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

211–220 of 992 posts

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

#211

Post by mandmandam »

tptacek wrote: post #176
mandmandam wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Maybe you should read GP's comment again. It's not asking for empathy, it's judgmental and imo a little unhinged. It claims saying words like 'shrill' are "gendered", and certain authors are "more agreeable" (what the fuck? ) as if that justifies these changes . Ask for empathy in a preface, or an introduction, if you have to. Stay the fuck out of Dahl's work. You don't have to like it, but changing it is obscene…

The word "shrill" (unlike "screeching") is absolutely gendered. It's still fine to use it, and I wouldn't have made, well, any of these edits, but there is nothing unhinged about the comment you're replying to. Don't go looking for enemies on HN threads!

[flagged]

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

#212

Post by [deleted] »

mcguire wrote: post #207
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 most cogent analysis I've seen is that the changes were made by the owners of the books in order to sell more books.

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by Symbiote »

narrator wrote: post #131
dclusin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Several of Dugin's books are available from a European publisher.

https://arktos.com/people/alexander-dugin/

They look like complete nonsense, so I'm not surprised if no American publisher wants to buy the distribution rights.

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

#214

Post by version_five »

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.

It's nonsense and presumably was made up on the spot. Unfortunately it's impossible to tell anymore if the people that write these things actually believe them or are just trolling.

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

#215

Post by tptacek »

mandmandam wrote: post #211
tptacek wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "shrill" (unlike "screeching") is absolutely gendered. It's still fine to use it, and I wouldn't have made, well, any of these edits, but there is nothing unhinged about the comment you're replying to. Don't go looking for enemies on HN threads!

[flagged]

Yelling doesn't make the argument more persuasive. Not only is the word "shrill" gendered, it's famously gendered. If you were writing an article about the concept of gendered words, you could do worse than opening with the word "shrill". You could just Google this.

Again: none of this --- nothing I've said, and nothing about the comment you've chosen to angrily respond to --- implies that these changes are good. Maybe the previous commenter believes that; I don't know. But I can't read that out of anything they actually wrote.

I understand the urge to find someone, anyone, to take the other side of your argument. It's no fun to yell at the clouds! But you have to wait for someone to actually make the other argument. You can't just attribute it to people and then hammer away at them.

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

#216

Post by [deleted] »

roody15 wrote: post #202

Honestly the most depressing thing I have read today. I loved these books as a hyper young boy that struggled in school. Reading his books was an escape and help foster in me a love of reading. What kind of a dystopian nightmare society thinks it’s a good idea to alter works after the fact :(

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by awb »

narrator wrote: post #131
dclusin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

> the actions of large tax exempt foundations to fund the [censored] movement in a coordinated fashion by founding hundreds of geographically distributed non-profit pressure groups with almost identical mission statements, and sympathetic intellectuals

To what end?

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

#218

Post by [deleted] »

narrator wrote: post #131
dclusin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

[deleted]

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

#219

Post by giantg2 »

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.

What was the intent of this change? "Enormously fat" is a subset of "fat". Ostensibly, this would insult more people since there are more fat people than there are enormously fat people.

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

#220

Post by jrmg »

babyshake wrote: post #111
bitwize wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. References to brothers or sisters, or mothers or fathers, is offensive to nonbinary people? In all seriousness, not trying to start a flame war, why is that? Is a reference to hair offensive to a bald person?

Offensive is probably too strong a word.

The reason to replace an aggregate ‘brothers and sisters’ with ‘siblings’, ‘mothers and fathers’ with ‘parents’, or ‘boys and girls’ with ‘children’ is because for all of these the replacement suffices without calling attention to gender when it’s not necessary to do so.

There’s also an argument that the ‘X and Y’ phrasing makes the ‘X’ seem more important than the ‘Y’, or makes it seem like the ‘default’ - just a little, but with repetition the impression is reinforced. If there’s an alternative collective word to use, it avoids this ‘ordering’ issue with no real downside.

Note that all these arguments make sense in even if you consider gender to be a binary thing.

Post reply on HN