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

Post by jwestbury » Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

knighthack wrote: post #951

pg_1234 wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really ought to be illegal to rewrite a book and portray it as the original authors work. If you want to make your version ... assuming copyright allows ... sure ... just don't pretend it is the work of the original author. Imagine if people did this to laws: "we re-wrote it to suit our prejudices, but since we published it as if it was the original work ... thats all ok ... right?"

> It really ought to be illegal to rewrite a book and portray it as the original authors work. They're already doing it with TV shows. Look at the Witcher TV series for instance - which has strayed quite far from the source material. Even the author (Andrzej Sapkowski) has denounced his relationship to it, yet they're claiming it somehow to still have his blessing, and still be be 'The Witcher'.

Post by dboat » Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #619

dboat wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It may have a gendered connotation some places, I definitely don’t think it does in my English-speaking country (Australia). Screeching primarily used for inanimate objects (wheels, alarms, etc.) and animals and then secondarily mostly in a non-gendered way for children. Interestingly the examples in both the entry from Oxford that Google brought up when I searched the term, and the second example in the Cambridge di…

Post by Sporktacular » Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #929

Sporktacular wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think editing out offensive wording in fiction is equivalent to changing who the protagonists were in a historical event? That is both silly and a hyperbolic attempt to shutdown a fair discussion that reasonable people might form differing conclusions from. Censorship isn't the only tool against free speech.

That still doesn't explain how the hyperbole is dangerous.

Post by acdha » Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 10:18 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #848

Applejinx wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my thought. Reading about all the changes had me looking askance at Roald Dahl: it's like, sheesh, somebody's far more edgy than they really needed to be. But that's who that guy was. That's what came out when he set out to be edgy. Removing it, you might as well write a different book. Misrepresenting who the guy is in order to sugar-coat him seems not the right approach, to me. So if you do that, you shoul…

> you should DEFINITELY edit Harry Potter to get the terfliness out of it Have you actually read Harry Potter? What are you referring to within the books? Rowling was a progressive darling for years until she expressed disallowed sentiments outside of her fiction writing.

Post by PostOnce » Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 5:08 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #937

PostOnce wrote: post #654

They left in wonky nose, crooked mouth, and stick out teeth, but took out the reference to fat? That's wild. The fat is arguably the only fixable thing, or at least the cheapest. You can't "just stop eating so much" and fix a wonky nose or stick out teeth. Calories aren't magic and hard to fathom. Normalizing being overweight is going to kill a lot of people early.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34849710 and marked it off topic.