The censorship of Roald Dahl
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Yep. PP seems clueless. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| It's pretty rich to read Huck Funn to a 5 year old and then complain about the language. WTF - if you're going to read a book to your kid, make sure it's the correct age if you are a pearl clutcher. |
Anonymous
I would not describe either Hans Christian Andersen or the brothers Grimm and providing "thrill and wonder." Read what you want to your kids, but understand that your kids won't experience your childhood favorites the way you did or classics the way children in the 19th century did. We bring our whole lived experience to the experience of reading/listening, and what seemed normal and good in an era with different values can seem creepy or bent today. That's not always bad -- a little discomfort can be good for the soul -- but examine why you want to impose this on a kid. |
Anonymous
I don't think the PP had a grasp on the point of Huck Finn when it was written.The book is supposed to be about race and identity. It's supposed to challenge the reader and explore bias. It was controversial in its time, as it was intended. |
Anonymous
Fwiw I think there is a HUGE difference from Disney saying - I'm going to do a re-telling of old fairy tales. They're not watering it down and saying by Hans Christian Andersen - which is what the Dahl estate is doing. |
Anonymous
Yes, I agree with previous points about not preserving the original work as the author intended and the unique nature of the censorship going on here. Dahl said years ago he did not want publishers changing his words (The Guardian reported this). Changing language=changing meaning. Even with the compromise and publishing both the originals and the doctored versions, Penguin/Puffin may not push to get the originals out there either. They are being advised by a group called "Inclusive Minds". The publisher will probably spend a lot more time marketing and distributing the rewritten versions. Dahl fans had better hold on to their printed copies! Worth reading: https://raisingamericans.substack.com/p/respect-the-oompa-loompas And one more thing -- I agree there is a real lack of respect for the historical record. Orwell comes up a lot these days, but a quote to consider... "This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, soundtracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance."– George Orwell 1984. Part 1, Chapter 4. The process of changing history and the past, it was Winston’s job to falsify the records. |
Anonymous
| Dahl was a horrible antisemite and many of his villains are supposed to be Jewish characters. Like Witches are based on the libel story of jews in europe kidnapping christian babies for blood. Maybe he should be censored. |
Anonymous
Amazon distributes. They do not publish. As a self-publisher, I own my ISBNs, I am the publisher of record, and I distribute through many companies, not just Amazon. Amazon is not my publisher. |
Anonymous
| Has anyone else been to the Roald Dahl Museum in the UK?I thought it was amazing. |
Anonymous
|
Off-topic, maybe, but Huck Finn is profoundly anti-racist. Jim is a hero who sacrifices his one chance at freedom to save Huck's life.
What to do about the n-word I can't say, but I hope we don't have to sacrifice the book. |
Anonymous
|
Mildred D. Taylor wrote a really good essay explaining why she chose to use the authentic language of her childhood in her books even though it makes people uncomfortable. Her books are "unfashionable" since ppl would rather read the absolutely unrealistic sentimental fiction promoting diversity like the VanderBeekers (I. love those books but its like Sesame Street version of Harlem) rather then Roll of Thunder hear my cry which used to be required reading for kids back in the 80's-90's but doesn't fit into the narrative of either the left or the right.
In my writing, I have always attempted to tell the truth. Because the books are read by children and young adults, I sometimes have been asked to “water down” the telling of my stories, to whitewash history, in essence, to falsify history. In order for certain reprint rights to be sold, I sometimes have been requested by those wanting to reprint my work to delete all objectionable language. My publishser and I have refused to do that. There have been calls to ban my books because of the words I use and the incidents I portray. When my books were first published in the 1970’s, people understood the reality of the words which were used and why they were used. They understood the honesty of the hisotry, which was still then in the making. They understood the necessity for the truth. Recently, however, there has been a backlash of parents, minority parents included, and educators who do not want children to read books such as mine. Some of the people who voice these opinions do not like the “n” word being used, because they believe it brings too much pain to a child reading such a word. But how can readers understand the true history of the past or the need for a civil rights movement unless they have begun to understand the pain of those who suffered through slavery, discrimination, and segregation? How can readers feel the pain if I pretty up the way things were? What I least like to do is write down words that hurt. I cringe at the thought of any child being hurt by my words, but as much as it hurts me to write words of pain, I know that they must be written, for they are truthful words about the time I write. They are painful to me to write and they are painful to those who read them, but they are needed for the full understanding of what life was like for African-Americans before the Civil Rights Movement. I remember what it was like. I remember the pain of what life was like and I want others to recognize that pain in order for all generations to appreciate why there was a Civil Rights Movement and to appreciate the great freedom of rights and opportunities we enjoy today. |
Anonymous
| Clearly, the owners of the Dahl collection want future generations of kids to read his books. Which would begin to decline for all the reasons they are editing now. So the choices are really, let his books die or make very minor changes to make them not seem outdated and offensive. Doesn’t seem complicated to me, as I do enjoy his humor but also did have a chat about the language we use as my kids started reading them. |
Anonymous
|
I mean, Dahl originally wrote the Oompa Loompas as a tribe of black African Pygmy men. He was okay with that being edited once he was made to understand how offensive that was. I wonder which changes he’d agree to if he were still around today. Also wonder whether he’d rather his books continue to live on and be enjoyed by future generations, vs becoming dusty old abandoned relics.
I think some of the new changes are pretty silly and unnecessary, but like a PP above, I’ve been thinking about how it’s a shame that I probably won’t proactively introduce my kids to some of the older books I enjoyed growing up, (Twain for example) because of the outmoded and offensive language. If they find them on their own, we can have the difficult conversations, which we’d have to have anyway. I was a huge bookworm and the only fluent English speaker in my family growing up, and my parents had no clue what I was reading, besides generally feeling that older books were probably of higher quality. I grew up with a complete blind spot and lack of understanding as to why certain words or characterizations shouldn’t be used, since I was reading them all the time. It’s taken me much longer than I would like to admit to really dismantle and rebuild my thinking on these topics. |
Anonymous
Don’t know where the “friends” thing came from; it’s not actually recommended. It is condescending and misleading, bc students are not a teacher’s friends. Was an avid reader as a kid and always uncomfortable with Dahl’s misogyny, though I didn’t know the word then. That said, I’m opposed to censorship. It would be good to see more critical discussion of Dahl. The Ooompa Loompas seemed like a slave colony to me. |