Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books • Hacker News Board

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

#981

Post by defrost » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 3:10 AM UTC

moonchild wrote: post #980

crabbone wrote: post #950

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I had soldier figurines made of lead growing up... :) Anyways, I wouldn't be able to go into details in this answer as there are many, and many to explain. I found this summary which you may find interesting: https://www.abebooks.com/books/the-gruesome-origins-of-class... One that particularly stroke me as exceptionally sadistic is the Bluebeard by Charles Perrault (a contemporary of H. C. Andersen and with sim…

Well ... lead is dangerous for completely different reasons. And anderson's toy soldier was of tin! I read perrault too, including bluebeard, and enjoyed it. The only book I can remember being really scared of was an illustrated version of 'the spider and the fly', which is not a fairy tale at all (though it is rather lovely). Movies tended to be scarier ('wallace and gromit' comes to mind), likely on account of the…

Just as an aside, Anderson's 'Tin Soldier' (of the 1838 publishing) was a generic popular Tin Soldier mass produced for 50+ years since 1775 using a variety of pewter, tin, lead, and other metals.

They were sold 'raw" (uncoloured), enameled, or hand painted.

These are classic examples of you can't trust the name.

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

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

#982

Post by imetatroll » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 1:03 PM UTC

detrites wrote: post #652

josephcsible wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rewritten version gets a fresh copyright timer of its own, but the original's copyright still expires the same time it was always going to.

So, if the publisher changes a single word in a new copyright, and the old one expires, can the publisher sue someone who shared the old version? It'd only be one word off, so they could argue it's effectively infringement...

So ironically the forbidden versions will be released freely first. Hilarious.

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

#983

Post by flippinburgers » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #566

josephcsible wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[first thing] does bother some people, [second thing] only bothers people if they [condition]." That phrasing (in particular " does " vs. "only") makes it sound like being bothered by the first thing is inherently justified but being bothered by the second thing isn't. And why do you specify the condition that will cause the second thing to bother the people but leave it ambiguous for the first thing?

That the former is unconditional while the latter is conditional is simply an accurate description of the situation. I don’t think describing the conditional thing as conditional implies any judgement.

"Woman" does bother some people because they have always used the word that way whereas "female" only bothers people who are hell bent on changing language.

Fixed it for you.

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

#984

Post by fennecfoxy » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 2:59 PM UTC

bazoom42 wrote: post #952

fennecfoxy wrote: post #940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a gay man & I disagree that we have "normalised" gay in current pop culture. We really haven't. It used to be that gay characters were written as overly feminine, by straight writers bc we were being used as a joke. Actual gay writers in the industry now also write...exactly the same femmy characters into stuff (as someone working on theatre/media industry is quite likely to be a more fem gay). What I want to se…

> It used to be that gay characters were written as overly feminine, by straight writers Are you sure this was always straight writers? It might also be gay creators using certain tropes to sneak in gay-coded characters without stating it outright.

Yes, because gay male characters went from being completely unacceptable in media, to being acceptable when written in by str8 writers as a joke/to be made fun of. It's only fairly recently that we have gay characters written by gay writers where said character is there to further the plot rather than as a joke.

That said, while I feel like gay writers are able to write more realistic gay characters because of personal experience (just as it would help with any topic) I know for sure that str8 writers can write perfectly good gay characters as well, all the better if they chat to community/gay friends if they need help with certain aspects.

Idk man, I just want to see more regular guy gay characters that get treated just like everyone else. Gay sex scenes in TV are still so rare because it's considered gross/disgusting by people, which is interesting bc when I get the invariable hetero sex scene played in something I don't mind it at all, I don't find it gross, I'm just not turned on by it.

It's just so in your face for someone who's gay because basically all media has a "boy meets girl" aspect, relationships/sex etc are a part of being human after all, would just be nice to see more people like me on the big screen. Hell it's it's 1/10th~ the characters, fine. But they always skimp on that stuff with gay characters.

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

#985

Post by DanHulton » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 3:35 PM UTC

jasonladuke0311 wrote: post #254

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.

> avoid insinuating that the target is effeminate when they "should not" be, i.e. you avoid homophobia. You’re implying that homosexuals are effeminate?

I'm talking about stereotypes here. The _stereotype_ is that gay men are effeminate. I'm sure we both understand that gay men are all unique and have an infinite range of behaviour and action, but think about how many sitcoms have a "guy's guy" doing something traditionally coded feminine, and his buddies all start to get creeped out about him, to audience laughter. Go back far enough, and they'll probably outright even say, "Dude. Gay." (Early South Park, for an example, was rife with this.)

