Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

Post by Dig1t » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

drcongo wrote: post #17

exolymph wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Do you dispute that the story is true?

As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article... But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we…

Post by Dig1t » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 8:57 PM UTC

barbazoo wrote: post #69

Dig1t wrote: post #51

When people talk about “woke”, this is exactly the kind of thing they are talking about. People on the left are apoplectic about banning books for kids, yet here they are literally rewriting them. That is every bit as bad as what they claim is happening with banning books. The worst edits IMO are the ones just marked removed

I would consider myself somewhere not too far from woke and I don't agree with this 1984 style rewriting of literature at all. This is neither left nor right, this is just wrong.

Post by krona » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 9:00 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #41

exolymph wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I care what Roald Dahl's family thinks? If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining. People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.

Quite a lot of them are using modern language instead of anachronisms: > Unsurprisingly given The Witches’ subject matter, many of the edits are to do with depictions of women. “Chambermaid” becomes “cleaner”. “Great flock of ladies” becomes “great group of ladies”. “You must be mad, woman!” becomes “You must be out of your mind!” “The old hag” becomes “the old crow” There is some removing of fat as insult. There is…

Post by Ekaros » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

upsidesinclude wrote: post #62

While some of this is questionable the removal of the word 'fat' is an important one. 'Fat' should not be used in kids books as a derogatory, or at all frankly. Fat is an incredibly important and necessary part of a healthy diet and should be treared accordingly. Training people to think of fat in the antiquated notions of bad cardiogy isnt useful. So while this may have been a move centered around "body positivity",…

Post by Dig1t » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

webjunkie wrote: post #72

gedy wrote: post #37

> A most formidable female -> A most formidable woman What is the reasoning for this? Not following what is "wrong" in the original.

Using the term "female" to describe a woman can be perceived as reductive and dehumanizing because it reduces her to a biological category. By using the term "woman," the focus is shifted from her biological characteristics to her identity as a person, which is a more respectful and accurate way of addressing her. Worth noting is that there is no equivalent term to "female" when referring to men, who are almost alway…