Person 1: No Roald Dahl books in my house.
Person 2: YOU WANT TO BAN BOOKS!

Person 1 is just parenting. They are making a choice about what they want in their house.

Person 2 can do the same thing. If you want to scoop up The Witches in current format, know yourself out. If you ware made that a publisher is going to make a business decision to edit the books, don't buy them.

Why it’s wrong to rewrite Roald Dahl’s children’s books
By Megan McArdle

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/23/roald-dahl-books-rewrite-bowdlerize/

“ We should also respect present humans as rational beings capable of independent thought, rather than weak-willed zombies susceptible to crude verbal mind control. In our culture, fatness and baldness and mental illness are stigmatized. That’s bad. But the problem cannot be solved by getting Inclusive Minds to snip the words “fat” and “crazy” out of Dahl’s work — any more than the Victorians managed to control teenage sexual urges with a steady diet of literature edited down into Sunday school tracts.”

Anonymous wrote:Roald Dahl books are banned in my house because they’re so offensive. Lots of talk about people being fat, or ugly, or something else that I really don’t need my kids reading, and the writing isn’t very good anyway. There are so many books out there that are much better choices.

This is bizarre and sad. Dahl’s books are incredibly popular for a reason. So I guess you’re in favor of banning books? Unless they contain pornographic images, then it’s all good, amirite?

Puf­fin func­tionar­ies and hired “sen­si­tiv­ity read­ers” have combed through Dahl’s works for chil­dren—in­clud­ing whizbang nov­els such as “Matilda,” “The Twits,” and “James and the Gi­ant Peach”—and cut all ref­er­ences to fat­ness, crazi­ness, ug­li­ness, white­ness (even of bed­sheets), black­ness (even of trac­tors) and the great Rud­yard Kipling, along with any al­lu­sion to acts lack­ing full and en­thu­si­as­tic con­sent. Some male char­ac­ters have been made fe­male; fe­male vil­lains have been made less nasty; women in gen­eral have been so­cially el­e­vated; while moth­ers and fa­thers, boys and girls have dwin­dled into sex­less “par­ents” and “chil­dren.”

Dahl, who died in 1990, didn’t agree to these changes—con­sent came from Net­flix, which bought Dahl’s es­tate in 2018. Many of the ed­its re­veal a to­tal fail­ure to un­der­stand why chil­dren love the spiky and opin­ion­ated British writer and why they gob­ble his sto­ries as fast as his porcine char­ac­ters eat sweets. Dahl’s writ­ing flashes with men­ace and ten­der­ness; it’s funny, ex­cit­ing and un­pre­dictable.

The bowd­ler­iz­ing of Dahl fits a broader trend in chil­dren’s books. Every­thing is get­ting less spe­cific, more di­dac­tic and more bor­ing. Writ­ers and il­lus­tra­tors, ter­ri­fied of caus­ing “harm” by fail­ing to be “in­clu­sive” and “ac­ces­si­ble,” are sac­ri­fic­ing speci­ficity, beauty and fun. Most new pic­ture books de­liver a les­son rather than risk telling a story, and they in­creas­ingly fea­ture young pro­tag­o­nists of in­de­ter­minate sex rather than boys or girls.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/woke-roald-dahl-will-put-kids-to-sleep-sensitivity-readers-telegraph-puffin-social-jusitce-censorship-lessons-3a1db485

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute." George Orwell, 1984

Except Orwell is talking about the GOVERNMENT, not a private company and the estate of the deceased.

I agree that Puffin and the Dahl estate shouldn't change the original works. How "shouldn't" is effected is a whole other matter that I'd just as soon the government stay out of entirely.

So many people seem to be missing this point. This is the publisher and estate. There has been no pressure from anywhere to do this. My cynical guess is that they think it will help sell product produced before the change goes into effect

+

They are a business trying to adjust their product to make money.

Anonymous wrote:Next they'll be censoring the Bible to remove references to gender.

Haha. I wish Netflix would do a series of biblical stories as written. With the misogyny, terrible family dynamics, impossible scenes. Would make people realize what a farce organized religion is.

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with “boys and girls” or “mothers and fathers”? Is it offensive nowadays? I am being serious. I am not American and not an English speaker. Just trying to understand…Can someone please explain to me?

Apparently you cannot use words/phrases that apply to 95% of the population. If you don’t include absolutely everyone you are a non inclusive horrible racist human being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roald Dahl books are banned in my house because they’re so offensive. Lots of talk about people being fat, or ugly, or something else that I really don’t need my kids reading, and the writing isn’t very good anyway. There are so many books out there that are much better choices.

So what books are better choices? "The Magical Unicorn in Happy-Happy Land, Where Nothing Bad Ever Happens?"

You can tell a story of bad things happening without offensive language.

Are you ok reading books that contain profanity to your kids?

Are you okay reading books that contain references to the color of a machine to your kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute." George Orwell, 1984

Except Orwell is talking about the GOVERNMENT, not a private company and the estate of the deceased.

I agree that Puffin and the Dahl estate shouldn't change the original works. How "shouldn't" is effected is a whole other matter that I'd just as soon the government stay out of entirely.

So many people seem to be missing this point. This is the publisher and estate. There has been no pressure from anywhere to do this. My cynical guess is that they think it will help sell product produced before the change goes into effect

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roald Dahl books are banned in my house because they’re so offensive. Lots of talk about people being fat, or ugly, or something else that I really don’t need my kids reading, and the writing isn’t very good anyway. There are so many books out there that are much better choices.

So what books are better choices? "The Magical Unicorn in Happy-Happy Land, Where Nothing Bad Ever Happens?"

You can tell a story of bad things happening without offensive language.

Are you ok reading books that contain profanity to your kids?

Anonymous wrote:Roald Dahl books are banned in my house because they’re so offensive. Lots of talk about people being fat, or ugly, or something else that I really don’t need my kids reading, and the writing isn’t very good anyway. There are so many books out there that are much better choices.

So what books are better choices? "The Magical Unicorn in Happy-Happy Land, Where Nothing Bad Ever Happens?"

Roald Dahl books are banned in my house because they’re so offensive. Lots of talk about people being fat, or ugly, or something else that I really don’t need my kids reading, and the writing isn’t very good anyway. There are so many books out there that are much better choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s like saving Christie’s “Ten Little N******” for your grandkids so they get to read that instead of a book titled “And Then There Were None.”

Is the word "female" that taboo already? Do you read your books with a sharpie to cross out the offensive language, or do you just burn them to spare future generations from such cruelty?

Wow, all these people passionate about books! You'd think it was just a few of us here from the other threads, but I guess a lot of DCUMers are book worms.

Anonymous wrote:“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute." George Orwell, 1984

Except Orwell is talking about the GOVERNMENT, not a private company and the estate of the deceased.

I agree that Puffin and the Dahl estate shouldn't change the original works. How "shouldn't" is effected is a whole other matter that I'd just as soon the government stay out of entirely.

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with “boys and girls” or “mothers and fathers”? Is it offensive nowadays? I am being serious. I am not American and not an English speaker. Just trying to understand…Can someone please explain to me?

You need to be inclusive is the argument. There is non binary and everyone doesn’t have parents in that set up.