Roald Dahl

Last chance to read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Twits, Matilda etc. as written by the author:

> Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive
>
> 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.
>
> ... Hundreds of changes were made to the original text – and some passages not written by Dahl have been added. In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that." In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: "Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat/And tremendously flabby at that," and, "Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire/And dry as a bone, only drier." Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: "Aunt 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." ...
(Guardian, 2023-02-18).

Hmm. I know Dahl has come in for posthumous criticism, but this sounds like bowdlerisation. I'm glad we've got copies of his books to last out our current generations.

Ugh...
Wouldn't a little note at the beginning that some terms might be deemed offensive be enough?

>2 clamairy: Perhaps not in a kids’ book. Interesting though that, as I have mentioned before, I recently bought a copy of Nancy Mitford’s collected novels that has a note at the front that the racist or sexist or whatever attitudes were wrong then and are wrong now, but replacing them would be the same as pretending that they had never existed.

>3 haydninvienna: Exactly. So perhaps Dahl's books could be saved until the children reading them are old enough to understand that wrongness?

>2 clamairy: You would think so! Unless there's overt or explicit racism, that should be removed.

This reminds me of something. I have had the second edition of Charlie in the Chocolate Factory in my bedroom for nearly 20 years, back when the Oompa-Loompas were African pygmies, and as a kid I never thought that they were slaves. They were getting paid in room, board, security, and more food than they could imagine. I figured that part out at 11. In fact, Charlie WAS going to be black. It was the publishers that told him to change that for fear that the public wouldn't relate as well to a black kid. Ouch.

>1 Cynfelyn: Why can't they at least hire clever people instead of inserting poor verse or preachy stuff?

One more reason to get a printed version of works you love.

The story rumbles on, in the London press at least, the Guardian being my drug of choice:

Roald Dahl rewrites: edited language in books criticised as 'absurd censorship'
Author Salman Rushdie among those angry after some passages relating to weight, gender, mental health and race were rewritten ...
(Guardian, 2023-02-20).

Let Roald Dahl books go out of print rather than rewrite them, says Philip Pullman
Roald Dahl's work should just be allowed to fade away and be replaced by more modern children’s writers, the author Philip Pullman has said, amid the controversy over the decision by Dahl's publisher to rewrite parts of his books to remove language deemed inappropriate. ...
(Guardian, 2023-02-20).

I just hope it doesn't get sucked up into the 'us' and 'them' black and white (or is it red and blue?) culture wars. Sensitivity readers would have something to say about most of my favourite books. And don't let them find out about the title of what I think is Joseph Conrad's best maritime short story.

>8 Cynfelyn: As one who detests that word (and all its connotations) I can understand why that one might have some letters replaced with asterisks on the cover. But not inside the book!

I'm with Rushdie! My kids loved those books, so I don't think Pullman has the right idea.

Rewriting an author's works is just another form of banning the books, isn't it? Shall we start back with the very beginning of writing and prevent our precious children from being exposed to thoughts throughout history because perhaps they do not fit with the thinking of the moment? Sigh.

"Rewriting an author's works is just another form of banning the books, isn't it?"

At a tangent, just last night I was trying to get my head around Asherah, the Hebrew fertlity goddess, consort of El (as in Israēl, 'El persists/rules'), one of the gods merged into Yahveh as the Israelites turned monotheistic.

Wikipedia (usual health warnings apply) says "The name Asherah appears forty times in the Hebrew Bible, but it is much reduced in English translations". The Hebrew ʾăšērâ was usually translated into Greek as ἄλσος (grove), plus into δένδρα (trees) (Isaiah 17:8; 27:9) and Ἀστάρτη (Astarte) (2 Chronicles 15:16; 24:18). The Vulgate Latin translation then used lucus or nemus (grove or wood), for which the King James English translation used grove or groves. Chinese whispers in action, biblical infallibility presumably given a knock, and Asherah cancelled (as they say).

>10 MrsLee: It may as well be, as it would start a never ending revision process. Not only that, but who decides?

Maybe we should just let Pullman's books fade away and see how he likes it.

I saw this on last night's news broadcast. Spouse and I spent a good 15 minutes on the whys and hows. The example shown on the news was a change from the phrase "the enormously fat boy" to "the enormous boy" although I don't recall if that was a phrase found in either Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or James and the Giant Peach. Regardless, while the effort may spring from a good intention, I admit that I think it's wrong/ foolish/ counter-productive to make these types of changes in any written work. It likely won't achieve the desired end and as others on this thread have noted, it's a form of censorship. One can make a case that it should be a case of "fish or cut bait" -- either remove the book entirely or allow the original creator's work (with all of its flaws) to stand. Somehow or other, I just don't think removing any character descriptor deemed negative is the right way to fix the world.

Seeing that "ugly" is being removed from The Twits reminded me of this section from the same book:

If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier until it gets so ugly you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.

