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

511–520 of 992 posts

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

#511

Post by oska »

SaltyGoodness wrote: post #478
oska wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that would be more like Roald Dahl doing it himself And Dahl actually did make some changes in new editions himself. Perhaps the most notable being his changes to the portrayal of oompa-loompas. Dahl commented : > I created a group of little fantasy creatures.... I saw them as charming creatures, whereas the white kids in the books were... most unpleasant. It didn't occur to me that my depiction of the Oomp…

He did make those changes. And I think he was right to. But he wouldn't have approved of 99% of these changes. No way, no how. It's shockingly disrespectful of his estate to do this.

Oh, I agree. It's fine for the author to do it themselves (as long as they are not being forced to). It's quite another thing for others to do it, even as the 'rights holders'. And I would argue, this is another good reason why copyright should not extend past the life of the author.

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

#512

Post by smt88 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #459
bla3 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you think the best way to address slavery is to erase all the records and pretend it didn’t happen?

Children's books are not a vital record of historical prejudice.

I don't agree with these changes, but this argument makes no sense.

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

#513

Post by agentwiggles »

Sporktacular wrote: post #352
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…

Perhaps they shouldn't silently update the new editions but... "Dahl was a man of his time" is a weak argument when millions of his contemporaries - also of his time, were aware of, and actively fighting, anti-semitism. He had access to the same information they had and made his choice. So he should be judged for it.

I must admit I'd never heard about his anti-Semitism until today. I looked it up and, well, his statements pretty much leave nothing to the imagination on that front. Shitty, to be sure, no argument from me.

Still, as a kid who read his books repeatedly, and as someone who has read most of them to my kids in the last few years, I feel comfortable stating that this anti-Semitic tendency doesn't come through on his work.

There might be room for arguments that other prejudices do come through. The Oompa-Loompas are definitely a little... problematic. And some of the language around women in The Witches hits the ear a bit oddly today.

When I say "he was a man of his time" I don't mean to excuse everything he said or wrote. I suppose maybe that's a junky phrase that kind of dodges what I actually mean, which is something like "he was who he was, and we should talk about what we find objectionable about him instead of papering it over."

There's also something funny about changing his writing in light of some of the worst things he had to say... By the same logic of the edits, maybe we should change the quotes where he expressed antisemitism to make them more palatable. (I'm being facetious obviously, but there is something worth thinking about in why one feels more reasonable than the other).

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

#514

Post by dboat »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #146
DanHulton wrote: post #121

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.

Either I am completely out of touch, or this comment is nonsense. A screech is a high pitched sound, nothing more unless otherwise indicated.

No, the person you replied to was correct (for my region and presumably his). My knowledge of the term mirrors his and I'm kind of disappointed to see so many people asserting there is no common, derogatory, gendered use of the term just because they are unfamiliar with it.

I see a lot of people with no knowledge or experience with this common usage. That's fine, but it's arrogant to assume things you don't know are nonsense.

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

#515

Post by max_entropy »

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.

Well this is blowing up. Future historians might have to revise the name of the Fat Man device.

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

#516

Post by bentley »

anonreeeeplor wrote: post #446
robswc wrote: post #409

I normally don't care about this stuff... and it seems like a "nothing issue" but it really feels like someone is smoothing off the edges of classic works here. All those changes culminate in an overall reversion to the mean (ordinary). Ordinary is boring... its story books. Shaving off attributes for the sake of what, exactly?

People should not be able to retroactively edit books. Imagine they rewrite lord of the rings and make everyone a woman. How is that ok?

I counter: it should be okay for anyone to retroactively edit books. The problem here is not that the books are being made worse, but that the copyright holders are the ones doing it, they’re the only ones who can legally publish the book, and thus as used copies deteriorate and disappear, the only legally published editions available will be the censored versions.

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

#517

Post by seandoe »

I have this recurring thought with each instance of this neo-puritanism I come across. It feels like society is losing patience for all things human. I sense contempt, almost hatred for the very things that unite us as living beings and separate us from computers. We're not perfect. We live in both place and time. We are born prejudice and survive prejudice. We form opinions through experience. We're practical, functional. We look out for ourselves, our family, our tribe, our community. Rather than fight or deny these tendencies, how about we acknowledge them and make society better by working within our humanness.

It seems like in it's attempt to encourage inclusivity and sensitivity, in many cases wokeism has pushed us in the opposite direction. If we aren't drones that have received the latest OTA update we are not accepted in society.

Also, altering the text of an author of yore to be more socially palatable for the times is pathetic, wrong, and more importantly a missed opportunity for education. These books were written in a time and place. If need be, let's talk about how and why the text, subjects and themes are different or maybe even out of place in today's society. Bowdlerization is lazy.

They could've added a great foreword that explains these things and kept the original text.

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

#519

Post by josephcsible »

Kye wrote: post #482
anonreeeeplor wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should not be able to retroactively edit books. Imagine they rewrite lord of the rings and make everyone a woman. How is that ok?

What would be the actual harm? It's no different from Disney rewriting Robin Hood to make everyone animals. All the other takes on Robin Hood still exist.

The harm comes when the original work stops being sold to force new buyers to only ever have access to the rewrite.

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

#520

Post by swayvil »

troupe wrote: post #76

Mary Poppins and The Hardy Boys were both edited to remove things that someone decided was offensive. Some of the changes to Dahl's books look like the dumb down the language. Is that an effort to sell into a market with smaller vocabulary?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN