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

251–260 of 992 posts

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

#251

Post by mc32 »

krona wrote: post #231

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... Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. - George Orwell

People (ok, old school liberals -like the Clintons- as well as libertarians and other freedom loving classes) used to make fun of sects and other religious minorities with uhh, different sensibilities who were too prudish or uptight for their alternative censored versions of popular works --well, the joke's on us!

The speed at which history is being colonized to retroactively establish a new reality is pretty astounding. Elements who usually are loosely in the same camp are rushing over each other and throwing each other under the bus in order to establish moral superiority over the new barbarians.

To be clear, I'm not espousing the use of crass language; I however, would like to leave it to people to have the ability to make that choice themselves to be civilizer or vulgar rather than impose it upon them as some virtue.

IIRC, our current commander-in-chief called someone whose question displeased him "fats". Of course Johnson is the all-time winner, but what was another era.

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

#253

Post by heavyset_go »

babyshake wrote: post #111
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.

> Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. References to brothers or sisters, or mothers or fathers, is offensive to nonbinary people? In all seriousness, not trying to start a flame war, why is that? Is a reference to hair offensive to a bald person?

Step-brothers, step-sisters, step-mothers and step-fathers exist, as do foster parents, foster sibling, legal guardians, etc. Some kids' mother or father died, or they're divorced, estranged, etc.

Using the perspective from the OP, it's a kids' book, using a couple of different synonyms might help them better understand what they're reading and not walk away believing that there's something wrong with their family or themselves.

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

#254

Post by jasonladuke0311 »

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.

> avoid insinuating that the target is effeminate when they "should not" be, i.e. you avoid homophobia.

You’re implying that homosexuals are effeminate?

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

#255

Post by jeppester »

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

Most litterature doesn't last for many centuries until the language is so outdated that laypeople find it difficult to read without translation. It will then be translated, adding a layer of interpretation. All translations have that layer from the very start.

Yet the original versions are still around for those who prefer them.

Is it not okay to be able to pick a 2023 version, or a 1960s version depending on your own preferences?

How is that nearly as bad as banning a book?

The only problem I have with changes like this is if there's a lack of transparency, which I would to some degree agree is the case here.

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

#256

Post by jonahx »

ajross wrote: post #236
jonahx wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone here is thinking "ZOMG Political Correct Censorship Claims Another Victim", but what we actually have is "Han Shot First". "Han Shot First" is the artist changing his own work . That is entirely different. The reason everyone is yelling is they intuitively sense how wrong it is to posthumously edit an artist without permission. There's a moral question here that exists apart from copyright ownership.

The artist is dead. This is absolutely being done with the permission of the copyright holder. But what if it wasn't authorized? What if it was public domain? Would you make the same argument about a modified Shakespeare performance?

I'm sorry, but it is as if you did not even read my post:

> The artist is dead.

That is why I used the word "posthumously".

> This is absolutely being done with the permission of the copyright holder.

That is why I said there was a moral question aside from the purely legal question of copyright.

> What if it was public domain?

I would 100% make the same argument. The problem is changing an author's work without their permission, and failing to indicate that. As others have said, if this were marketed as "The bowdlerized Roald Dahl" in clear print on the cover, it would not disgust me in the same way.

> Would you make the same argument about a modified Shakespeare performance?

It is typically clear in these cases that Shakespeare is being modified.

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

#257

Post by josephg »

mcguire wrote: post #207
tptacek wrote: post #100

I'd be interested in hearing the most credible/reputable sources speaking out in favor of these changes. I've exclusively seen commentators dunking on this (rightfully so), across the political spectrum. To be clear: I'm wondering if we can find specific people speaking up for this, not an analysis of whose side of the culture war is most culpable for it.

The most cogent analysis I've seen is that the changes were made by the owners of the books in order to sell more books.

From the article:

> The Dahl estate owned the rights to the books until 2021, when Netflix bought them outright for a reported $686 million, building on an earlier rights deal. The American streaming service now has overall control over the book publishing, as well as various adaptation projects that are in the works.

I suspect they're hoping netflix will make movies based on his books. Netflix seems pretty sensitive to twitter opinions. They're probably trying to throw a bone to the twitter mob to make it less likely any new movies get "cancelled".

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

#258

Post by StanislavPetrov »

bitwize wrote: post #110
bko wrote: post #15

Here's a good list of changes. Most are about removing any references to ugly or fat. But also other strange things like changing the author's Matilda likes to read to include Jane Austin and John Steinbeck, not calling people crazy, swapping screeching to annoying, removing brothers and sisters to favor "siblings" and using "folks" instead of "ladies and gentlemen" https://twitter.com/incunabula/status/1626860237104…

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.

>It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy.

It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, and it has nothing to do with empathy.

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

#259

Post by monkeywork »

russdill wrote: post #120
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…

It can be a hard choice with young children. I grew up watching Christmas Story every year. My son is two and I'm very hesitant to continue that tradition when he's a bit older. I don't want him to think that mocking people for their accents is something to be encouraged. It'd be nice to have a version of the movie where that scene is modified or redubbed because the movie is a creative treasure. Of course, once he r…

>It can be a hard choice with young children. I grew up watching Christmas Story every year. My son is two and I'm very hesitant to continue that tradition when he's a bit older. I don't want him to think that mocking people for their accents is something to be encouraged. It'd be nice to have a version of the movie where that scene is modified or redubbed because the movie is a creative treasure.

I can understand what you are saying however I STRONGLY disagree on your conclusion. If those things bother you and don't express the values you want your options should be either to A) watch them and then have a discussion with your children to explain what wasn't acceptable or B) find new movies that display the values you want to pass on.

Changing the past to reflect the present or ideal future is a TERRIBLE idea. I don't know exactly when it was that we all decided that we can't ever tell new stories or create new things instead of rehashing creative works of the past but I'll be glad when that trend ends.

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

#260

Post by josephcsible »

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.

> 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.

Nobody would be upset if they were just making a new version of the book. The issue is they're trying to sweep the original under the rug and eventually memoryhole it.

Post reply on HN