What do you think about the Roald Dahl books being altered?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

False wrote:like, "dotty" - wheres the beef? im trying to twist it in my head to be a sort of racist thing but i dunno - does it mean the hindu dots on the forehead perhaps? if so that recolours every time ive ever heard any old person described as dotty

other things like "crazy" or "hag" etc, is it just about softening the language so its less attacking?

thugs to robbers? its making me think im saying problematic stuff all the time but not aware of it

obviously put the culture and race stuff in the bin but seems a little firm to me

Crazy you could argue demonises having mental health issues.

Hag is misogynistic.

Thugs to robbers yeah I dunno, probably just less stereotypical.

The important distinction to make is these are books aimed towards very impressionable young children. I doubt these edits would be made if it was adult fiction.

oh ffs am i an old fuddy duddy

i guess it doesnt hurt the kids if its changed so whatever, as i say, seems a touch heavy to me but maybe the edits are 20 years ahead of the game

False wrote:like, "dotty" - wheres the beef? im trying to twist it in my head to be a sort of racist thing but i dunno - does it mean the hindu dots on the forehead perhaps? if so that recolours every time ive ever heard any old person described as dotty

other things like "crazy" or "hag" etc, is it just about softening the language so its less attacking?

thugs to robbers? its making me think im saying problematic stuff all the time but not aware of it

obviously put the culture and race stuff in the bin but seems a little firm to me

'Dotty' is just taken out because 'crazy' has I think. 'Thugs' I can just about understand at a push because its etymology comes from the historical idea that there were roaming murderous gangs of robbers in India, something there's increasing doubt was anything other than an invention by the British.

Even then the use of the word is quite far removed from that now.

I think the outrage is overblown. When I heard it described to me I thought “that is ridiculous” but reading those changes there I’m like “well, for the most part, nothing is really lost”. People take the stance of “you can’t even say X anymore” so quickly in these discussions when in fact it’s just, there’s no need to say it in this context!

When I first heard of this I was told “Augustus Gloop isn’t even fat anymore” “the twits aren’t ugly” and “cloud men are now cloud them or something”.

Anyway I'd argue it's more imperative to get kids to read modern childrens fiction than put our own nostalgia on them. Matt Haig for example does great kids books and I'm pretty sure he doesn't share any Nazi viewpoints.

Johnny Ryall wrote:Anyway I'd argue it's more imperative to get kids to read modern childrens fiction than put our own nostalgia on them. Matt Haig for example does great kids books and I'm pretty sure he doesn't share any Nazi viewpoints.

Yes. I lifted this quote from the BBC New article:

His Dark Materials author Philip Pullman told BBC Radio 4 that Dahl's books "should be allowed to fade away" rather than be changed if they are deemed offensive.

"If Dahl offends us, let him go out of print," said Pullman. "Read all these [other] wonderful authors who are writing today, who don't get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64702224

Rishi Sunak is against the changes. Just in case anyone's on the fence and needs a nudge.

"the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl"
I mean, let's not forget that he's owned by Netflix now.

I'm fine with Dahl's words being altered with his permission, as occurred in the 1970s, I believe. I'm not OK with his words being altered from beyond the grave to ensure the value of his IP and upcoming Netflix adaptations. It's similar to seeing hologram tours of dead singers (one particularly distasteful example was 'Tupac' rapping alongside 50 Cent - in one song Tupac's voice was modulated to say "G-UNIT!") or a CGI Bruce Lee advertising Johnnie Walker. I don't care if the estate approved it, I care about the artist's consent.

Leave the words as they are, now that Dahl is dead. Let the context-providers and the recipient understand the time in which they were written and the flaws of the person behind the art, and the time in which they lived. And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care? There are plenty of authors today who deserve the spotlight too.

rinks wrote:Rishi Sunak is against the changes. Just in case anyone's on the fence and needs a nudge.

But Mr Sunak's spokesman said works of fiction should be "preserved and not airbrushed".

Borrowing a word Dahl invented for playing with language, the PM's spokesman said: "When it comes to our rich and varied literary heritage, the prime minister agrees with the BFG that we shouldn't gobblefunk around with words."

I'd say that confirms that we should change every single word of Dahl's writing.

There's a mixture of sensible and strange edits in that list posted.

A lot of it seems to be gearing towards getting kids to understand hurtful descriptions of people, and some being very appropriate to teach kids (woman can wear wigs for any reason and that's fine).

So a lot of overblown nonsense by the anti-snowflakes being... snowflakes I guess.

speedboatchase wrote:I'm fine with Dahl's words being altered with his permission, as occurred in the 1970s, I believe. I'm not OK with his words being altered from beyond the grave to ensure the value of his IP and upcoming Netflix adaptations. It's similar to seeing hologram tours of dead singers (one particularly distasteful example was 'Tupac' rapping alongside 50 Cent - in one song Tupac's voice was modulated to say "G-UNIT!") or a CGI Bruce Lee advertising Johnnie Walker. I don't care if the estate approved it, I care about the artist's consent.

Leave the words as they are, now that Dahl is dead. Let the context-providers and the recipient understand the time in which they were written and the flaws of the person behind the art, and the time in which they lived. And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care? There are plenty of authors today who deserve the spotlight too.

