-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Roald Dahl Books Rewritten to Remove Language Deemed Offensive
- Thread starter Tams
- Start date
NeoIkaruGAF
Member
“Adorable” being turned into “lovely” is peak fragility. The person doing that clearly took a sarcastic “You’re adorable” reply very, very seriously somewhere down the road.In the bad old days the easily offended would take offense at the use of curse words, sexual allusions, depictions of violence and gore ... But then we got the sexual revolution of the 60ies, censorship was mostly abolished and writers could write whatever they wanted. But fifty years passed since then and somehow we wound up in a place where the easily offended get offended by just about anything that smacks of generalization and non-inclusivity.
The Witches is a creepy children's book about witches who have one major characteristic: they're bald women. But oh, no! That's offensive to women who surviced cancer, so just remove those references or soften descriptions of nasty looking women. Let's just remove anything nasty so absolutely _nobody_ could ever take offense.
To those arguing that “the originals will always exist”, well, they will not for all intents and purposes. Nobody is going to track down a used copy of a children’s book as a gift, even if they were aware of the changes - and most won’t be. This is what you’ll find in bookstores and digital shops from now on. And you can bet your ass not a few libraries will mysteriously only carry the revised editions, especially school libraries.
This is not a case of very old texts that got copied down in pre-print times and that don’t have a definitive version. These are 20th century books, published as the author wrote them, and there is no valid reason in the world to alter them against his will. This isn’t George Lucas touching up his own movies. This is idiots changing innocuous stuff that was put down on paper as it was because the author wanted so. There is really no justification of this that can stand up to scrutiny. Not a single one. Mein Kampf is still being published as-is because it is a testament to the ideas of one of the most dangerous men to ever live. What’s the excuse to touch up Roald fucking Dahl’s books in that way when you can go out and buy Adolf fucking Hitler’s unadulterated book? This is madness. Pure, simple insanity.
newtypepilot
Member
these fucking donkeys
FunkMiller
Member
The problem is, you don’t know that for sure.
If we’re on a path where the intent, meaning or language of an author can be changed without their consent… it really does become a slippery slope, very quickly.
IDKFA
Member
Roald Dahl will be rolling in his grave. An absolute fucking insult to his work and his legacy.
The tail is wagging the dog.
I Just looked at the article. Holy shit, some of this is insane.
References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.
Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People
Or how about this change.
The title character in The BFG does not wear a black cloak any more and characters cannot turn "white with fear" - the words "black" and "white" have been cut out
The words "white" and "black" have been cut out when their refering to colour and not race?!?! What's happening? Make it stop!
The tail is wagging the dog.
I Just looked at the article. Holy shit, some of this is insane.
References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.
Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People
Or how about this change.
The title character in The BFG does not wear a black cloak any more and characters cannot turn "white with fear" - the words "black" and "white" have been cut out
The words "white" and "black" have been cut out when their refering to colour and not race?!?! What's happening? Make it stop!
Last edited:
All I see is a dying demographic of nihilist losers who cannot create anything new and thus aim to destroy. This has always been true and repeats itself in each defender or each agitator who claims this isn’t an issue worth addressing.
This isn’t even down to just specific words but rewriting or deleting whole references, rhymes and poems to accommodate dysgenic sensitivities.
This isn’t even down to just specific words but rewriting or deleting whole references, rhymes and poems to accommodate dysgenic sensitivities.
Brigandier
Member
Could happen soon!!!
For how long?
Jesus christ some of you just cant seem to carrry anything out to its evential conclusion.
Dirk Benedict
Member
That feeling when you know you have some first editions that will eventually sell for tens of thousands in the dystopian 1984-like-timeline we are slowly creeping into.
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
Forever. No reason to go all alarmist over nothing. The publisher is making some alterations to children's books. Whoop dee doo.
Tams
Member
Oddly enough, Netflix have kept shtum on this so far, even though they own the rights.
From The Telegraph article:
“The current review began in 2020, before Dahl was acquired by Netflix,” said a spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company. “It was led by Puffin and Roald Dahl Story Company together.” (When approached for comment, Netflix directed The Telegraph back to Puffin.)
Just "some alterations" nothing to see here. Please carry on citizen.
Dont worry Bad Burger you did your part.
Claus Grimhildyr
Vincit qui se vincit
If you honestly look at these changes and think that it is just “some alterations” and that it is nothing of import - you need to get your head out of the sand and see reality for what it really is.
This should never be accepted, under any circumstances.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
about time
"Sir, this is a Wendys"
gaming_again
Member
Ah. Even more depressing.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
i didn't realise Sensitivity Readers were an actual thing until the article in the OP.
I also came across this article:
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-moaning-sensitivity-readers-diversity-publishing
It would be a useful service to have I guess if an author agreed to it. Another perspective could help the author enrich the story especially if they are writing about other cultures or something beyond their experience.
Where I take issue is that Dahl's dead, and his words and by extension his 'voice', for better or worse, is among the few things we have left preserved in these books. But now we have these self-righteous knobheads going in and distorting all that with their newspeak.
Yes we will still have the originals, but they will eventually become replaced by these edited newspeak versions as the definitive stories.
I also came across this article:
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-moaning-sensitivity-readers-diversity-publishing
It would be a useful service to have I guess if an author agreed to it. Another perspective could help the author enrich the story especially if they are writing about other cultures or something beyond their experience.
Where I take issue is that Dahl's dead, and his words and by extension his 'voice', for better or worse, is among the few things we have left preserved in these books. But now we have these self-righteous knobheads going in and distorting all that with their newspeak.
Yes we will still have the originals, but they will eventually become replaced by these edited newspeak versions as the definitive stories.
