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

491–500 of 992 posts

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

#491

Post by rgmerk »

Rewriting stories for children to reflect the values and anxieties of contemporary culture has occurred forever.

For instance, see “The Family Shakespeare” by the Bowdlers. Interestingly, critics seemed to pan it for similar reasons to HN’s commentators, but the book sold well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_Shakespeare

I’m considerably less dogmatic about this than I used to be. Enid Blyton was a staple of my childhood, but do I really have to explain to my daughter why golliwogs are offensive if I want to give her a copy of the Magic Faraway Tree?

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

#492

Post by Woberto »

PKop wrote: post #348
faeriechangling wrote: post #209

Of every change the ones to Augustus Gloop not being called "enormously fat" and instead being called "enormous" are the most jarring as his story is a moral parable about the dangers of gluttony. Even if you think such moral parables are wrong, the phrasing change isn't simply just aesthetic, it's fundamentally changing the story's narrative.

You're making a general argument against revisionism but you seem to miss the point that the specific critique of gluttony / being fat / "fat shaming" is an aspect of the current morality that is imposing itself in many corners of culture. It is forbidden to say being fat is unhealthy, undesirable or to pathologize it at all.

Forbidden? Some people don't like it, bit its certainly not forbidden. This gross hyperbole doesn't help the situation, I think it makes the topic all the more polarized. People who are overweight or obese to the point of being unhealthy are of course going to be defensive about it, and sure part of the current culture may be growing to support them in this with the growing number or overweight or obese people, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it, just that we need to consider this defensiveness in our approach.

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

#493

Post by crocwrestler »

>At the foot of the end wall of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces. Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beside it, and near at hand there lay a lantern, a paint-brush, and an overturned pot of white paint. The dogs immediately made a ring round Squealer, and escorted him back to the farmhouse as soon as he was able to walk. None of the animals could form any idea as to what this meant, except old Benjamin, who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air, and seemed to understand, but would say nothing.

>But a few days later Muriel, reading over the Seven Commandments to herself, noticed that there was yet another of them which the animals had remembered wrong. They had thought the Fifth Commandment was "No animal shall drink alcohol," but there were two words that they had forgotten. Actually the Commandment read: "No animal shall drink alcohol TO EXCESS."

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

#495

Post by oska »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #248
Ekaros wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't fat be normal descriptor of well fat people. Should we next ban thin? Or short and tall? Those also can also be derogatory.

You seem to have missed the point. So allow me to reiterate: fat is a derogatory term which lends itself to the idea that food fats are bad. Food fats aren't bad. So call them chubby or overweight or whatever you want. Using the word fat, when fat refers to a food product, gives dumb people the impression that fat is a bad thing. Do you get this concept? "Thin" isnt a food group. Short and tall, also not food groups.

This is just silly. Fat has two meanings. 1) noun, a type of animal tissue, which serves, as one of its purposes, to store excess energy from consumed food for leaner times. 2) adjective, describing a person or animal who has a lot of this tissue, possibly to a detrimental level. The first meaning is not derogatory (or shouldn't be), it's just a physiological description of a type of body tissue. It can be in the right places and of the 'right' amount, or it can be in the wrong places and too much or too little. That's when we get into the second meaning (derived from the first) where there is an excess and that excess is getting stored in the wrong places (both on the superficial level and deeper in organs and clogging up arteries & veins).

Thin, short and tall are all just straight adjectives. Them being that doesn't invalidate the double meaning of fat and somehow (by your logic) the word itself.

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

#496

Post by tohnjitor »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #469
egonschiele wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess the change was made because they felt ladies and gentlemen does not account for non-binary genders

does that matter when there don't appear to be any non-binary people in any of Roald Dahls works?

Oh my goodness how dare he!

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

#497

Post by webmaven »

kmeisthax wrote: post #149
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".

I suspect that, upon the expiration of the original copyright, there will be new bowdlerized versions made, but that those will bear little resemblance to the versions now being released, except that some of the same things will have been changed, though not changed in the same way.

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

#498

Post by biztos »

bla3 wrote: post #431
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.

I'm neither credible nor reputable, but I'm in favor of a weak version of this. When reading older books to my young child, I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work. One day soon he'll be able to read, and at that point I'll wish that books that were a product of their time would have been updated for the current time, so that he could just read the b…

There are tons of books that actually are a product of the current time. Why not read those, and support living writers, instead of changing the meaning of older works?

Seems like your problem here is easier to solve without messing with the other writers and potentially confusing your child about what, say, a Ronald Dahl book is actually like.

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

#499

Post by floppydiskette »

flenserboy wrote: post #421
mpalmer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can be (and in fact am) empathetic. At the same time, I still take the position that non-binary people and other cultural minorities can simultaneously enjoy non-edited older fiction and understand that it may not have been written with them in mind (and may even be mocking or a little mean). Write new books. Make them as inclusive or exclusive as you want. I just think it's very telling that you hear so much about…

[flagged]

What are you on about?

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

#500

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

jasonhansel wrote: post #299
josephg wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to downplay antisemitism - its a real problem. But why does that bother you, given he's dead? Matilda was one of my favorite books when I was a kid. There's something in it that hits me right in the soul, even as an adult. I hear you when you say his antisemitism is an issue for you - but - I just can't see how that has any bearing on my relationship with his books. As a child I didn't understand, and no…

To be clear, The Witches is full of obviously intentional antisemitic tropes: https://www.heyalma.com/is-roald-dahls-the-witches-antisemit...

also the image of the Oompa Loompa in 'charlie and the chocolate factory' can also be interpreted as racist. The NAACP launched a protest, back in 1971 - at a time when racist attitudes were much more common. https://daily.jstor.org/roald-dahls-anti-black-racism/

The movie paints them with orange colored skin, no one was protesting that edition of the original text.

Post reply on HN