Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Roald Dahl's books edited to be more 'inclusive'

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭Strumms




  • Registered Users Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Ohh straight-up pulling random figures out of my arse, figuratively speaking. The point I was making though is that much of the manufactured outrage centres around this idea of the word ‘woman’ being replaced with ‘female’, in describing Miss Trunchbull. It seems I read an entirely different version of the book to those puritans of publishing, and I thought maybe it was my imagination, but then I thought it couldn’t be, because I thought to myself “I know what I fcuking read!”, and it turns out I wasn’t just imagining it -

    The head teacher, the boss, the supreme commander of this establishment, was a formidable middle-aged lady whose name was Miss Trunchbull.

    https://www.caldmore.attrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2021/01/Chapter-7.pdf



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,509 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The point I was making though is that much of the manufactured outrage centres around this idea of the word ‘woman’ being replaced with ‘female’, in describing Miss Trunchbull. 

    There are so, so many edits listed in the reporting, and I haven't seen that particular one particularly called out, so I'd throw salt on defining how much of what outrage, is predicated on that change alone.

    The changes in Dahl’s children’s books were done in partnership with Inclusive Minds, a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion, diversity and accessibility in children’s literature, according to the Roald Dahl Story Co.


    Among the changes, according to the Telegraph: The character of Augustus Gloop from “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is no longer described as “fat.” Now he is referred to as “enormous.” What was described as a “weird African language” in the book “The Twits” is no longer weird. In “The BFG,” a reference to the character of the “Bloodbottler” having skin that was “reddish-brown” has been removed.


    Some characters are now gender-neutral. The singing and dancing Oompa Loompas from “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” were once described as “small men”; now they are “small people.” In “James and the Giant Peach,” the Cloud-Men — mysterious figures who live in the sky — are now known as Cloud-People.


    In some cases, new lines were added. In “The Witches,” a paragraph that explains that the witches are bald underneath their wigs has a new sentence: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

    The Roald Dahl Story Co. said in an emailed statement Sunday that the review of Dahl’s writing began in 2020 — before the works were acquired by streaming giant Netflix — and that tweaks were “small and carefully considered.”




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,775 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    That's not the basis of "much" of the "manufactured" outrage though. Its one example among many.

    I personally find the rewriting of the passage about pulling women's wigs particularly egregious as it changes the entire meaning of the passage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭niallpatrick


    If it offends the publishers then simply edit where they see fit and title the book 'something less offensive based on the works written by Mr R Dahl'


    Charlene and the vegan fair trade chocolate factory.

    If thy eyes offend thee then pluck them out



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Throw salt if you must, but we’re all in agreement that the crux of the issue is that the outrage centres around the idea of publishing revisions of original works. Please explaIn then the discrepancy between what is being reported, and the one example I gave which is literally written in black and white if it’s only now that somehow this is an issue people have been previously unaware of.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,116 ✭✭✭threeball


    Because we let them. Its time that the majority reclaimed the centre of the ring and put all this "woke" bullshìt to bed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,884 ✭✭✭amacca


    What would be considered amongst the most well known but least inclusive children's books out of copyright I wonder?



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,509 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Unless i'm mistaken you're just pointing out the core function of news media - to inform people of a thing that they would not otherwise be aware of, ie. news. Are you really calling it a 'discrepancy' that people are upset about the changes having only recently learned about the changes?



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,409 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Eh, the bible was originally written in Aramaic and has been through god knows how many revisions since then. There have been centuries of bitter rows about which texts should be included or excluded and the Council of Trent was a whole month of my history education I'll never get back....



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,409 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I wanted to read the 'just so stories' to my kids growing up. I bought the book but it was so outdated and outright racist that they never got to experience those stories

    The books will be lost to history if they're not revised to fit with progressive social attitudes.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wokesim on steroids. God forbid that the snowflakes might melt.

    Reminds me of certain rabid men-hating lesbians, demanding that history become herstory, women be spelt womyn and who shrieked that sexual intercourse by a man on a woman was rape.

    Bring back Mrs Twit, who in the original drawings looks suspiciously like my neighbour who has a variation of Treacher Collins syndrome, and who I really would like to send far away in a balloon never to return......

    Whatever happened to Blyton's Golly and Big Ears, Fatty and Mr. Plod and George?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    No, I’m pointing out that the publishing puritans are only so because of what they perceive to be part of a greater agenda, when in reality, like I said earlier - original works have been revised and altered since the invention of the printing press.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭forumdedum


    Quod scripsi, scripsi



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Is anybody else just sick of this **** now.

    Some **** in an office somewhere trying to make & justify work for themselves.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,026 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Actually no, it isn't. This is Netflix (who now own the rights to the back catalogue) seeking to make a bunch of new screen versions and also sell a load of new print runs of the edited books to SJW parents. So, of course, its about money.

    Somebody asked earlier, what must the Dahl family make of the saga? Well, seeing as they're the ones who sold The Roald Dahl Storybook Company to Netflix, they may utter no dissent whatsoever, because this is on them too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,509 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    They did openly denounce the authors antisemitic comments

    specifically, though, they were reportedly disavowing some things he said in an interview that essentially mirrored what Kanye “Ye” West said. Not something he committed to publication for children’s books afaik




  • Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭jimjangles


    Enormous is more offensive than fat ffs. It's so ridiculous. They're absolutely ruining those books. People need to boycott the new versions. They ruined them. It's bad for kids, this kind of rubbish. It doesn't make any sense. It reminds me of when Peter Dinkelage who seems to be a complete a-hole objected to Dwarves been in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Things were better when I was a kid. We're going through some kind of devolution now, free speech is dead, censorship is becoming worse than the 50s and language is being ruined and art and expression is being ruined. Kids are being thought they can be a they which is something I can't get my head around, why someone would want to be seen as neither a man or a woman. Look if it makes people happy fine but I can't understand why it would. Anyway regarding this with Roald Dahl books, it's political correctness gone mad and it's disgraceful.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,443 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Hold your horses there; where were the liberals crying for Dahl to be censored? This was a decision taken by the copyright owners, and a large corporation.

