Roald Dahl re-writes

[Larry of the Lawn]

If they think the children's material has been wrung dry of cash maybe they'll lean into the 'dirty old man' image and push stories like "The Visitor", "My Uncle Oswald", and "Switch Bitch" for TV.  The first two could be combined for a raunchy 5-6 episode mini-series.

[dog-days]

Loved the Wes Anderson treatment of Fantastic Mr Fox (which I haven't read). Justifies the existence of the original books, which I never cared for as a child – partly no doubt because my dad was quite disparaging about the author; he'd heard stuff about Dahl. 

 I have a soft spot for Danny the Champion of the World, which I remember the class teacher Mr Griffiths reading to us when I was ten. More of a low key, down-to-earth type of story than what I usually associate with Dahl, one that reminds me of folk ballads like Rufford Park Poachers. Also it has or at least had its devotees; a friend who had a difficult relationship with his father named it as a favourite, and I've run into that pattern more than once. Most books by Dahl don't seem to get that kind of emotional response – the humour and grotesques might be enjoyed, but they're rarely loved in the way that e.g. The Wind in the Willows is loved. 

I like/agree with this response to the current debate. 

[Heartofice]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/roald-dahl-classic-collection-puffin-offensive-language-row-b1062879.html

Of course they are keeping the originals in print, just in case you were absolutely outraged by these changes and want to buy the books you hadn't been buying enough before.

[Ran]

I was about to post about that news. Fascinating. I think I prefer that to just burying them and only publishing bowdlerized books, but obviously the whole corporate side of things just looks morally dubious.

The archival material added does sound interesting, though. Draft passages? Letters back and forth with his editors and publisher?

[IFR]

It seems that James Bond books are also being edited so they no longer distress the delicate sensibilities of certain audience members.

[polishgenius]

Removing racism is absolutely fine. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

I see this as a product of modern corporates' obsession with intellectual properties. And more specifically, milking them for as long as possible. Penguin Random House (owner of Puffin) and Netflix (owner of the Roald Dahl Story Company) are trying to "update" the texts for cash, nothing more. Sincere bowdlerism is about public morality, and this is not about that.

Really, if we didn't have such an oligopoly with book publishing, and a copyright system encouraging that oligopoly to hoard and milk the properties of dead creators... we probably wouldn't have this. 

[IFR]

58 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Removing racism is absolutely fine. 

One can be opposed to racism while still being against the expurgation of historical literature that doesn't align to whatever subset of values you currently subscribe to.

The idea that one's personal beliefs of right or wrong are so rarefied and enlightened that it's acceptable to police what ideas are allowed for other inferior minds to be exposed to is not a viewpoint I will ever be comfortable with.

[polishgenius]

10 minutes ago, IFR said:

One can be opposed to racism while still being against the expurgation of historical literature that doesn't align to whatever subset of values you currently subscribe to.

The idea that one's personal beliefs of right or wrong are so rarefied and enlightened that it's acceptable to police what ideas are allowed for other inferior minds to be exposed to is not a viewpoint I will ever be comfortable with.

 

If an author was using slurs in a way that was commonplace back then but is taboo now, then there's a pretty strong argument that removing them brings the book closer in tone in the modern day to how it would have been received back then. Editing and censorship are not the same thing. There's obviously a line to be found and when the author is not around to approve or otherwise it's a bit of a guessing game, but I don't believe that it's a binary between 'keeping things the same forever is good, changing them to adapt to the times is bad'. 

[IFR]

9 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

If an author was using slurs in a way that was commonplace back then but is taboo now, then there's a pretty strong argument that removing them brings the book closer in tone in the modern day to how it would have been received back then. Editing and censorship are not the same thing. There's obviously a line to be found and when the author is not around to approve or otherwise it's a bit of a guessing game, but I don't believe that it's a binary between 'keeping things the same forever is good, changing them to adapt to the times is bad'. 

One could use the same justification for the modifying of Greek art and literature that had any "overly" sexual or homosexual content. Or giving Shakespearen tragedies happy endings. Etc. To suit the works for a modern audience. I find such approaches equally objectionable.

I agree with you that social issues are rarely binary, but I would dispute that in these particular examples, and the example of Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl's works, that expurgation is an appropriate response to outdated content.

As many have pointed out, this is doubtless a commercial gimmick to incite controversy and draw attention back to property whose sales may be dissipating, but nevertheless I personally find the trend worrisome.

What about Martin's works in a couple of decades? Perhaps publishers will radically modify character behaviors and actions to be less "objectionable" to a modern audience. One can argue that the difference is that Ian Fleming seemingly endorsed the racist sexist attitudes, whereas it's clear that Martin is merely depicting these attitudes, but perhaps the "moral" viewpoint in the future will be that depiction itself is objectionable and such portrayals must be modified. This is by no means a slippery slope, but a natural continuation of this attitude of moral policing.

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, IFR said:

One could use the same justification for the modifying of Greek art and literature that had any "overly" sexual or homosexual content. Or giving Shakespearen tragedies happy endings. Etc. To suit the works for a modern audience. I find such approaches equally objectionable.

 

 

I'm not sure I see the similarity between changing the whole ending of a story that is meant to be sad, and removing some words whose impact has gotten more stark in the intervening years. 

[Rorshach]

Always been around, though, and we tend not to notice or care too much, as what is changed doesn't change the text or tone. As such, changes keep the book alive, rather than leaving it behind.

