Idiots Who Remove Roald Dahl’s Darkness Are Just Utter Wonkas

[naomi24]

References to gender, weight, mental health, physicality and race in the fantasy world of Roald Dahl have been edited, slashed and, in parts, entirely rewritten.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21453769/idiots-who-remove-roald-dahls-darkness-utter-wonkas/

“You can’t go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just you try it and see what happens,” reads the original. In the latest edition, this reads: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."

What? Anyone?

Wonder no longer why we're said to be entering a cultural war. This attack on our treasured literature is just one reason we need to. Barminess reigns but hopefully not for long. The worm needs to turn - and fast.

[THECORBYLOON]

This link shows the Telegraph article.

https://archive.ph/jfjHL

[DTCwordfan]

Almost shades of that novel and film 'Farenheit 451' that I first saw when I was a teenager - and one reason that I hate throwing out book, LIK....

[THECORBYLOON]

I wonder if folk would prefer that the original version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" were in print still?

[naomi24]

Why not Corby?

[THECORBYLOON]

In the original version, the Oompa-Loompas were three thousand black pygmies, shipped from Africa to the United States in packing-crates.

[Atheist]

For goodness sakes, they're only kids books which are being amended to make them more up to date. It's silly to compare with book-burning and re-writing history.

[naomi24]

You need to read more, Corby. They weren’t enslaved if that’s what you’re getting at. It’s fantasy.

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, there was me thinking it was a true story...

Would you be okay with that version being in print to-day?

[naomi24]

Of course. It’s fantasy.

[Atheist]

If it's fantasy, then revising it isn't changing history, it's just revising and updating something presumably for commercial reasons. Is it not?

[naomi24]

Who said it was changing history?

[THECORBYLOON]

Any content, no matter how offensive, is fine as long as it's fiction, regardless of the ages of those it is aimed at?

[naomi24]

Corby, you can find offence in anything if you look hard enough. Unfortunately for the sensible among us, some people do just that.

[Atheist]

DTC at 13:14 seems to be in agreement with the Telegraph.
Naomi, you only said that it's an attack on our treasured literature, but using that sort if language is why it's called 'culture war'. Surely we should get a sense of proportion and not compare children's book updating with a war?

[naomi24]

DTC’s post covered much of the spectrum of what is becoming a culture war. When history is airbrushed, literature changed, statues torn down, poetry frowned upon, and free speech cancelled you’ll find that many people recognise that as what it is - an attack on their long-cherished culture - so don’t be surprised when they start to fight back.

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, how blind would you need to be, not to see the comparison between folk in Africa being forced into slavery, enduring unbelievable horrors in the hold of a ship sailing to America and three thousand black pygmies from Africa in packing cases shipped to America?

[ClareTG0ld]

The problem with that is that literature has been "changed" more or less constantly throughout history. This sort of thing is, after all, just a modern version of Bowdlerisation, which is taken from the pre-Victorian Thomas Bowdler's "Family Shakespeare". One thing I was surprised to learn when looking into this is that Bowdler's work, while frowned-upon by some at the time, was also credited with making Shakespeare's work more accessible than it had previously been. If changing a work allows it to reach a new audience, is this not a net positive?

I'm certainly not arguing that the unaltered versions should be expunged from history entirely: they have their place, after all, in helping to understand the author, the period in which he lived, and perhaps also the views of those who read his original books eagerly. And I'm also struggling based on the example I've seen to understand what was particularly "wrong" about the original passages in order to motivate the changes. But my point is that there's nothing new to this, so that this idea that it's the product of some new/recent "Culture War" is therefore wrong; likewise, the fears of wide-reaching censorship are wholly overblown. The Telegraph article is fear-mongering.

[naomi24]

These are fantasy people, Corby, who in the story came willingly to work in exchange for cocoa beans because they loved chocolate . Get a grip for goodness sake. It’s barmy.

[Untitled]

i really think it is better to just encourage the creation of new things clare… roald dahl wrote of his time and we should do the same for ours! there are lots of talented writers out there who come from marginalized backgrounds… the fact that there is a precedent for bowlderization does not suggest it should be followed

[tomus42]

Stupid. If they don't like the language used in the original books they should find some new ones not p^ss about with existing works.