    I know quite a few liberal types who were quite happy with buying his books for their kids. I didn't notice any campaign to boycott his books.

    There are some fantastically over the top reactions in this thread. 'free speech is dead'? Give me patience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,775 ✭✭✭buried


    Well you have liberal inclusive people up in here defending this nonsense because Dahl had the demonic temerity to allow his characters to use the word "fatty", that this was somehow creating a "nasty world for children" so there you have it.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    I wonder if Dahl's family will challenge the publisher legally for misrepresentation.

    Why would they or could they? The family have supercharged the commercialisation of his works.

    Netflix has no real interest in the books, they want the characters and stories to create content for their platform which will probably wildly stray from the books anyway.

    But but free speech.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,443 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i think many, like me, when they hear that (for example) the word 'fat' has been replaced by 'enormous', respond with 'meh'. it's the histrionic claims that this is a censorship or free speech issue that throws the debate in the wrong direction; because if someone does say 'that was a good idea', they're jumped on as being supposed hypocritical liberals who are actually in favour of censorship when it doesn't suit them.

    it's nothing to do with free speech or censorship. no more than that story of the publisher who refused to publish one of enid blyton's books in the 60s was indulging in censorship.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,837 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    I think what's grinding a lot of folks gears is the motive behind it. It wreaks of pandering.

    You picked one of the more innocuous changes from 'fat' to 'enormous' by the way.

    How about the following?




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,231 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    In fairness, people have been rewriting history forever. It's actually an essential part of the historical record. The more historical evidence that gets uncovered, the more the historical record is subject to change. Add into that a bias on behalf of the author, whether conscious or unconscious, and our document history can be changed even further. As a keen reader of history, I always have to be careful of what I'm reading and usually make efforts to corroborate with other historians.

    In respect to Dahl and Netflix's "ownership" of his work, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. All that's happening here is they're rewriting/rephrasing certain words that, and let's be honest here, a tiny minority of people, somewhere, might be slightly upset by. And it's a thoroughly ridiculous move. I'm sure, though, that they believe that there's a monetary reward in pushing their revisions.

    I'm completely unsurprised, however, that this is coming from an American perspective, of course. Or, at least, a minority American perspective. They have a really peculiar relationship with language over there, that I struggle to understand completely. On the one hand they are generally happy with quite absurd things like out of control gun laws, which is a truly dangerous thing that their society faces, but then they'll rear up like a startled horse if they see the word "nigger" written in a Mark Twain novel and believe it's the most egregious thing ever.



  • Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭JohnJoFitz


    So what?

    Why did you not read them to your kids anyway?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,443 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    in reality, the interesting debate would be one about the 'purity' of the text. i can understand why people would object to the text of their favourite book being changed, and that's often from an 'if it ain't broke' approach i think? the changes being discussed are very innocuous compared to what i had been half expecting based on some of the commentary; i was half expecting stuff like willy wonka's skin colour being changed.

    i think many people might be surprised at how much the contents of their favourite books had been changed at the behest of editors and publishers before they made it to print, though by the time dahl was in his stride, he may have had complete creative control. if dahl was still alive and said he had no issues with the changes (not say that's either likely or unlikely) i suspect it'd have put the issue to bed. i also suspect many authors would shrug their shoulders at tweaks to language, which does happen their books before publishing, as long as the story or the message is unchanged.

    TL;DR - the books are still essentially unchanged, but someone may have just gone over them with a little too fine sandpaper.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,775 ✭✭✭buried


    But it is censorship, the darkest aspects of what makes these stories work is being censored in some ridiculous attempt to wrap these stories in cotton wool. That is not what the artist would have designed his own work to showcase.

    Its not "editing" or whatever you are trying to make out, it is literally changing the dynamic of the artistic work, which is censorship.

    Not even that, it is literally destroying the very grammar the artist created. That line about wigs up there. Thats terrible grammar, for instance.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,231 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    One needs to be very careful of the use of the word "liberal" here, because huge multimillion dollar business concerns are anything but. If they do something like this, ostensibly, for a moral reason, you'll find that it's usually their bottom line they are more worried about.

    In relation to 20 or 30 years ago, I remember all the fuss over records in America, by certain conservative groups, like the PMRC and how farcical, unreasonable, and facile their actions were and, in fact, their meddling only encouraged the very thing they were trying to stop. If you're of a certain age you may remember this sticker emblazoned on album covers...

    All that ended up doing was to encourage kids to believe that the record they were buying was cool and edgy. And, in fact, most kids who were into the band that had such a label already knew there was "explicit" therein anyway. Jesus, they even printed T Shirts with that logo on them. 🤣

    I'd say that the same "liberal" folk who laughed at the PMRC's silly antics would be the same folk who'll be laughing at the absurdity of Netflix's nonsense with respect to their changes to Dahl's stories. Although, while Tipper Gore and her fuddy duddy crew probably were genuinely appalled at a Dead Kennedys album, the likes of business such as Netflix or Disney are making changes for more cynical reasons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,409 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Because the language and attitudes in those stories are not acceptable anymore and preschool kids aren't mature enough to analyse them for any academic or historical context they might have.



Advertisement