Roald Dahl & 1984
Discussion
If you have read 1984 (on an episode of QI apparently a lot of people claim to have read it when they haven’t!) you will know that one of the key themes is control over the people and their thoughts, partly by the constant rewriting of history.
I read yesterday that the publishers of Roald Dahl’s books have re-edited his books to “bring them in line with the times”. Apparently the word “fat” is being removed as well as the word “ugly”, amongst others. A bit like modern versions of Tom Sayer which have removed the N word.
Although I can understand why people today might be offended as the books were written in less enlightened times but I personally am against such changes. Books are historical documents and reflect the society of the time in which they were written. How can we appreciate and learn from history if we rewrite it? I think that books should be left as originally published with footnotes if necessary to explain the context.
Also, I think one of the reasons that Roald Dahl’s books were popular is that he didn’t seem to be that nice of a person and many characters in his books are horrid and get their comeuppance. Children (and adults) liked that. Giving him a new soft and friendly make over doesn’t seem right. If this continues where will it end? In a hundred years will The Twits have gone from Wayne and Waynetta to Tom and Barbara Good?
I read yesterday that the publishers of Roald Dahl’s books have re-edited his books to “bring them in line with the times”. Apparently the word “fat” is being removed as well as the word “ugly”, amongst others. A bit like modern versions of Tom Sayer which have removed the N word.
Although I can understand why people today might be offended as the books were written in less enlightened times but I personally am against such changes. Books are historical documents and reflect the society of the time in which they were written. How can we appreciate and learn from history if we rewrite it? I think that books should be left as originally published with footnotes if necessary to explain the context.
Also, I think one of the reasons that Roald Dahl’s books were popular is that he didn’t seem to be that nice of a person and many characters in his books are horrid and get their comeuppance. Children (and adults) liked that. Giving him a new soft and friendly make over doesn’t seem right. If this continues where will it end? In a hundred years will The Twits have gone from Wayne and Waynetta to Tom and Barbara Good?
The publisher wants to sell books. The books, as they were, were not what modern audiences want for children. The publisher has decided to make them more appealing to modern audiences.
These books are not “historical documents”, they are entertainment for younger children. Children are not going to consider the time they are written or read footnotes. They are going to read the stories and children take things from stories. They inform how children think and play, so of course parents want to ensure what their young children are reading reflects how they want their children to act and play.
These books are not “historical documents”, they are entertainment for younger children. Children are not going to consider the time they are written or read footnotes. They are going to read the stories and children take things from stories. They inform how children think and play, so of course parents want to ensure what their young children are reading reflects how they want their children to act and play.
Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 19th February 07:56
Electro1980 said:
The publisher wants to sell books. The books, as they were, were not what modern audiences want for children. The publisher has decided to make them more appealing to modern audiences.
Agree. Though I do think that everyone has their own position on a scale with this and most other things in life. I cant see a problem with the word "fat" in books but, for instance, I can see why someone showing a film doesn't want there to be a dog called "n****r" in it. I never really go in for "slippery slope" stuff. Everything on it's own merits or more my philosophy. And publishers and film makers should make their own business decisions. Agree. Though I do think that everyone has their own position on a scale with this and most other things in life. I cant see a problem with the word "fat" in books but, for instance, I can see why someone showing a film doesn't want there to be a dog called "n****r" in it. I never really go in for "slippery slope" stuff. Everything on it's own merits is more my philosophy. And publishers and film makers should make their own business decisions.
EmailAddress said:
All they've done is make minor tweaks to make quite an old set of works slightly more inclusive.
From a time when race, sex, and physical features were persecuted more openly due to a less globally mixed society with slower and limited access to universal cultures.
The adjustments have made sure the books are legible and appealing to the broadest demographic. None of their magic has been watered down.
Only a certain demographic will take issue with this.
The only mildly hot take you could level at it is the alteration of the word 'fat' and description surrounding it as we can pretty much universally agree that weight is a lifestyle choice and not a genetic feature.
However, as the target market is children, who's nutritional and dietary consumption may not be in their direct control, and are also at an impressionable age where learning tolerance and kindness is key, I can see why calling out character flaws and nasty behaviours only is the preferred solution.
They've removed words such as "chambermaid", "flock", "men", "female", "pink skin" (referencing a worm), "black" (referencing the colour of a tractor), references to working as supermarket cashier and sailing to India with Rudyard Kipling. Are we genuinely at a stage where we cannot reference the colour of an inanimate object for fear it will cause offence to someone? Regarding the bit in bold, it's interesting how that only ever seems to work one way. If you complain about something being altered you're being the snowflake, but apparently not the ones who felt offended enough by the original work to change it.From a time when race, sex, and physical features were persecuted more openly due to a less globally mixed society with slower and limited access to universal cultures.