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

#986

Post by DanHulton » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 3:46 PM UTC

trafficante wrote: post #568

jquery wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Screeching" in english (at least North American english) is typically a gendered derogative. When HN can't tolerate such an obviously true statement such as this, yet plenty of dog-whistles supporting homophobia and racism and transphobia in this thread stay upvoted, it tells me I probably shouldn't be spending time here anymore. I don't know if I've changed or the community has changed. Probably a bit of both. May…

Until I saw your comment, I interpreted the downvoting as people taking issue with the astonishing lack of self awareness and bizarrely neurotic hypothetical purity spiral at the end. IE: Describing a straight male as shrill might make passersby assume he’s abnormal and abnormal men are viewed as homosexual and it would be really awful if you accidentally did a homophobia so stop using the word shrill.

I'm curious, have you never actually seen this happening? Like, for one, it's not "abnormal = gay", it's "feminine-gendered terms = gay".

For example, sitcoms used to do this all the time. You'd have two big buff contractors or whatever talking about some work they did, and one of them would say something along the lines of "Hey Frank, that's real cute." Then they'd both realize what was said, get real uncomfortable, the canned laughter would hit, and they'd both stand up, brush themselves off and change the topic hastily.

I understand it's pretty subtle, but jokes and insinuations like this have been a regular part of (at least North American english) culture for a long, long time now.

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

#987

Post by throwawayacc5 » Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #632

double2helix wrote: post #606

I'm a gay man and I think we are going to far with this PC nonsense. I had a hard time growing up in the 90s knowing I was different and being tormented by my peers, so I'm happy to see gay "normalized" in current pop culture more because I think it teaches the younger generation to accept themselves and others. However I feel that it's going to far, for example I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a t…

> I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a third of the way through because every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something. It made the story seem fake and unrealistic. Sounds like a great book. Nearly all of my friends are trans, as I like to be around other trans people. It’s nice to be understood without constant questions. I’m an adult and I live in a very queer area. For younger q…

Sounds like a great book. Nearly all of my friends are White, as I like to be around other White people. It’s nice to be understood without constant questions. I’m an adult and I live in a very White area. For younger White people that live in more liberal places, full of people that don’t understand them or are actively hostile, stories of healthy White community can give those people hope for a better life. These things are extremely important to a lot of young White people and even as an adult I prefer stories that have realistic White representation for people like me - which means everyone is some kind of White.

It sounds like the story just wasn’t for you but it strikes me as totally realistic to have a book with primarily or only White characters. These people congregate in groups because they understand each other better.

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

#988

Post by upsidesinclude » Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 1:50 AM UTC

throwaway675309 wrote: post #286

upsidesinclude wrote: post #62

While some of this is questionable the removal of the word 'fat' is an important one. 'Fat' should not be used in kids books as a derogatory, or at all frankly. Fat is an incredibly important and necessary part of a healthy diet and should be treared accordingly. Training people to think of fat in the antiquated notions of bad cardiogy isnt useful. So while this may have been a move centered around "body positivity",…

There's a very large difference between making sure you get the appropriate level of mono unsaturated fats that you would find in things like avocados and fresh fish, versus what Dahl is obviously referencing which is the concept of obesity. You will not locate a doctor on this entire planet who would agree that obesity is healthy, it places far more load on the joints, and puts additional stress on your organs. Eith…

What is obvious to children?

It's a book for children. That is quite obvious.

You are smart enough to know what's obvious to you, can you infer then what is so obvious to a child?

You have missed the point. I'm not protecting the obese or advocating for censorship.

It is unwise to introduce some word associations to children, such as a negative conotation to a word, because they are limited in their understanding. This also seems obvious

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

#989

Post by upsidesinclude » Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 1:51 AM UTC

gameman144 wrote: post #379

upsidesinclude wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Food fats aren't bad. So call them chubby or overweight or whatever you want. These are two completely different meanings of the word though? Are you arguing that they need to carry the same semantics? Should we not call smart people "bright", because people might think light bulbs are intelligent too? Also, if I call someone fat, that might be demeaning. But it also might just be a description. Of course nobody wa…

It's a kids book, flashlight.

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

#990

Post by Sporktacular » Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

remote_phone wrote: post #971

Sporktacular wrote: post #919

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revisionism tries to change facts. 1619 is another interpretation of history that can coexist with others. No one stops you from teaching or believing the traditional narrative. From Forbes: Jonathan Zimmerman, an educational historian at the University of Pennsylvania, believes that teaching “The 1619 Project” alongside other interpretations of history “represents a huge opportunity to teach students what history ac…

You don’t get to decide the definitions of terms. Historical revisionism is BY DEFINITION the reinterpretation of history. Which as you have admitted, is exactly what 1619 is doing. Therefore 1619 is historical revisionism. If you dare to say that 1619 is wrong, you get tagged with the “racist” term like you just did to me. Even though I’m a liberal that calls out bullshit when I see it.

I stand corrected. Yes, 1619 is revisionism, a term which is common usage is actually closer to negationism. But I was sloppy with my choice of words.

Calling out inaccuracy is a good thing. This issue generally is still an overreaction. And I did not call you a racist.