Example: Agatha Christie. Who would these days buy the book Ten Little Negros?

As for the Roald Dahl changes now, that's commercial and more liable to make the text worse. And, as I've seen pointed out, it is very ironinc in Mathilda, where a big part of the text is this little girl reading *texts considered unsuitable for her*.

[IFR]

37 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

I'm not sure I see the similarity between changing the whole ending of a story that is meant to be sad, and removing some words whose impact has gotten more stark in the intervening years. 

Both are cynical commercial ploys to reinvigorate interest in classical works. In either example, the work is being updated to suit the modern audience's perceived sensitivities. The impact of unhappy endings were apparently stark for audiences then, which prompted modifications to make the work more appealing.

I presume that you view depictions of racism as quite different in impact to an unhappy ending in a Shakespeare play, but such is the context of our times now, where you of course are encouraged to be more sensitive to racist depictions than unhappy endings. Opposition to racism is a moral imperative, after all, whereas unhappy endings are not currently considered problematic by the thought police...for now.

[dog-days]

As long as the original works are still reasonably publicly accessible and being preserved for future generations to make their own judgement about, I don't see a problem from a historical/archival point-of-view. It's not going to be like sleeping beauty with every spindle in the kingdom being destroyed, or like the various acts of damnatio memoriae carried out through history against unpopular rulers. 

Once Dahl is out of copyright, the originals can go on the internet, free for everyone to access and modify as they choose. 

[polishgenius]

I have two problems with that argument, to be honest.

The first is that the very clear difference between an unhappy ending and racism is that racism is discriminatory, inherently insulting to a portion of the people who may see or read that work. 

The second is that I'm arguing for removing racism where racism is irrelevant to the story. If it is relevant to the story than I don't think taking it out has much point and the story should stand on what it is and either stand on what it is (which may be a condemnation or deliberately honest depiction) or fade away. But if it isn't, then taking out the racism doesn't make it a different story. There is no way that changing a sad ending to a happy one doesn't make it a different story. 

[IFR]

40 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

The first is that the very clear difference between an unhappy ending and racism is that racism is discriminatory, inherently insulting to a portion of the people who may see or read that work. 

Fair enough. I personally would think it's insulting that someone deems a happy ending the only one suitable for me to handle to the extent that they would modify a historical work, but I will acknowledge that there is definitely more of a social impact with respect to racism.

I won't agree that this is sufficient to alter historical work, but this is of course a subjective stance.

40 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

The second is that I'm arguing for removing racism where racism is irrelevant to the story. If it is relevant to the story than I don't think taking it out has much point and the story should stand on what it is and either stand on what it is (which may be a condemnation or deliberately honest depiction) or fade away. But if it isn't, then taking out the racism doesn't make it a different story. There is no way that changing a sad ending to a happy one doesn't make it a different story. 

Whether racism is relevant in a work is entirely an opinion. One might argue that the attitude itself is relevant as a portrayal of those times.

But as you immediately point out,  there is a line for you personally where the merit of the material may outweigh the potential sensitivities to that material. Which is also an opinion (one I agree with).

That's why I tend more towards the absolutist side of modifying a work for moral considerations. Morality is an opinion (regardless of if one is so emotionally anchored to whatever given moral code that it feels like it ought to be objective). If one opinion is given dominance such that no other opinion is allowed thought, I view that dynamic as highly vulnerable to exploitation, however innocently such a dynamic may start.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Rorschach - 2 said:

Always been around, though, and we tend not to notice or care too much, as what is changed doesn't change the text or tone. As such, changes keep the book alive, rather than leaving it behind.

Example: Agatha Christie. Who would these days buy the book Ten Little Negros?

As for the Roald Dahl changes now, that's commercial and more liable to make the text worse. And, as I've seen pointed out, it is very ironinc in Mathilda, where a big part of the text is this little girl reading *texts considered unsuitable for her*.

It wasn't Ten Little Negroes, of course. But the difference there is that Christie herself was approving the title change.

[Rorshach]

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It wasn't Ten Little Negroes, of course. But the difference there is that Christie herself was approving the title change.

Yeah, like Dahl made changes to his Oompa-Loompas. 

And those kind of changes, those that do not change a story, but removes outdated language and concepts so that the story might actually live on instead of being forgotten, I have no problem with.

[HTN02]

As a publisher, this controversy absolutely baffles me.

 

books are rewritten and updated all the time.

 

i have 2 editions of a classic book, first and fourth edition, published 1923 and 1930.

 

there is massive changes, including someone being killed in the first edition, and shot in the shoulder and arrested in the 4th.

the updates are not always for the better, but this tends to be changed back fairly soon.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, HTN02 said:

As a publisher, this controversy absolutely baffles me.

 

books are rewritten and updated all the time.

 

i have 2 editions of a classic book, first and fourth edition, published 1923 and 1930.

 

there is massive changes, including someone being killed in the first edition, and shot in the shoulder and arrested in the 4th.

the updates are not always for the better, but this tends to be changed back fairly soon.

I think the controversy is really due to the nature of the changes. Most people accept that works which are hugely offensive or outdated will probably need little tweaks if they don't gel with modern sensibilities.

With this Dahl stuff, its more that the changes seemed over the top and excessively 'nanny state'. Very few seemed necessary or likely to protect anyone, and it said more about the people making the changes than it did about the books themselves. 

But then, as suggested, this might all have been a ploy to create controversy and sell more books. Its the same fan baiting tactics used by movie companies to get more hype online for something.