The adjustments have made sure the books are legible and appealing to the broadest demographic. None of their magic has been watered down.
Only a certain demographic will take issue with this.
The only mildly hot take you could level at it is the alteration of the word 'fat' and description surrounding it as we can pretty much universally agree that weight is a lifestyle choice and not a genetic feature.
However, as the target market is children, who's nutritional and dietary consumption may not be in their direct control, and are also at an impressionable age where learning tolerance and kindness is key, I can see why calling out character flaws and nasty behaviours only is the preferred solution.
It also seems supremely arrogant to decide you know better than the original author and "correct" their work. Language and social norms change, but we should not be altering past media to account for modern day sensibilities. There's a disturbing trend of current media being censored whilst ignoring the context, with the rise of digital distribution it's only getting worse. When past generations destroyed art and media the deemed wrong or heretical we look at is a crime, but is this not what we are doing now?
When I was a kid (in the '70's) we studied "The sun has got his hat on" in primary school and when it came to the line "He's beaming on the 
s, working in the fields" a lot of the kids in the class twigged to the use of the derogatory word and bright spark queried it: the teacher gave me the best answer which has formed my perspective on history ever since:
s, working in the fields" a lot of the kids in the class twigged to the use of the derogatory word and bright spark queried it: the teacher gave me the best answer which has formed my perspective on history ever since: teacher said:
People back then didn't know as much as we do today so they didn't know better.
Ever since then I've been a firm believer that people should be judged by the standards of their day, and eras judged by the standards of today. I'd far rather see comments in the preface or footnotes explaining the era the text was written and the context of the language used and attitudes expressed which would clash with modern perspectives; much better than "newspeak" editing until we end up with bland, inoffensive texts shorn of meaning or passion.Books are edited for different ages of reader. It’s likely, though I’m not 100% sure, that these editions may be intended for newly independent readers (ages 7+) and will be an abridged version of the full text and with a greeter numbe4 of illustrations. The original will still be available, most likely in a smaller font and with fewer illustrations.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Devil's advocate but if some small modifications mean the books stay more relevant so continue to sell more copies so more children are reading them is that not better than them becoming outdated and less children reading them?
Other books are available. In my view better to leave the originals as they were written. If they lose popularity then so what? Should the Mona Lisa be redrawn because it is old and not how people would paint today?
It is very dismissive to label Roald Dahl as just “children’s books”.
Cumulative small changes can make a big difference over time.
Is it the readers and buyers that are demanding these changes? Or are they being imposed because of a perceived need to cater for a certain demographic?
Vanden Saab said:
Newspeak, doubleplus goodthinkful.
Or as Nana puts it; https://youtu.be/Zv-N34a-nZM]Literature is what it is, as it was written.
I am not interested in some dumbed down version or more sensitive version of anything, and nor would I have approved of such a thing for my children.
To Kill a Mockingbird has 'that word' in it, and it bloody well should have. It is because of its presence that one begins to fully appreciate the true horror of some peoples' attitudes in the context of the time it was written to present.
The forced removal of words from the English (or any other) language by the self-appointed guardians of feelings.
b
ks to them.The world is a tough place and was, in the not so distant past, much tougher for many. A lesson worth learning.
What next? Trigger warnings on Shakespeare?
Skeptisk said:
Other books are available. In my view better to leave the originals as they were written. If they lose popularity then so what?
Should the Mona Lisa be redrawn because it is old and not how people would paint today?
It is very dismissive to label Roald Dahl as just “children’s books”.
Cumulative small changes can make a big difference over time.
Is it the readers and buyers that are demanding these changes? Or are they being imposed because of a perceived need to cater for a certain demographic?
I think it depends how you look at it.Should the Mona Lisa be redrawn because it is old and not how people would paint today?
It is very dismissive to label Roald Dahl as just “children’s books”.
Cumulative small changes can make a big difference over time.
Is it the readers and buyers that are demanding these changes? Or are they being imposed because of a perceived need to cater for a certain demographic?
It wouldn't bother me if the books stayed as they were written but spending a couple of minutes looking into it it appears Dahl has a charity linked to him.
https://www.roalddahlcharity.org
The charity says its biggest donor is The Roald Dahl Story Company.
The Roald Dahl Story Company says “When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.”.
So I guess you can read that and still think it's 1984 and what have you or you can look at it and think that the proceeds from sales of Dahl's books appear to fund quite a lot of good work and the people entrusted with ensuring that good work continues think the best way to do so is by keeping the books relevant so people continue to buy and read them.
The Rotrex Kid said:
mwstewart said:
Order the correct version for your children. Problem solved 
A quick google suggest he’s sold 250 million copies so shouldn’t be hard for the OP and others to find ones with the words they want in them!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff