Books rewritten to remove language

[americanwoman]

Why is rewriting *any* of them OK?

If they want to write a new book called "Matilda: Woke Edition", inspired by Roald Dahl, OK fine. But if you're going to publish a book called "Matilda" by Roald Dahl, and it wasn't written by Roald Dahl but by 21st century wokescolds, that seems highly unethical (and possibly actionable if anyone has standing to sue). Don't put words in the mouth of someone who didn't write them and isn't alive to defend himself.

Matilda had to be completely revised when Dahl was alive, he agreed to it a revised version with his name on it. Not to say for sure whether that asshole would have agreed with these changes today but he certainly didn't mind complete revisions to Matilda when he was alive.

thisrecording.com - thisrecording Resources and Information.

thisrecording.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, thisrecording.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!

thisrecording.com

Everyone knows Roald Dahl's last novel Matilda, his seemingly pro-female examination of a talented young girl oppressed by the provincialism of her parents. What they usually do not know is that the original draft of the book painted the protagonist as a devilish little hussy who only later becomes "clever", perhaps because she found herself without very much to do after torturing her parents. Dahl's editor Stephen Roxburgh completely revised Dahl's last novel and, in doing so, turned it into his most popular book.

 

[Gatsby]

Matilda had to be completely revised when Dahl was alive, he agreed to it a revised version with his name on it. Not to say for sure whether that asshole would have agreed with these changes today but he certainly didn't mind complete revisions to Matilda when he was alive.

thisrecording.com - thisrecording Resources and Information.

thisrecording.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, thisrecording.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!

thisrecording.com

Agreed, I think it's a different matter if the author himself makes the changes and/or authorizes the publisher to make the changes. Then we can at least say it was his genuine voice.

I think it's much less OK to change works without the author's permission, especially after he's dead. IMO it's better to just deal with some stuff that wouldn't be acceptable to write today, given the different cultural context. To me, one of the joys of reading is to understand how people thought at other times/places.

 

[notquiteright]

"Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances. The word “fat” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word “ugly” has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”.


Are we becoming overly sensitive, or too 'woke', by changing (censoring) written literature to appease our delicate sensibilities?

My parents shielded my sister and me from adult themes, excessive violence, and vulgarity. But they didn't advocate rewriting books.

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive

Augustus Gloop now ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, Mrs Twit no longer ‘ugly’ and Oompa Loompas are gender neutral

www.theguardian.com

Good thing there were no trans characters, or the Rabid Right would extremely torn. They demand all reference to trans, gay, bi people be not altered but banned but changing fat to enormous is a bridge that shouldn't be crossed....

I grew up with 'Uncle Remus's cabin' Song of the South, Little Black Sambo. Didn't shed a tear my childhood memories will not be read by future generations. Why in THE hell would anyone whine about changing a few words in a series of stories....

Seems like a whole lotta Snowflaking going on...

 

[notquiteright]

Agreed, I think it's a different matter if the author himself makes the changes and/or authorizes the publisher to make the changes. Then we can at least say it was his genuine voice.

I think it's much less OK to change works without the author's permission, especially after he's dead. IMO it's better to just deal with some stuff that wouldn't be acceptable to write today, given the different cultural context. To me, one of the joys of reading is to understand how people thought at other times/places.

Crazy idea- I own the books I'm interested in from another time and cultural norm...

I doubt your world view gets changed too much by the revisions done to children's books. I outgrew them about the same time I got hair down there, I realize some take a little longer...

 

[Mach]

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.
Are we becoming overly sensitive, or too 'woke', by changing (censoring) written literature to appease our delicate sensibilities?
My parents shielded my sister and me from adult themes, excessive violence, and vulgarity. But they didn't advocate rewriting books.

Its not a parenting question though, it's a capitalist question. The capitalist publisher will try to maximize profits from their property. Here you are doing a little marketing for them, I'd say their strategy worked out.

Some books are tweaked to keep up with the times? Sounds perfect. Movies are entirely remade, often in an entirely new way...where was the protest for that? Things age grip, and you can toss them or pull them out and give them a bit of update now and then. I'm sure your parents did the same with various things.

"Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.”

Change is a fact of reality and culture, it's what enabled life on this earth. Don't fear it so much maybe, because it's inevitable.

 

[Gatsby]

I doubt your world view gets changed too much by the revisions done to children's books.

If kids only read sanitized perspectives that conform to their own time and culture, yes, that will absolutely shape their worldview. It will close one's mind, give one the false impression that this is The Truth about how the world operates and how everyone thinks, and make one incapable of seeing that, yes, they are affected by what they read.

Censorship has been a centuries-long mainstay of religious fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes for exactly that reason. Closing people's minds off to outside perspectives is effective, or else they wouldn't bother doing it.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes, altering the content of books to meet current social criteria is akin to changing history. One doesn't excuse the other.

Dahl wrote fiction not history. You can do anything you want with fiction.

 

[soylentgreen]

"Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances. The word “fat” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word “ugly” has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”.


Are we becoming overly sensitive, or too 'woke', by changing (censoring) written literature to appease our delicate sensibilities?

My parents shielded my sister and me from adult themes, excessive violence, and vulgarity. But they didn't advocate rewriting books.

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive

Augustus Gloop now ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, Mrs Twit no longer ‘ugly’ and Oompa Loompas are gender neutral

www.theguardian.com

I would ask if this counts for any fiction book? Specifically jonathan swift's gullivers travels.

It was written as a political satire. Yet I would think that the majority of people who read it today would wonder why they are not laughing if it is a satire.

 

[notquiteright]

If kids only read sanitized perspectives that conform to their own time and culture, yes, that will absolutely shape their worldview. It will close one's mind, give one the false impression that this is The Truth about how the world operates and how everyone thinks, and make one incapable of seeing that, yes, they are affected by what they read.

Censorship has been a centuries-long mainstay of religious fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes for exactly that reason. Closing people's minds off to outside perspectives is effective, or else they wouldn't bother doing it.

I'd say you should direct that at those who don't want to reshape children's books but outright ban any reference to gay, trans, bi people....

Sucha silly little whine to make over changing fat to enormous seems a bit too much snowflake for thinking adults.

What 'preservationists' seem to forget is keeping the 'traditional' words perpetuates stereotypes that continue division. Make it seem acceptable bigotry and condescension is alright. Shall we keep 'Little Black Sambo' in the children's library??? 'Uncle Remus's Cabin' had great stories to tell that could be told without all the racial stereotypes....

Using religious fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes as the boogeyman for deleting the word ugly or changing fat to enormous seems more like jumping the shark than honest debate. I'd opine my first sentence is far more of what you cite than a few words changed or deleted from a children's book.

Priority of task and all that...

 

[Gatsby]

I'd say you should direct that at those who don't want to reshape children's books but outright ban any reference to gay, trans, bi people....

OK, but they aren't the topic of this thread. This is just whataboutism, and not even good whataboutism because I don't support their censorship either.

Sucha silly little whine to make over changing fat to enormous seems a bit too much snowflake for thinking adults.

It's more than just a word change for understandability. It clearly DOES change the meaning/tone, or else they wouldn't bother.

What 'preservationists' seem to forget is keeping the 'traditional' words perpetuates stereotypes that continue division. Make it seem acceptable bigotry and condescension is alright. Shall we keep 'Little Black Sambo' in the children's library??? 'Uncle Remus's Cabin' had great stories to tell that could be told without all the racial stereotypes....

If you don't want your kid reading ideas that you consider harmful, I reluctantly accept your right to impose that severe limitation of freedom on them, by telling them not to read your list of Banned Books.

But rewriting books to change the meaning goes a step farther than even that.

And to answer your question, yes, I think Little Black Sambo should stay in the library, as long as people want to read it.

Using religious fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes as the boogeyman for deleting the word ugly or changing fat to enormous seems more like jumping the shark than honest debate. I'd opine my first sentence is far more of what you cite than a few words changed or deleted from a children's book.

OK but your post makes clear that you aren't opposed to censorship of LGBT stuff on principle, simply because it's censorship. You're opposed to it because you see those censors as being part of a different political tribe than you.

