Bloody nonsense! The woke brigade rewriting history. Seems according to some politicians, “her penis” is fine! What about “his vagina!” It’s the same bollocks! God help us, where is it all heading!
As for Dahl, it was his outrageousness which kids love. If anyone is offended, don’t read it, go Enid Blyton instead! Ooops, maybe not, she’s been woked too hasn’t she. Noddy and Big Ears in bed together😩 Don’t get me on JK Rowling!
SW-User
@Gemini43 I have to agree here. I also agree with you on JK Rowling. I honestly don't think what she said was transphobic at all, she even said she fully supported trans rights!
@SW-User She flat out said she doesn't want trans women using the ladies room because she was assaulted by a man once. What are we to infer from that? The guy wasn't even trans (or pretending to be).
Yes, it's the "come on" that people in the library sector are saying... for the rest I can't say... anyone who thinks that rethinking the past via words is good, well, he or she has already a screw loose
This is an interesting topic, although I don’t like the tone of many of the responses in this thread. I would point out, though, that it is hardly a new issue. In the case of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, there were revisions 50 years ago to address the overtly racist depiction of the Oompa Loompas in the original version.
I think these this issue has to be addressed in a case by case basis. For this book I don’t think the revisions change the story in a harmful way—they permit it to continue being enjoyed by modern generations instead of being written off as embarrassing and out of date. It is important also to recognize that any revisions are being done at the request of his estate.
SW-User
@Harmonium1923 [quote]It is important also to recognize that any revisions are being done at the request of his estate.[/quote]
I'll have to look into that, although I'm not so sure about that. You're right, I don't like a lot of the responses either. Also, I remember about the original oompa loompas being essentially "black slaves". So yes, that would be deeply offensive. And yet... are people truly offended by the language used (which, of course, is not unique to Dahl), or is this people jumping on the all-inclusive bandwagon (which I have NO problem with in theory)?
@Harmonium1923 just as the estate of Dr Suess opted to stop publishing some of his books. I'm not altogether sure these deceased authors would approve of how their estates handle their heritage.
And BTW, this is a different issue, but I wish there were a way to deal with some of what he wrote in places other than his children's books. He was not a pleasant guy.
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason. I mean, if you and I were in a line moving towards what we knew were gas chambers, I’d rather have a go at taking one of the guards with me; but they [the Jews] were always submissive." (from a 1983 interview in The New Statesman)
SW-User
@Harmonium1923 Agreed. He was CERTAINLY no angel. And it's odd for a guy who I think worked on a kibbutz at one point.
@onewithshoes not exactly. But 'ugly' will be translated as ugly and not as 'enormous'. The translation will be closer to the original as far as the meaning of words is concerned, than the woke version.
Im of the opinion that offence never killed anyone. You should be able to offend AND be offended by anyone.You have the right to answer back of course,you cant just remove offence from society.
I think hardly anyone was offended by his words, nor are they remotely a threat to anyone. Wokism will of course say that it's to protect the fragile minds of its subscribers, but in reality its to alter and control content of any kind. Every single industry or form of entertainment is being corrupted and altered by it, even when no on is complaining. Its about control, not protection tbh.
@SW-User The more you look into it, the more it blatabtly becomes about control. Also this has not always been happening at all. Sure people have tried to corrupt eachothers work, but this is a huge scale rewriting of any book, movie, show or other form of content. To ensure that they conform to this new ideology. Its affecting every industry with insane speed and effort. This push didn't even exist 20 years ago, and now it's the dominant force for controlling language. It's not a matter of opinion at all really. Of course the closer you are to that ideology, the less you notice how insanely invasive it is.
SW-User
@Axelerator Well, where is this control coming from then, when even the UK Prime Minister has rubbished this decision? I doubt Puffin and Roald Dahl are part of some sort of shady New World Order🙃
So we're not only loosing our freedom to choose our own words and speak our own minds in the present. Now the marvelous gift that the invention of writing once gave us -- the magical ability to see and almost hear the words of those who came before is -- is being taken from us. 😯 How sad for those who come after us.😯
@Gemini43 That has always been the case. Surely you remember the book-burnings of the past. Mostly by conservatives who were offended by topics [b]they[/b] considered too "progressive".
@Tamara68 Philip Pulman, the author, has suggested simply letting books go out of print rather than rewriting them. I agree. Why change the essence of a book?
@SW-User I think Roald Dahl's books are worthy to be reprinted. If there is any content that is not acceptable for current standards, they could add a warning in the preface if need be. But changing the essence of a book makes no sense.
SW-User
@Tamara68 Agreed, just like Disney do with their older films
I am really divided on this topic. I loved the Roald Dahl books growing up and so did my kids. I did not ever think of them as derogatory or prejudiced. (I also loved Enid Blyton)
I understand updating the books to keep them relevant and so they do not offend persons but i am also a great believer in that literature is an example of our history. These books were written in a time when these phrases were acceptable and changing them is a bit like rewriting history.
Where do we stop? Do we rewrite shakespeares plays
I think we should not amend our books, a note from the estate at the front of the book explaining the time and the issues .... or having an original edition and a revised edition
@InOtterWords Oh, we needn't wait.🙁 Thomas Bowdler already tried that with Shakespeare's plays back in 1807, thereby giving his name to a practice that has been held in contempt by serious students of literature ever since.
@canusernamebemyusername Exactly. We see the same thing happen with inoffensive language. We saw the word crapper become obscene and get replaced with toilet, which became obscene and got replaced with bathroom, which became obscene and got replaced with restroom, which got replaced with lavatory, and I believe is now called the facilities.
