (constructive) red pen in every manuscript he produced - that's publishing and that's why we have great, focussed, works of literature rather than brain farts on a page.

As I said previously, this is all about commerciality. The publisher has created a huge amount of free press from this that will help them sell backstock to new audiences. It's pure profit at this point and lengthens the lifespan of the book.
 








The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,760
West is BEST
History books, archaeological books, medical literature all get updated as we become more enlightened.

I have no issue with Roald Dahl being rewritten, any kids books in fact. Update them or watch them drift into obscurity and off the shelves.

If it’s kids books, they should be revised to suit our children’s sensibilities.
And it is really only children’s literature that gets revised.

Nobody is going to be rewriting Thomas Hardy or Keats. Because adults are capable of realising it’s of its time. Kids don’t have the comprehension to understand that. So it’s right their books are revised from time to time.
 


Crawley Dingo

Political thread tourist.
Mar 31, 2022
909
Why not keep them in the original form, and re-release them in an updated form?

Keeping both options to be available is the better option?

Totalitarians don't like people having choices as they quite often make the "wrong" choice. Orwell has quite a bit to say about this as well. I think you are right in what you say but a bit naive.
 


TheJasperCo

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2012
4,612
Exeter
This is ignoring the role of the editor in the original production of the book. The original version was written by the original author but was also, just like the new version, heavily edited before publication. The new "version" was written by the original author but like the original was edited (probably less so this time round) before publication.

Published books are not posts on NSC, they are carefully curated works for a mass audience. Editing is absolutely vital to the publication of any good book. We are not just talking a spell check and a proof read either. If you take each of Roald Dahl's drafts and compare them to what the public deem the original then you'd have exactly the same furore about every book ever published. He would've faced an unbelievable amount of (constructive) red pen in every manuscript he produced - that's publishing and that's why we have great, focussed, works of literature rather than brain farts on a page.

As I said previously, this is all about commerciality. The publisher has created a huge amount of free press from this that will help them sell backstock to new audiences. It's pure profit at this point and lengthens the lifespan of the book.
Fair enough. But remember Dahl had the privilege of being alive when the edits came through for the first editions, he could have discussed the changes and argued why certain bits shouldn't be changed. The latest adaptation comes long after he's died. I don't think it's the right thing to change his work when he's not really in a position to argue or push back on the edits.

You're right though, I was being a bit glib comparing literary classics with some of my forum posts 😅
 






Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
2,971
London
Fair enough. But remember Dahl had the privilege of being alive when the edits came through for the first editions, he could have discussed the changes and argued why certain bits shouldn't be changed. The latest adaptation comes long after he's died. I don't think it's the right thing to change his work when he's not really in a position to argue or push back on the edits.

You're right though, I was being a bit glib comparing literary classics with some of my forum posts 😅
Yes, you're right he can't argue the changes, though I'd presume, legally, his estate retains the right to block the release if they don't like it.

I personally don't think it matters whether someone who died 33 years ago would've agreed with this or not in this scenario. This isn't a case of preserving a classic for literary study or for future generations - those versions haven't been wiped from history. This is a case of an attempt to commercialise an old set of books for new audiences. It's a low cost, high reward sales drive on backlisted titles.

Dahl may have disagreed with edits on his manuscripts (likely as he's always been portrayed as a bit of a tosser) but ultimately, the power is always with the publisher (and therefore editor). There have been plenty of books that reach the stage of, "well we're putting all of the capital into this, so if you don't agree to the changes, then you can pay us back your advance and take your book elsewhere", and die there. Alternatively, the changes are agreed and reworked and the work is published and sells millions and that minor point of whether a character is called fat or enormous becomes an irrelevancy.
 


dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,532
Henfield
It is, of course, a complete load of bollocks. They going to change all the Chaucer and Shakespeare texts that have been taught in schools for centuries? There are some sad people out there with some strange preoccupations. Get a life, it’s part of history. Stop sanitising everything.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here