Last edited:
StueyDuck
Member
They already do that.you think this is fun, just wait till they start to rewrite non-fiction
History revisionism is all the rage right now. Just look at that recent woman king movie or whatever it was called where the world's worst slave traders were portrayed as cool womxn heroes that killed their meanie oppressors
What is downstream of sanitizing Roald Dahl? Many creatives read these books growing up and are influenced and inspired by them, e.g., Wes Anderson. Think about the next generation of filmmakers and writers reading bastardized “sensitivity” versions of the these books instead. Not only are we stripping them of the joy of reading the originals but there will be consequences for culture in 20 years.
BigDeadFreak
Member
OK, fair enough. I still think it's a drop in the ocean compared to what the left has been doing in recent years. I thin it's bad when both side do it though.
IDKFA
Member
Very true. A bigger implication is that if the publisher is allowed to get away with this, then we'll probably see other novels being rewritten to remove "problematic" language.
People saying this is a non-issue aren't looking at the bigger picture.
Tams
Member
There's good reason they target the young.
I don't know how much is intentional, or how much genuine (misguided) concern; but either way it is harmful in my eyes what they are doing.
I'm no conservative, but conservatives have forgotten that it's from the young that the future is written, and they have failed to balance this out.
NinjaBoiX
Member
One of the core reasons the Dahl books were so appealing to me as a young boy, was precisely because they were a little bit naughty. It was like your uncle telling you a story that your parents might not entirely approve of.
Sounds like they’re neutering that impishness, such a shame.
Sounds like they’re neutering that impishness, such a shame.
Agent_Nobody
Member
Thankfully they’re not the only publisher of Roald Dahl books and I hope that fact bites them in the ass.
mcjmetroid
Member
A clockwork orange was banned because it was very violent and horrifying for it's time. I don't agree with that either but at least it's understandable.
This is about about changing negative adjectives in a children's book to "protect" children from negative language. It's about changing the original authors work - legendary author at that. Might as well alter Shakespeare's language. A clockwork orange was banned upon its release and never altered. This is being altered decades later.
You might say outrage sells but in a children's book...are any kids out there thinking to themselves " wow I gotta get this controversial book" like people were with clockwork orange? I don't think so.
I do think you're right in the sense that it's a cry for attention but I don't think it'll work.
Don't act like you don't see the issue here.
Last edited:
You may want to edit in a "not" in the 1st sentence of your 2nd paragraph.
Nico_D
Member
Let's start with The Bible.
Don't start saying it's fiction because we know for sure it's historically accurate and true.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Might as well have a burning.
Last edited:
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
I get the apprehension about things like this, but altering books after the fact is a pretty common thing. Many classic sci-fi books have been changed to reflect new discoveries or modern technology. Some authors have even requested of their publisher that some of their early works be updated because they were unsatisfied with it or because their views changed.
Even Tolkien re-wrote portions of The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings was published, when he realized his classic story didn't jibe with his current creations. The version of The Hobbit most of us have likely read is darker than its original creation, with a sort of reinvented Gollum no less. Stephen King's The Stand was originally published in a shorter form. King later added in about a hundred pages (maybe even more?) that fleshed out his multiverse concept amongst other things.
So this isn't exactly unheard of, and as I said before, the originals will always be available if one were inclined to share or read them.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Doesn't strike me as remotely the same. First of all, those were the decisions of the authors themselves since they were still alive. Secondly, they weren't rewriting the story to remove anything deemed "offensive."
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
Fair enough. I see your point.
Uh...I dont think this is as convining as you think.
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
How so? Not trying to be challenging, I am genuinely curious as I merely pointed out that this is a common occurrence.
Besides, I find it difficult to get angry about changing children's books in a manner that doesn't alter the story itself but rather removes some insulting language. We live in an age in which bullying leads to terrible consequences both online and in the real world, so this is probably being done with best intentions.
For what it's worth, and I really was not trying to play Devil's Advocate there, I actually would prefer that original works were never altered and if they were new versions were clearly marked in some way.
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
Some governors in my country are literally banning books, high school curricula, and gender. If we're going to take offense at this and not that, then yea, we're lost, but for different reasons.
Agent_Nobody
Member
Funny enough one of the books recently banned in Florida is Roald Dahl’s Revolting Rhymes.
Brigandier
Member
Ummm OK?
DKehoe
Member
Like
OmegaSupreme
said the examples you listed were changed by the creator. Tolkein updated The Hobbit so that it lined up with his vision for Lord of the Rings and King updated The Stand with the content he had to cut because of physical restrictions on binding at the time it was originally released. The creator wanting to change their text to match up with how they want it to be seen is different than a company changing it after the author has died.
Last edited:
Agent_Nobody
Member
He is right in that it’s not a new thing though:Like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_Shakespeare
But this kind of change (‘bowdlerization’) has always been generally looked down upon.
IDKFA
Member
The examples you mentioned above are completely different, not to mention that they were changes decided upon by the author.
Here we have a group of people going through an author's work to remove words/phrases that might be deemed offensive, plus creating whole new sentences in a bid to make the work more inclusive.
I'm actually shocked you don't see a problem with this. This is truly a slippery slope that could well lead to all other novels and works of art coming under the "offensive" microscope.
Ah yes. The insulting language, such as removing the words "black" and "white" when they're referencing the actual colour and have nothing to do with race.
Or changing a witch posing as a cashier in a supermarket in The Witches to now being "a top scientist", because we can't have women work as cashier
Or renaming the Cloud Men in James and the Giant Peach to "Cloud People" because gendered language is such a problem
You get the point. This isn't to prevent bullying. These books have been around for decades without issue. This is about controlling language to fit a certain ideology.
Cyberpunkd
Member
See kids? It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
