The censorship of Roald Dahl

[Anonymous]

With all the problems we have in the world, this is where energy is put forth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With all the problems we have in the world, this is where energy is put forth?

It's not clear if you're deriding the commenters in this thread for discussing book censorship, or if you're deriding the publishers for doing the censoring. Your contribution to DCUM is ambiguous, and we don't want all your energy to be wasted.

[Anonymous]

I can sort of see the changing the word “fat” . I don’t really agree with changing it, but it’s become such a charged insult in our society that I see the word going by the wayside similar to the R word to describe someone with developmental delays.

Changing Oompa Loompas to be “little people” instead of “little men” or “female” to be “woman” truly baffles me though. I don’t get what is offensive about saying “man” or “female”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch this in the news? Puffin is censoring Roald Dahl's books:

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322797

I am both shocked and not shocked.

I agree with Hackett:

Laura Hackett, a childhood Dahl fan who is now deputy literary editor of London’s Sunday Times newspaper, had a more personal reaction to the news.

“The editors at Puffin should be ashamed of the botched surgery they’ve carried out on some of the finest children’s literature in Britain,” she wrote. “As for me, I’ll be carefully stowing away my old, original copies of Dahl’s stories, so that one day my children can enjoy them in their full, nasty, colorful glory.”

Thankfully, I own all Dahl's books in my home library and am pleased to have the originals for my grandchildren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can sort of see the changing the word “fat” . I don’t really agree with changing it, but it’s become such a charged insult in our society that I see the word going by the wayside similar to the R word to describe someone with developmental delays.

Changing Oompa Loompas to be “little people” instead of “little men” or “female” to be “woman” truly baffles me though. I don’t get what is offensive about saying “man” or “female”.

Gendered language, just like how teachers are supposed to say "friends" instead of "boys and girls".
They also removed references to "mothers and fathers" as in, "All the children had both their mothers and fathers with them."

[Anonymous]

The author isn't alive to defend his work. If we start changing popular works of fiction to suit our changing cultural, it begs the question what books should be changed, and who is to be the judge of that? It seems dishonest. Doesn't it make more sense to write new books that are a reflection of our current culture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can sort of see the changing the word “fat” . I don’t really agree with changing it, but it’s become such a charged insult in our society that I see the word going by the wayside similar to the R word to describe someone with developmental delays.

Changing Oompa Loompas to be “little people” instead of “little men” or “female” to be “woman” truly baffles me though. I don’t get what is offensive about saying “man” or “female”.

Gendered language, just like how teachers are supposed to say "friends" instead of "boys and girls".
They also removed references to "mothers and fathers" as in, "All the children had both their mothers and fathers with them."

Denial of the obvious (that there are two sexes) continues apace.

[Anonymous]

It's very "we have always been at war with Eastasia." History is what it is and sanitizing stuff like this is absurd. Books are a product of their time and there is value in examining them as they were. What's next, should we rewrite the last movement of Beethoven's 9th because of choral lines about Alle Menschen werden Brüder that aren't gender neutral? Where does it stop?

[Anonymous]

^ changing cultural mores

[Anonymous]

I am kinda unhappy about this -- a Raold Dahl fan and a flaming liberal.

I heard there were bad things in Dahl books, but could not recollect them ... I read an article today that said corrections were for "fat" and more inclusive gender, which seems unnecessary!

I have also heard Dahl had anti-Semitic moments, but the WaPo article I read did not addtess that, or any corrections concerning that.

I'd love for Dahl to stay the same if his offenses were only "fat," "short men," and a description of skin color that seemed to be fantastical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's very "we have always been at war with Eastasia." History is what it is and sanitizing stuff like this is absurd. Books are a product of their time and there is value in examining them as they were. What's next, should we rewrite the last movement of Beethoven's 9th because of choral lines about Alle Menschen werden Brüder that aren't gender neutral? Where does it stop?

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The author isn't alive to defend his work. If we start changing popular works of fiction to suit our changing cultural, it begs the question what books should be changed, and who is to be the judge of that? It seems dishonest. Doesn't it make more sense to write new books that are a reflection of our current culture?

It does make more sense, but these books are still big sellers ...probably bigger than most current culturally-approved new works. If Roald Dahl was forgotten no one would care about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am kinda unhappy about this -- a Raold Dahl fan and a flaming liberal.

I heard there were bad things in Dahl books, but could not recollect them ... I read an article today that said corrections were for "fat" and more inclusive gender, which seems unnecessary!

I have also heard Dahl had anti-Semitic moments, but the WaPo article I read did not addtess that, or any corrections concerning that.

I'd love for Dahl to stay the same if his offenses were only "fat," "short men," and a description of skin color that seemed to be fantastical.

That's not all though. They rewrote entire sentences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am kinda unhappy about this -- a Raold Dahl fan and a flaming liberal.

I heard there were bad things in Dahl books, but could not recollect them ... I read an article today that said corrections were for "fat" and more inclusive gender, which seems unnecessary!

I have also heard Dahl had anti-Semitic moments, but the WaPo article I read did not addtess that, or any corrections concerning that.

I'd love for Dahl to stay the same if his offenses were only "fat," "short men," and a description of skin color that seemed to be fantastical.

That's not all though. They rewrote entire sentences.

Well I hope to pick up the originals, and this is for the British I am surprised by it. The estate approved. My estate does not approve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's very "we have always been at war with Eastasia." History is what it is and sanitizing stuff like this is absurd. Books are a product of their time and there is value in examining them as they were. What's next, should we rewrite the last movement of Beethoven's 9th because of choral lines about Alle Menschen werden Brüder that aren't gender neutral? Where does it stop?

Obviously you haven't been to church lately because a lot of hymns have been rewritten for just this reason. References to "brothers" are changed to "neighbors", "man" to "one" or "human", "men" to "all".