 

[notquiteright]

OK, but they aren't the topic of this thread. This is just whataboutism, and not even good whataboutism because I don't support their censorship either. It's more than just a word change for understandability. It clearly DOES change the meaning/tone, or else they wouldn't bother. If you don't want your kid reading ideas that you consider harmful, I reluctantly accept your right to impose that severe limitation of freedom on them, by telling them not to read your list of Banned Books. But rewriting books to change the meaning goes a step farther than even that. And to answer your question, yes, I think Little Black Sambo should stay in the library, as long as people want to read it. OK but your post makes clear that you aren't opposed to censorship of LGBT stuff on principle, simply because it's censorship. You're opposed to it because you see those censors as being part of a different political tribe than you.

It isn't whataboutism, it's pick your battles and standing up against real censorship, not whining over a few word changes.

Fat to enormous doesn't change meaning. I don't see either as harmful, but whining about the change is very snowflake.

I don't doubt many Americans don't see a problem with 'Little Black Sambo' but then again most of those people never faced the ugly side of stereotypes.

Access to very bigoted literature isn't a Constitutional right. If that were true, then this would have been decided in the courts.

Your idea of what's clear about my opposition to banning gay, trans, bi literature isn't very honest. It isn't a tribal thing, it's a fight against bigotry...

 

[Gatsby]

It isn't whataboutism, it's pick your battles and standing up against real censorship, not whining over a few word changes.

It's all "real" censorship. Both yours and theirs. Both are done for exactly the same reason: To prevent kids from reading ideas you find objectionable.

I don't doubt many Americans don't see a problem with 'Little Black Sambo' but then again most of those people never faced the ugly side of stereotypes.

Don't read the book then, or don't let your kid read it. Or read it to them and explain the idea of different times/places and how those ideas aren't acceptable today.

Access to very bigoted literature isn't a Constitutional right.

It most certainly is.

Your idea of what's clear about my opposition to banning gay, trans, bi literature isn't very honest. It isn't a tribal thing, it's a fight against bigotry...

Right, the difference in your mind isn't about the ethics of censorship in general. It's that you think YOU have a better reason to censor stuff (e.g. racial bigotry) then someone from The Other Tribe does (e.g. LGBT stuff goes against their religion or whatever).

My position is that ALL of you censors should knock it off.

 

[notquiteright]

It's all "real" censorship. Both yours and theirs. Both are done for exactly the same reason: To prevent kids from reading ideas you find objectionable. Don't read the book then, or don't let your kid read it. Or read it to them and explain the idea of different times/places and how those ideas aren't acceptable today. It most certainly is. Right, the difference in your mind isn't about the ethics of censorship in general. It's that you think YOU have a better reason to censor stuff (e.g. racial bigotry) then someone from The Other Tribe does (e.g. LGBT stuff goes against their religion or whatever). My position is that ALL of you censors should knock it off.

Did I miss your umbrage when MAGA morons banned the Gay/trans/bi books???

Again, changing wording isn't censorship. Not any more than a remake of an old movie where bigoted stereotypes are replaced. Changing the new printings of books that have been available for quite some time isn't censorship. There is no recall of existing books. No law passed to remove the books from public access.

A new edition isn't censorship, no matter how you hold your mouth...

 

[Gatsby]

Did I miss your umbrage when MAGA morons banned the Gay/trans/bi books???

I guess so? I don't support censorship.

Again, changing wording isn't censorship.

It absolutely is. It's done for the explicit purpose of making it more suitable to modern audiences by removing stuff someone finds objectionable. That is what censorship is.

Not any more than a remake of an old movie where bigoted stereotypes are replaced.

A movie remake is different than, say, dubbing new dialog over a 1940s movie to change its meaning. Just like if you want to write "Matilda: Woke Edition" written by Notquiteright and inspired by Roald Dahl, that's more acceptable than changing the meaning of "Matilda" by Roald Dahl. Since Roald Dahl didn't have any input on your changes.

Changing the new printings of books that have been available for quite some time isn't censorship.

Yes it is.

There is no recall of existing books. No law passed to remove the books from public access.

Plenty of censoring regimes around the world don't need to engage in actual book-burning. Attrition of old books over time is usually effective enough.

A new edition isn't censorship, no matter how you hold your mouth...

Yes it is.

 

[Rumpelstil]

Books rewritten to remove language​

Not a good idea ....