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

Book revisions are nothing new as stated. I was more shocked as an adult to learn how much of an anti semite he was

quote “Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

It killed me on the inside hearing this about the author that introduced me to long-form reading. At least he's dead and can't push his agenda any more.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:The only thing I find annoying about this is that it's one of those fringe examples that will be used by bellends when they argue against progressive initiatives/policies or even just the general idea of equalising representation in society, culture and media. There will be genuinely useful and important movements in this regard, and your gammon down the pub will argue against them by picking out things like this.

It's especially infuriating when the changes are only being made because of capitalism and overly long copyright laws.

In a lefty world of no IP laws, one publisher/estate wouldn't control these works and so wouldn't be able to force a revised version into being the only version on sale.

If you're angry now about new editions of Roald Dahl books being slightly altered, wait until you hear about what happened with the entirety of human culture passed down through oral tradition

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:The only thing I find annoying about this is that it's one of those fringe examples that will be used by bellends when they argue against progressive initiatives/policies or even just the general idea of equalising representation in society, culture and media. There will be genuinely useful and important movements in this regard, and your gammon down the pub will argue against them by picking out things like this.

It's especially infuriating when the changes are only being made because of capitalism and overly long copyright laws.

In a lefty world of no IP laws, one publisher/estate wouldn't control these works and so wouldn't be able to force a revised version into being the only version on sale.

It's the, err, radical-righty closed market gone mad?!

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:The only thing I find annoying about this is that it's one of those fringe examples that will be used by bellends when they argue against progressive initiatives/policies or even just the general idea of equalising representation in society, culture and media. There will be genuinely useful and important movements in this regard, and your gammon down the pub will argue against them by picking out things like this.

It's especially infuriating when the changes are only being made because of capitalism and overly long copyright laws.

In a lefty world of no IP laws, one publisher/estate wouldn't control these works and so wouldn't be able to force a revised version into being the only version on sale.

It's the, err, radical-righty closed market gone mad?!

Exactly. Capitalism must be stopped or else before you know it, we'll no longer be allowed to read old racist books.

Johnny Ryall wrote:quote “Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

The full quote is full of terrible takes.

He also has this weird cognitive dissonance thing where he deems Jews as submissive as a whole, yet he complains about them controlling everything.

Squinty wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:quote “Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

The full quote is full of terrible takes.

He also has this weird cognitive dissonance thing where he deems Jews as submissive as a whole, yet he complains about them controlling everything.

Oh yes, it makes me far less bothered by these edits when you think that "fat" to him would equal "greedy" and who he internalises greedy people as being (Jewish).

So yeah the more I think about this the less it bothers me, not that it did in the first place.

Johnny Ryall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:quote “Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

The full quote is full of terrible takes.

He also has this weird cognitive dissonance thing where he deems Jews as submissive as a whole, yet he complains about them controlling everything.

Oh yes, it makes me far less bothered by these edits when you think that "fat" to him would equal "greedy" and who he internalises greedy people as being (Jewish).

So yeah the more I think about this the less it bothers me, not that it did in the first place.

It puts The Witches in a different light that's for sure.

I watched some of Kerrby's video (I admit I didn't make it to the end, because of the mask). You seem to be against changing things, but you're defensive of the film iteration of Wonka, even though that had significant changes from the original story. Is it a case of protecting your childhood memories in particular?

I didn't make it to the end of the video because of the mask either - you look like an anarcho-capitalist youtube talker.

I did just listen through your video Kerr.

Releasing a new edition of a book with alterations is not censorship, or really out of the ordinary at all. You land on the idea of wanting an edition that includes the original text, later revisions, a preface giving historical context, etc., and that's fine and a good thing to have for academic study, as a historical record or if you're interested in those things. As a children's book that's not what people want and there's nothing wrong with just printing the latest revision. If the latest revision is more inclusive and suitable for modern values then all the better.

Whenever things get revised there is debate to be had over whether the changes are for the better or worse, but I think being precious about some original purity doesn't have much worth in of itself - especially when its preservation isn't under any threat. As it is these changes seem to minor with no apparent affect on character, tone, plot or whatever that it's really not that interesting!

From what I can tell this news story only exists because The Telegraph wants to manufacture outrage, as always it's probably best to just ignore them.

Cuttooth wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:quote “Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

The full quote is full of terrible takes.

He also has this weird cognitive dissonance thing where he deems Jews as submissive as a whole, yet he complains about them controlling everything.

Oh yes, it makes me far less bothered by these edits when you think that "fat" to him would equal "greedy" and who he internalises greedy people as being (Jewish).

So yeah the more I think about this the less it bothers me, not that it did in the first place.

It puts The Witches in a different light that's for sure.

It looks like even at its release it was criticised for misogyny and Dahl dismissed this saying he was not afraid of offending women.

Growing up is realising the people you grew up idolising can be pieces of gooseberry fool.

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.

is there a list of side by side edits?

rd books are read by millions of kids, and if these edits are to remove culturally insensitive words or terms without affecting the prose or story then whats the problem

False wrote:is there a list of side by side edits?

rd books are read by millions of kids, and if these edits are to remove culturally insensitive words or terms without affecting the prose or story then whats the problem

twitter.com/incunabula/status/1626952883362058240

twitter.com/incunabula/status/1626955732804403200

ok it does seem a bit heavy handed - maybe im behind on my problematic terms

I find most of the changes a bit odd, and I'd be intrigued as to the reasoning behind why some of them were changed, but I don't really care that much otherwise. Almost everything seems to be 'problematic' to someone these days, and so I kind of expect stuff like this. Makes more sense to me to explain and provide context, rather than just remove or change stuff.

False wrote:ok it does seem a bit heavy handed - maybe im behind on my problematic terms

Owch to ugh is where I draw the line.

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

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

Not all the changes will be because of racism/sexism, some of them are just updating to sound more modern.