Jump to content

Roald Dahl re-writes


Mosi Mynn
 Share

Recommended Posts

More than anything, the changes just seem a bit crap, and not aimed at children at all.

Children loathe nasty authority figures, bullies, sneaks, and snobs, and delight in seeing them mocked and humiliated in literature, Children also love reading about such things as pirates carrying out their raids, Vikings splitting skulls, and medieval torture techniques.  They are however, very fond of animals, in the main.  Portray someone being mean to animals, and they will merit the full Edward II treatment. 

So, they find Roald Dahl very appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Pullman is critical of changing the language, he just thinks it should be allowed to become outmoded and so increasingly unread rather than the brand and publisher keeping it current to sustain the commercial juggernaut.

It’s nonsensical bowdlerization that, as many suggest, would be better served by having a disclaimer for readers.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not actually against changing language, to some extent, in children's books to keep up with changes in acceptability without throwing otherwise good books out. But by that I mean actual slurs and the like. From what I've seen here though the changes here are 1) extremely unnecessary and in some cases seem to miss the point of turns of phrase that are meant to be a little bit shocking and 2) insanely clumsy, done with no thought for maintaining the flow and tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw someone propose a right to attribution, and therefore the right to pull your name from being associated with a work. Too late for Dahl, but I think in the future some creators will want to have wills that make it clear that any changes made posthumously will strip the work of the right to use their name in any way in association with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Author's should include a Prince clause in their wills: If ever the text of the original published word should be altered, change the authorial designation to The Author Formerly Known as JRR Tolkien*

 

 

*insert author's name of choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The question that I haven't seen answered in the online discourse is what previous edits were made to the Roald Dahl books.  Yes these edits are dumb, but I didn't realize the version I read as a child had already been modified.  Does anyone know?

 

This article (near the bottom) mentions edits Dahl himself approved of changing the Oompa Loompas for the film https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/20/roald-dahl-industry-classics-parents  Not sure about the books themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I feel like the author is passed and cannot give consent to having his works changed. If the publishers are worried about losing a big cash cow because of changing sensibilities, well, too bad.

People can read new books.

Yes, I wish to read what an author wrote, not what someone else thinks he ought to have written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with works being updated if they are horrendously offensive to modern audiences. 

I think the reason a lot of the outrage about these changes is happening is a sense that the changes are over the top when it comes to sensitivity to the detriment of the meaning of the writing. Removing the fact that Augustus Gloop is fat is just a bizarre choice. Trying to protect kids from the word 'fat' seems like mollycoddling in the extreme.

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No problem with works being updated if they are horrendously offensive to modern audiences. 

I think the reason a lot of the outrage about these changes is happening is a sense that the changes are over the top when it comes to sensitivity to the detriment of the meaning of the writing. Removing the fact that Augustus Gloop is fat is just a bizarre choice. Trying to protect kids from the word 'fat' seems like mollycoddling in the extreme.

I don't think it's trying to protect kids from exposure to the word 'fat'.  I think it's trying to protect the feelings of the overweight kid when he reads the books at a time when childhood obesity has hit record highs.  

I disagree because I think its pointlessly paternalistic and cackhanded you should leave it to parents to decide whether to expose their kids to these descriptions. 

My own view is that you can't protect kids from the judgment of the world, only try to equip them to recognize and deal with their feelings in a healthy way.   But if my daughter was overweight or obese or had an eating disorder, I might feel differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I don't think it's trying to protect kids from exposure to the word 'fat'.  I think it's trying to protect the feelings of the overweight kid when he reads the books at a time when childhood obesity has hit record highs.  

I disagree because I think its pointlessly paternalistic and cackhanded you should leave it to parents to decide whether to expose their kids to these descriptions. 

My own view is that you can't protect kids from the judgment of the world, only try to equip them to recognize and deal with their feelings in a healthy way.   But if my daughter was overweight or obese or had an eating disorder, I might feel differently. 

As a formerly fat kid who also read the  books and saw the movie I can’t say I was ever damaged by any of it. The real issue was I was fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The question that I haven't seen answered in the online discourse is what previous edits were made to the Roald Dahl books.  Yes these edits are dumb, but I didn't realize the version I read as a child had already been modified.  Does anyone know?

 

I’ve read (years ago, cant remember where) that the BFG that was submitted to his publisher was borderline paedo. Very dodgy. His publishers did a lot of work on his books to tone down and remove iffy shit.

He was also a piece of shit apparently and a terrible anti-semite. And his ex-wife said he was an abuser.

https://lithub.com/when-roald-dahls-editor-decided-he-was-too-much-of-a-prick-to-publish/
 

https://time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-anti-semitism/

 

Edited by Derfel Cadarn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike everything about this. We live in unfortunate times. Certain vocal (and unfortunately powerful) segments of the right want to censor anything that doesn't align with their groupthink, and certain vocal (and unfortunately powerful) segments of the left want to censor anything that doesn't align with their groupthink. It's annoying for someone like me who advocates that no idea be censored and people simply be allowed to opt in or out of whatever they choose. The moral thought police are a great nuisance, in my mind.

But such is the way of things right now, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No problem with works being updated if they are horrendously offensive to modern audiences.

I mean Oompa Loompas are orange and green haired in the movie because the original version is overthetop offensive.

However, that was the book that Dahl wrote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read James and The Giant Peach to the 9 & 6 year old and found myself rewording plenty of body shaming / appearances-as-value on the fly as it relates to the Aunts. Same for Harry Potter, for that matter.

I loathe when someone's appearance is associated with demeanor and worth ... and especially loathe it in children's age materials.

 

I think it's more than a bit awkward when revisions are done in an official manner absent the actual author but I don't really mind the idea because I do it naturally on my own. There are plenty of wonderfully creative stories that unfortunately contain patterns of speech and thought that we have, collectively, begun to recognize as abusive or regrettable. I prefer to try and balance those things in my own sharing of these stories with my children; to take the good but set aside such negative things as are trivial to the overall story and easy to otherwise bypass.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen speculation that his book sales were way down on previous years and this was the publishers' response. I think it's more likely that in previous decades Dahl's popularity was buoyed by periodically very successful movies (Matilda was a surprisingly massive movie in 1996, for example).

There hasn't been a big hit Dahl movie for a while. The Burton Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is almost 20 years old. The Witches didn't set the world on fire in 2020, and neither did Spielberg's The BFG.

The problem isn't money, though, since Netflix paid out a shitload of money for the rights to his works for some new adaptations, it just seems to be a concern to keep the books from dying out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...