351–360 of 992 posts
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…
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…
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…
"folks" is possible the most egerious of these as it's an American version of English and Roald Dahl, while not English was spoke in the English version of English, not the US version. "Everyone" or "people" would make more sense
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
Selling the only remaining original unedited Roald Dahl's book for 3 kilograms of gold. Really a bargain for this unique collectibles item. Anonymity and discretion is guaranteed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"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.
Screeching typically concerns loud, high-pitched, emotional screaming (my connotation, backed up by a quick google). I am under the impression that, on average, men's voices are lower than women's voices. Hence some connotation. Doesn't mean men cannot screech, though. Just that there is some reason for making that connection, so at least some folks will make that connection.
I fail to understand why using these words is bad, though.
I'm a non-native English speaker. What's wrong with screeching?
Probably a similar thing as with the word "shrill" — it's a word that's mostly applied only to women, so some people interpret the word itself as being sexist (apparently notwithstanding the fact that females have biologically higher voices).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things do have a historic context, if one admits to hating Jews in the second half of the twentieth century then that speaks an awful lot about his attitudes as a writer.
> that speaks an awful lot about his attitudes as a writer How? Especially when, to my knowledge, there is no anti-Jewish content in his children's books.