Shameful Children's Librarian Admission: I have never read a Dahl book. Don't know why; just never picked one up. The only movie I've seen was Matilda.

Here's my 2 cents worth though: Leave the books as they are. PARENTS decide if they want their kid to read it. Parents who loved the books as a child should reread them and then decide if their children should read them. This is the advice I have for any book. PARENTS decide if their child is old enough.

Similar problematic authors recently under fire: Dr. Seuss; J.M. Barrie; and Laura Ingalls Wilder. These I HAVE read, and I have nostalgia for them all. I have not read Peter Pan or Wilder since my children were young. The problems with Wilder were brought to my attention a few years ago at a Librarian Conference. Even as an adult reading aloud to my daughter, I didn't catch the racist undertones--and I'm a librarian.

As far as I know only Seuss's family have addressed the issue by withdrawing a few of the books from further publication. The Wilder and Barrie books are continuing to be published in the original.

i saw a quote today from someone who was in favor of the edits, complaining that they were constantly being forced to live 'someone else's' childhood. If you are posting that on social media, it is too late, you aren't a child.

As >15 theretiredlibrarian: said, it should be up to the parents, that's what they do.

>16 Karlstar: i saw a quote today from someone who was in favor of the edits, complaining that they were constantly being forced to live 'someone else's' childhood.

Please tell me someone pointed out that no one was forcing them to read the books.

>17 amanda4242: I can't, it was from some social media platform I do not use.

>15 theretiredlibrarian: When I read the Laura Ingalls Wilder books to my children, we read them along with family accounts of travels by wagon train, which included some stories most schools would exclude these days in an effort to be culturally appropriate. We didn't stop there though. We explored the fears, and motivations that contributed to the attitudes of those days. IMO that's how we can move on from fear and prejudice, not by ignoring it or thinking of the people of those days as evil, but by trying to understand where they were coming from and seeing how we can go a different way.

The thing about approving censorship is, today the censor may be someone you agree with, but will the same be true tomorrow?

I read about this on the news yesterday and have been fuming about it ever since. I should have come here first, you’ve all summed up my feelings and thoughts perfectly.

Having lived through severe (Afrikaner Nationalist; the Broederbond made laughing stocks of themselves by trying to ban Black Beauty!) censorship, I think I can see what happens next. In this country, authors and others actively tried to get their works banned, because it was the surest way to increase sales. Eventually the Publications Control Board made such fools of themselves that the whole system collapsed into absurdity. I would expect the prices of used "original version" Roald Dahl books to go through the roof in the next few years, while the bowdlerised ones achieve sales only to Politically Correct school boards.

So time to buy some Roald Dahl books as investments is what I'm hearing :D

I know this type of censorship and rewriting happens, but I would prefer the books to stay in their original form. With a disclaimer if necessary.

Maybe I am part of the problem, but I didn't really see the issue with the original lyrics as quoted in >1 Cynfelyn:. It did refer to the Aunts as fat and thin, but didn't make any value judgments (that I saw) that indicated that either was a bad thing to be.

I thought the rewritten lyrics were much more cruel.

However, I think it is different if the original author wants to make changes.

>23 NorthernStar: I thought the rewritten lyrics were much more cruel.

I agree with you. The new lines equate being old with being mean and also advocate violence. (Dahl's books are already full of violence, but the bowdlerizers are adding even more!)

Well, I hope the North American publishers don't follow suit with this nonsense. It's bad enough here already.

>26 theretiredlibrarian: Good. I just hope they clearly label the Newspeak editions so nobody accidentally buys the wrong ones.

I saw a cartoon today that showed editors finishing rewrites on Dahl books and says, "That was fun, let's do 1984 next."

>28 MrsLee: 'member this...? --> Amazon Secretly Removes '1984' From the Kindle

Hard to believe that article is from 14 years ago!

>29 ScoLgo: Yes, I think that is why I have never considered books and movies which are digital files online "real" or mine. It is also why I won't pay much for them.

>30 MrsLee: You and me both! I have hundreds of titles* in my Amazon cloud. I'm sure my cash outlay for them is well under $100, maybe even less than $50. I borrow a lot from Overdrive, and I pick some up with Prime shipping credits. The money I spend is on the occasional title that shows up on sale. It's rare for me to spend more than a dollar or two for an e-book.

* I just checked and the current total is 982.

>31 ScoLgo: I think I have about half that, but I'm pretty sure I spent more than $100. I've been buying Kindle books for over a decade, and even though a lot of mine were free, or bought with shipping credits, I am a sucker for the good $1.99 specials. Still, it's a fraction of what I used to spend on physical l books before I made the switch.

