Why? Why are Roald Dahl's books being rewritten??
I'm a woke lib, I admit it, 👨❤️👨👩❤️👩🌍 but this is going too far. Roald Dahl's beloved books are now being rewritten in places to remove remove language deemed offensive by the publisher, Puffin.
They have apparently hired [i]"sensitivity readers" [/i]to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”
These [i]"small and carefully considered changes"[/i] are nothing of the sort; these changes will extensive across his entire work.
Such as:
The word “[i]fat[/i]” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word [i]“ugly”[/i] has also been culled. Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “[i]enormous[/i]”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “[i]ugly and beastly[/i]” but just “[i]beastly[/i]”.
In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: “T[i]here are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that[/i].” Oh, and the Witches can also be "[i]top scientists or CEOs of multinational companies[/i]" rather than "[i]cashiers in a supermarket" or "typing letters for a businessman[/i]"
In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “A[i]unt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”[/i]
Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Au[i]nt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”[/i]
References to “[i]female[/i]” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “[i]most formidable female[/i]”, is now a “[i]most formidable woman”[/i].
Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “[i]small men[/i]”, they are now “[i]small people[/i]”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.
Oh, and I think worst of all, the tractors in Fantastic Mr Fox are no longer "[i][i]black, [/i]murderous, brutal-looking monsters”[/i]. Yup, you guessed it! They are now merely "[i]murderous brutal-looking monsters[/i]..."
No wonder Puffin haven't "[i]immediately responded to requests for comment[/i]"
Now I know Roald Dahl was far from being an angel - he was anti-Semitic for one - but.. come on!!!
So, I need to ask, was anyone actually offended by any of Dahl's books (from an inclusive perpective), and if so, why? Truly I'd be interested to know!
They have apparently hired [i]"sensitivity readers" [/i]to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”
These [i]"small and carefully considered changes"[/i] are nothing of the sort; these changes will extensive across his entire work.
Such as:
The word “[i]fat[/i]” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word [i]“ugly”[/i] has also been culled. Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “[i]enormous[/i]”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “[i]ugly and beastly[/i]” but just “[i]beastly[/i]”.
In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: “T[i]here are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that[/i].” Oh, and the Witches can also be "[i]top scientists or CEOs of multinational companies[/i]" rather than "[i]cashiers in a supermarket" or "typing letters for a businessman[/i]"
In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “A[i]unt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”[/i]
Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Au[i]nt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”[/i]
References to “[i]female[/i]” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “[i]most formidable female[/i]”, is now a “[i]most formidable woman”[/i].
Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “[i]small men[/i]”, they are now “[i]small people[/i]”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.
Oh, and I think worst of all, the tractors in Fantastic Mr Fox are no longer "[i][i]black, [/i]murderous, brutal-looking monsters”[/i]. Yup, you guessed it! They are now merely "[i]murderous brutal-looking monsters[/i]..."
No wonder Puffin haven't "[i]immediately responded to requests for comment[/i]"
Now I know Roald Dahl was far from being an angel - he was anti-Semitic for one - but.. come on!!!
So, I need to ask, was anyone actually offended by any of Dahl's books (from an inclusive perpective), and if so, why? Truly I'd be interested to know!
