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

Post by narrator » Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 12:07 AM UTC

dclusin wrote: post #104

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.

The technical/organizational details around implementation of this and how it came to be realized would probably also be interesting to a readership as nerdy as hn. I think I’ve seen a few of these posts but can’t seem to remember them.

Post by tptacek » Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 12:09 AM UTC

russdill wrote: post #120

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…

It can be a hard choice with young children. I grew up watching Christmas Story every year. My son is two and I'm very hesitant to continue that tradition when he's a bit older. I don't want him to think that mocking people for their accents is something to be encouraged. It'd be nice to have a version of the movie where that scene is modified or redubbed because the movie is a creative treasure. Of course, once he r…

Post by ilyt » Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 12:09 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #125

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.

Is it? I think you have to kind of want it to be gendered.

Post by ilyt » Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 12:12 AM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #110

bko wrote: post #15

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…

Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling wrote favorably about colonialism; they were replaced with more agreeable authors. Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy.

Post by yucky » Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 12:13 AM UTC

drcongo wrote: post #17

exolymph wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Do you dispute that the story is true?

As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article... But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we…

  > So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we?