>32 clamairy: The vast majority of mine are overdrive borrows that have been read & returned. I spend more than I should on print books, but I'm very stingy when it comes to digital media. Part (most) of the reason for that is I simply don't trust the medium. As was said in >30 MrsLee:, it's difficult to consider them as your property when it's really only being licensed and the publisher can modify or fully take the book back at their whim. OTOH, I often borrow an e-book of a title I own in print, (doing so now with The Dispossessed), and flip back & forth between book and phone depending on convenience: Sitting in my favorite chair under a reading lamp? Book! Pumping gas? Phone! Reading late at night in bed and don't want to disturb the spouse? Kindle!)

To try and get back on topic... I never heard of Roald Dahl when I was a kid, (my early childhood was spent in a northern European country), so I missed out on his books growing up. As an adult, I have read exactly one Dahl book; Switch Bitch. A collection that is definitely not for kids! LOL!

To join this conversation a bit late, I have never been a huge fan of Roald Dahl. I have read James and the Giant Peach with some small groups (third and fourth graders) and some of the language bothered me then (over a decade ago). That said, they shouldn’t just rewrite his stuff. Let it be and put a disclaimer in the front, like they’ve done with Disney movies. If I were to choose to read his stuff with students now, I would stop and talk about the language and how and why he used it to depict certain characters.

Side note: he also uses the word “ass” quite a bit. I had to have discussions about that one when I did read his books with students. :)

>catzteach I had to have the "conversation" with some 4th graders because of a book about penguins. Did you know there is a jackass penguin?? I *very calmly* stated that "ass" is simply another word for donkey, and took the wind out of their little sails, lol. And maybe these kids learned a new vocabulary word. But it's my experience that if they can find the "bad" word and exploit it, they will...

>35 theretiredlibrarian: The Jackass Penguin is now officially called the African Penguin. As if that helps.

>33 ScoLgo: oh dear, Switch Bitch is not a great introduction to Roald Dahl. He had some interesting ideas, but expressed them in weird ways. Puts me in mind of Heinlein.

My favorite of his is Danny, The Champion of the World, but I haven't read it in years and can't say whether it has avoided the suck fairy...

If I've read the announcement from Penguin correctly, there will be two versions of Dahl's books -- the adult "Classic" editions and a second set of editions that have been modified to allow the library and educational markets to satisfy their varied constituencies. Penguin is bowing to some degree of the social pressure so as not to cut into the much needed revenue stream.

>37 Darth-Heather:

My favorite of his is Danny, The Champion of the World, but I haven't read it in years and can't say whether it has avoided the suck fairy...

It's lovely. The least mean of his works.

PS: This is timspalding.

>39 LTBugBot: "The least mean of his works."

I found the meanness to be unsettling in James and the Giant Peach. I haven't read many of his works, although I have a collection of his short stories waiting on the TBR shelf. Personally, I recalled being more fond of both movie versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory than I was of the book, and I don't remember what the sequel was like. Been too long since I read it with my kids.

>39 LTBugBot: Good to see you, Tim! My favorite was The Vicar of Nibbleswicke. I had bought a set of Dahl books for my kids, and just grabbed that one to read to my son at bedtime. I was crying I was laughing so hard. He thought I was ad libbing the 'unusual' bits, because he couldn't read yet. I couldn't prove it was all there on the page.

For those of you unfamiliar with the tale the vicar has an odd linguistical syndrome that results in him pronouncing certain words backwards. So his new parishioners are aghast when during his first sermon he tells them to krap (park) along the street in front of the church, and so on. Yes, it's juvenile humor, but it was just so unexpected.

moved to own thread.

>39 LTBugBot: Hey Tim, thanks for joining the party! :)

It's been at least 20 years since I've read it, but I have fond memories about caravans and pheasants and raisins!. I am wondering if references to the Romany people he got the caravan from are handled reasonably. I think I have it on my shelf and will have to take a look.

Sharing this article from the NY Times as a gift. When I started reading it I thought my head was going to explode, but I have to admit that as I read it I understood a little better why the descendants of these writers are making or approving some of these changes.

"As Classic Novels Get Revised for Today’s Readers, a Debate About Where to Draw the Line" https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/books/classic-novels-revisions-agatha-christi...

>44 clamairy: I realize that sometimes shifts in vocabulary really are necessary. At the same time, if we don't leave the original language in place in some carefully preserved/archived copy, there comes a point in time when scholars or students or ordinary readers will no longer be able to understand the culture that existed previously in time or the context of a particular work (whether major or minor). But, like you, I think it needs to be done very carefully and accomplished through a carefully constructed and considered process.

We will none of us manage to get through life without offending someone in some way. Rightly or wrongly, there will always be *someone* who claims they've been harmed through the printed word.

>44 clamairy: I actually had some sympathy with the response from Agatha Christie's family. For the other examples, making changes without the authors or families approval, that doesn't seem right to me.

>45 jillmwo: Yes, it feels like an extremely slippery slope, doesn't it?

>46 Karlstar: No changes should be made without family approval. I feel the original versions should always be available as well.

I very much doubt changes are being made without the approval of the copyright holder/literary executor.