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

Prototype wrote:re the mask, maybe keep it for your horror related vids?

Just think the horror mask is a bit much on a video discussing children's books?

And i've watched your videos before, you have a majestic beard!

I'm afraid the majestic beard has gone lol

It was mine and the other halfs four year anniversary a few weeks back so I shaved it off to look like we did when we met as a romantic gesture but I'm growing it back , it's just stuble now though...

As for the mask I haven't taken anything any one has said badly it's nice people care enough to give me input , I guess a lot of it was just trying to carve out some sense of USP/ Branding for my YouTube and I can't draw faces so I could add little crime face cartoons and photos to banners and thumbnails and such.... I work a lot on YouTube stuff but it's never really got off the ground.

Be still, my dog of war. I understand your pain. We’ve all lost someone we love. But we do it my way!

Preezy wrote:There has been too much violence. Too much pain. None here are without sin. But I have an honourable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away. I will give you safe passage in the wasteland. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

Moggy wrote:I saw a very angry gammon on Twitter earlier who said "WHAT'S NEXT?? REWRITING THE BIBLE?!"

Can you imagine if a church was just like "haha this part of the bible is now non-canon!" (to borrow a term from the star wars expanded universe)

OrangeRKN wrote:
Moggy wrote:I saw a very angry gammon on Twitter earlier who said "WHAT'S NEXT?? REWRITING THE BIBLE?!"

Can you imagine if a church was just like "haha this part of the bible is now non-canon!" (to borrow a term from the star wars expanded universe)

In the original Jesus wasn't God's Son but they just couldn't resist the chance to have the line "I am your Father". Oh wait that might be Star Wars it's easy to get confused with these things :slol:

Somehow Jesus returned

Writing in Jesus getting resurrected because they had two different stories about him dying is just like when they made Boba Fett fall back into the Sarlacc pit.

The Bible Multiverse.

twitter.com/puffinbooks/status/1629089606258892801

As expected, the real winner is capitalism.

speedboatchase wrote:

twitter.com/puffinbooks/status/1629089606258892801

As expected, the real winner is capitalism.

Capitalism is like the house in casinos it always wins somehow in the long run.

The print run for the new version is going to be tiny I bet.

What a shock!!!

YouTube

Stugene wrote:I hope the publisher makes plenty of money from selling off their massive pile of existing Dahl books before they pull this plan entirely due to "public outcry".

I was pretty close

twitter.com/independent/status/1629769187215175680

Oh no, they are taking the N word out of Bond books. :cry:

Interesting. One of the arguments I saw for the Dahl edits was 'well, it's for children'. Now it isn't.

speedboatchase wrote:Interesting. One of the arguments I saw for the Dahl edits was 'well, it's for children'. Now it isn't.

Terms such as the n-word, which featured in his writing from the 1950s and 1960s, have been edited out of new editions of the 007 books set for reissue in April.

Some depictions of Black people have also been reworked or removed, but references to other ethnicities, such as a term for east Asian people and Bond’s mocking views of Oddjob, Goldfinger’s Korean henchman remain, The Telegraph reports.

Revised lines include Bond’s assessment in Live and Let Die that would-be African criminals are “pretty law-abiding chaps I should have thought, except when they’ve drunk too much”, which has been changed to “pretty law-abiding chaps I should have thought”.

However, references to the “sweet tang of rape”, “blithering women”, doing a “man’s work” and references to homosexuality being a “stubborn disability” have been kept in.

Sounds like the changes don't go far enough.

That makes less sense than what the Dahl editors ended up with (or had planned to end up with). It makes sense to have an original edit in publication and a modernised edit in publication together. Sounds like the Fleming editors decided to 'modernise' some slurs but others were fine? Bizarre.

YouTube

Frank wrote:I've seen a couple of people grumbling about how it's a pretty half-hearted attempt to edit them, like removing the word "fat" but the rest of the description still paints a really vivid picture of a little [REDACTED] kid.

Let's keep this clean, please.

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

Who is online

Affiliates