Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 992 posts

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

#141

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by yucky »

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",…

Being fat is unhealthy and we shouldn't encourage it in any way.

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

#143

Post by Nicksil »

DanHulton wrote: post #121
aflag wrote: post #113

I'm a non-native English speaker. What's wrong with screeching?

"Screeching" in english (at least North American english) is typically a gendered derogative. You generally wouldn't say a man was "screeching", not unless you also wanted to imply he was effeminate. By avoiding the word, you avoid insinuating the target's gender is part of the issue, and/or avoid insinuating that the target is effeminate when they "should not" be, i.e. you avoid homophobia.

>"Screeching" in english [...] is typically a gendered [...].

It's not.

>You generally wouldn't say a man was "screeching".

Sure you would. I've never seen it posed any other way or with any other intent.

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

#144

Post by heavyset_go »

ilyt wrote: post #137
bitwize wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling wrote favorably about colonialism; they were replaced with more agreeable authors. Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy.

Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. > once you take a position of empathy. ...and the usual thinly veiled "if you don't agree with my opinion you're a Bad Person". How about taking position of sensibility for once ?

> Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work.

The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners.

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

#145

Post by tedunangst »

furyofantares wrote: post #132

The changes all look fine to me, and many of them probably make me more likely to continue reading Dahl books to my kid. I mean, none of the old language would stop me in my tracks but it adds up. There's plenty of options and I'm always picking the ones that I find the best, in many cases having a bunch of outdated language will cause me to pick something else next time.

What are you going to do with all the old books?

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

#146

Post by lotsofpulp »

DanHulton wrote: post #121
aflag wrote: post #113

I'm a non-native English speaker. What's wrong with screeching?

"Screeching" in english (at least North American english) is typically a gendered derogative. You generally wouldn't say a man was "screeching", not unless you also wanted to imply he was effeminate. By avoiding the word, you avoid insinuating the target's gender is part of the issue, and/or avoid insinuating that the target is effeminate when they "should not" be, i.e. you avoid homophobia.

Either I am completely out of touch, or this comment is nonsense.

A screech is a high pitched sound, nothing more unless otherwise indicated.

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

#147

Post by HypnoDrone »

ilyt wrote: post #135
tptacek wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I think you have to kind of want it to be gendered.

Screeching is usually associated with high pitched sounds and that is associated with women, to the point men making loud high pitched noises usually gets called "screamed like little girl". I guess babies also count for screeching.

women can have deep voices too. dont let your own bias shape your responses like this.

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

#148

Post by Aflynn50 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #107
agentwiggles wrote: post #47

Wow. This is so gross. I was a bit put out by the Dr. Seuss controversy a few years back, but at least in those cases, they just stopped printing the books (and, to be fair, the caricatures of various ethnic groups in If I Ran The Zoo are pretty bad). It feels much more disturbing, though, to just silently update the language in the books to be more in line with modern sensibilities. Dahl was a man of his time, and a…

> Dahl was a man of his time Everyone is a product of their time. People apparently need to be told this now.

Adults don't, but children might. These books arn't consumed by people who are particularly aware of the cultural context of the ear in which they were written. Things are going to very much taken at face value. A lot of things have changed in the last 60 years.

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

#149

Post by kmeisthax »

whoopdedo wrote: post #59

When you rewrite a book like this, does it reset the copyright? Matilda was set to become public domain in 2060 (70 years after Dahl's death). With the books now owned by a corporation and essentially recreated by them, the copyright extends another fifty years.

Yes, but the new copyright only applies to the creative aspects of the changes. And that's an extremely thin copyright. So once the originals enter the public domain, the only thing they would be able to sue over is "you bowdlerized the book in exactly the same way I did".

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

#150

Post by ilyt »

heavyset_go wrote: post #144
ilyt wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. > once you take a position of empathy. ...and the usual thinly veiled "if you don't agree with my opinion you're a Bad Person". How about taking position of sensibility for once ?

> Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners.

Sure, disclose it is the edited version for "sensitive readers offended by writing of the time" of minority group on the cover and I'm all fine with it.

But it won't happen because that would be honesty and we can't have that from people that push for the changes

Post reply on HN