Live data from Hacker News

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

telegraph.co.uk

361–370 of 992 posts

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

#361
As a genuine question, what is the best way to combat things like this as an individual?

I will obviously choose not to buy egregious rewrites like this, but Penguin is out maybe ten bucks from my decision on that front.

I've got neither the skillset nor the bandwidth to attempt to organize boycotts or anything, and don't have the pubic clout to call public retribution down on the publisher.

I'm asking because I strongly oppose such whitewashing, and it can feel demoralizing not knowing what to do about it.

(A perfectly acceptable answer might be that, sadly, there's nothing one can do at an individual level.)

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

#362

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 There's plenty of options and I'm always picking the ones that I find the best, in many cases having a bunch of outdated language will cause me to pick something else next time.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?

If you own the old books you should be thrown in jail for promoting hate.

/s

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

#363
post #2

> In Matilda, a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane Austen added. Burning books was at least honest.

You left out the full quote > She went on olden-day sailing ships with Joseph Conrad. She went to Africa with Ernest Hemingway and to India with Rudyard Kipling > She went to nineteenth century estates with Jane Austen. She went to Africa with Ernest Hemingway and California with John Steinbeck Possibly because both Kipling and Conrad wrote books with colonial themes At the same time, if that tone gets erased (e.g. t…

> Possibly because both Kipling and Conrad wrote books with colonial themes

Keeping Hemingway in the list is the best joke

Yep, the wife cheater, womanizer, tabern fighter, alcoholic, animal cruelty lover that toke his own life, can stay. Good model for children. The other are subversive and must go (and our moral compass is not random at all)

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

#364
post #182

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.

But don’t you realize that YOU are the one arguing that women are inherently screechier?

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

#365
Making some political waves is a sure-fire way to move some units, and in a year this’ll all be forgotten (hey has any publisher ever released a “classic edit” version of a book, to play both sides?).

I mean how much money do you expect publishers to leave on the table in the interest of preserving the version of a book you personally liked?

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

#366
post #135

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.

It seems like you are saying women screech more than men.

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

#367
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

The point might be better served by looking to the real world example of sanitizing literature that gave the English language the word "bowdlerize": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_Shakespeare

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It’s homophobic to assume men being effeminate makes them gay.

It’s off the mark, sure, but you can think being effeminate makes someone gay without being afraid of gay people.

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

#370
post #342
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 astound…

> old school liberals -like the Clintons- Is this a joke? Or are actual "old school liberals" so "old school" now that liberals by the ten-year-old definition count as "old school"? "Old school liberals" are people like Friedman and Mises, not the Clintons.

It should have read “including”. One can’t rely on previous icons as examples as they are being passed at best as irrelevant and at worst as being echoes of a feudal past.

In any case, it’s a very surprising quick turn of events. Even Orwell the prototypical anti-fascist is ensnared. Perhaps denouncement awaits.

Post reply on HN