Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think the point is that future generations will not be reading Roald Dahl as he intended. They'll be reading a watered down, bland version and will never have the thrill and joy of reading his original work.

Seriously what are you whining about? The originals will still be available.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think the point is that future generations will not be reading Roald Dahl as he intended. They'll be reading a watered down, bland version and will never have the thrill and joy of reading his original work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think the point is that future generations will not be reading Roald Dahl as he intended. They'll be reading a watered down, bland version and will never have the thrill and joy of reading his original work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just touch up the Mona Lisa, why don't we?

And to those people who are pointing to the Bible--the equivalent would not be an updated *translation*--the equivalent would be altering phrases from the Koine Greek. Roald Dalh is not here to approve of changes to his text. Living authors sometimes update their books, as Judy Blume has done with some of her OWN books.

I am a lefty liberal academic, PhD in the humanities, tenured professor at an R1 institution, and I am outraged. Children's literature is not just kids' books, it's also primary source material with specific historical context, especially when we are talking about books from a significant author with wide reach.

The Mona Lisa has probably been touched up several times in its 500 year life. Loads of painting have been altered throughout their lives.

No one is hiding the fact, not are the old copies being removed. These revisions are part of the story of the story.

You know nothing about art history. The Mona Lisa has not been retouched.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just touch up the Mona Lisa, why don't we?

And to those people who are pointing to the Bible--the equivalent would not be an updated *translation*--the equivalent would be altering phrases from the Koine Greek. Roald Dalh is not here to approve of changes to his text. Living authors sometimes update their books, as Judy Blume has done with some of her OWN books.

I am a lefty liberal academic, PhD in the humanities, tenured professor at an R1 institution, and I am outraged. Children's literature is not just kids' books, it's also primary source material with specific historical context, especially when we are talking about books from a significant author with wide reach.

The Mona Lisa has probably been touched up several times in its 500 year life. Loads of painting have been altered throughout their lives.

No one is hiding the fact, not are the old copies being removed. These revisions are part of the story of the story.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I bet they were under pressure from Netflix and other media companies. They want to mine that IP for multiple franchises.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:Let's just touch up the Mona Lisa, why don't we?

And to those people who are pointing to the Bible--the equivalent would not be an updated *translation*--the equivalent would be altering phrases from the Koine Greek. Roald Dalh is not here to approve of changes to his text. Living authors sometimes update their books, as Judy Blume has done with some of her OWN books.

I am a lefty liberal academic, PhD in the humanities, tenured professor at an R1 institution, and I am outraged. Children's literature is not just kids' books, it's also primary source material with specific historical context, especially when we are talking about books from a significant author with wide reach.

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