Better also delete any Shakespeare adaptations that stray from the 16th century language of the originals.

rinks wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:I'm fine with Dahl's words being altered with his permission, as occurred in the 1970s, I believe. I'm not OK with his words being altered from beyond the grave to ensure the value of his IP and upcoming Netflix adaptations. It's similar to seeing hologram tours of dead singers (one particularly distasteful example was 'Tupac' rapping alongside 50 Cent - in one song Tupac's voice was modulated to say "G-UNIT!") or a CGI Bruce Lee advertising Johnnie Walker. I don't care if the estate approved it, I care about the artist's consent.

Leave the words as they are, now that Dahl is dead. Let the context-providers and the recipient understand the time in which they were written and the flaws of the person behind the art, and the time in which they lived. And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care? There are plenty of authors today who deserve the spotlight too.

Better also delete any Shakespeare adaptations that stray from the 16th century language of the originals.

Shakespeare is not beholden to any copyright as I understand it, so people are free to do what they like with it in their adaptations. But if a play of his is being published and sold as Shakespeare's words, it should be written in the original text imo.

What an odd distinction to make. It's distasteful to change someone's words after they've died, but it's OK if it's out of copyright?

speedboatchase wrote:I'm fine with Dahl's words being altered with his permission, as occurred in the 1970s, I believe. I'm not OK with his words being altered from beyond the grave to ensure the value of his IP and upcoming Netflix adaptations. It's similar to seeing hologram tours of dead singers (one particularly distasteful example was 'Tupac' rapping alongside 50 Cent - in one song Tupac's voice was modulated to say "G-UNIT!") or a CGI Bruce Lee advertising Johnnie Walker. I don't care if the estate approved it, I care about the artist's consent.

Leave the words as they are, now that Dahl is dead. Let the context-providers and the recipient understand the time in which they were written and the flaws of the person behind the art, and the time in which they lived. And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care? There are plenty of authors today who deserve the spotlight too.

What about translations of works? Should no new translation be allowed once an author has died? If we allow for translations, which necessarily require localisation and often modernisation, why should the original language then be treated as sacrosanct?

I'd be all for crediting those who contributed alterations, fwiw. Maybe that's more what you're getting at - not wanting changed wording misattributed to a deceased author. In which case I think I agree, the editing (if not the editors) should be noted!

OrangeRKN wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:I'm fine with Dahl's words being altered with his permission, as occurred in the 1970s, I believe. I'm not OK with his words being altered from beyond the grave to ensure the value of his IP and upcoming Netflix adaptations. It's similar to seeing hologram tours of dead singers (one particularly distasteful example was 'Tupac' rapping alongside 50 Cent - in one song Tupac's voice was modulated to say "G-UNIT!") or a CGI Bruce Lee advertising Johnnie Walker. I don't care if the estate approved it, I care about the artist's consent.

Leave the words as they are, now that Dahl is dead. Let the context-providers and the recipient understand the time in which they were written and the flaws of the person behind the art, and the time in which they lived. And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care? There are plenty of authors today who deserve the spotlight too.

What about translations of works? Should no new translation be allowed once an author has died? If we allow for translations, which necessarily require localisation and often modernisation, why should the original language then be treated as sacrosanct?

I'd be all for crediting those who contributed alterations, fwiw. Maybe that's more what you're getting at - not wanting changed wording misattributed to a deceased author. In which case I think I agree, the editing (if not the editors) should be noted!

I think the goal would always have to be to hew as close as possible to the words and meaning of the original text. I'm against 'modernisation' of work produced by an artist who can not approve of such altering of their text.

The text, as it was written and as it stood when the author died, should remain as it was in the original language. Adaptations, especially in a different medium, are a completely different collaborative process and once the original work is out of copyright, are completely up for grabs to any interpretation. But the original work on which they're based should remain as it was imo.

speedboatchase wrote:And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care?

Well, that's the point. The Dahl estate, the publishers and Netflix all have a vested interest in ensuring the work doesn't fall out of fashion. Which is why they update things.

What about things like the Silmarillion? It's Tolkien's work, but edited (after his death) by his son to put it together into a single work. His son had to make a lot of decisions as to where things should go and which version of the stories to put in, including stuff Tolkien himself had rejected. Should the book have never been published?

Yes yes Tolkien haters, we know you think it's gooseberry fool and shouldn't have been published.

speedboatchase wrote:I think the goal would always have to be to hew as close as possible to the words and meaning of the original text.

So if the author used a word that wasn't deemed offensive in his day, but is offensive to modern sensibilities, then changing that word to something inoffensive is hewing close to the original meaning.

Moggy wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:And if Dahl's work falls out of fashion over time, why should anyone who isn't part of his estate or a Netflix shareholder care?

Well, that's the point. The Dahl estate, the publishers and Netflix all have a vested interest in ensuring the work doesn't fall out of fashion. Which is why they update things.

What about things like the Silmarillion? It's Tolkien's work, but edited (after his death) by his son to put it together into a single work. His son had to make a lot of decisions as to where things should go and which version of the stories to put in, including stuff Tolkien himself had rejected. Should the book have never been published?

Yes yes Tolkien haters, we know you think it's gooseberry fool and shouldn't have been published.

In the covers I've seen, 'edited by Christopher Tolkien' is nearly the same font size as JRR Tolkien and so, there is at least an effort to ensure that people understand that it is not misleadingly sold as a completed, singular work. I don't think it should have been published though, especially if there is content that Tolkien rejected. But there was a lot of money to be made, so it was.