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

Did you even read the article or notice the books cover? No need for hope just … read (ironic in a thread about books)

Julia, a 1984 Novel, is not being packaged and sold as 1984 by George Orwell.

Whoever abridged it should credit themselves with the editing.

Team Four Star got into massive trouble with Toei Animation for abridging Dragonball Z for YouTube.

He is dead, he left it to his family, it was theirs, they publicly traded it and now it is Netflix's.

He or they could have put it into a 1000 year Trust.

They didn't they took half a billion and a cut from future projects.

His Grandson will produce apparently.

Do you really think many people will be offended and not buy a book because the word Fat is in it?

I doubt there are any, you don't pre-inspect a book for words you don't like before you buy it.

The only way they will increase sales with this is by people buying the old un-tampered versions so if that was their aim I guess it has worked but please stop the nonsense of thinking this will increase sales , it won't.

Also a large publishing company thinking the word Fat should not be used is quite scary, publishers have a large degree of control over what ideas are are available for public consumption.

Kipling is still read in India. I don't know if his works are bowdlerized there, I would guess probably not.

LOL at the bible, the book with the most revisions ever.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a complete misunderstanding of the publication process, the issue here, and copyright.

In terms of publishing a book, paper, article whatever, the author writes the work and submits it to one, but usually several, different publishers for approval. In terms of editorial changes that need to be made, suggestions for cuts or increases, or questions about ideas espoused, are made in collaboration or with the agreement of the author. Always, because the author has sole copyright. If the author doesn't like or agree with the changes that's the end and they go elsewhere. If they agree to the changes they will discuss or negotiate how it works within the text and they are made. The publisher does not have the final say, it is an agreement or compromise. Then the item is published and released to the wider world. All of this is with the agreement or approval of the author as they have sole copyright.

The issue here is that Dahl's copyright was sold to a third party. Since he died back in 1990 any changes can not be with the agreement or collaboration with the author, and the authorial voice is weakened and diminished, especially with an author like Dahl whose work is very reliant on various linguistic quirks and tools to make it appealing. A previous poster mentioned that one of the changes is removing alliterative text. And aside from the changes to the authorial voice, the changes seem nonsensical in many places and serve no purpose. It was only last month that Anthony Horowitz wrote that he remove the word scalpel from one of his books as it might offend Native Americans due to its similarity to scalp. So that's a pretty good recent example of some of the nonsense that comes from these types of edits.

However, Horowitz agreed to these changes so his book was published, a new book, but a book in his voice (not sure about what you would change scalpel to, but anyway). Dahl's books have been around for decades, and several generations of families would have read and enjoyed them. These are classic books. The changes being made are patently not going to be made in the style Dahl would have chosen, if he agreed to them, but they now own the copyright so they can. I'm just not sure if the type of editors that would make a stupid request of an author to remove the word scalpel would be capable of actually making this more inclusive, or whatever the aim is, in a way that's sensitive to Dahl's authorial voice.

And if Puffin actually ran the numbers and think this will be proftable fine. They do now have the copyright. But that's a cynical business decision, not an artistic one.

Book written by author > other peoples vested financial

Clearly not.

Well that certainly highlights one of the many problems with literary revisionism.

Actually no, it's not a moot point. It's the crux of the issue. Many people disagree with the changes the rights holders are making. The rights holders are making a commercial decision that interferes with literary works made decades prior. And they see it as nonsensical, cynical, and disrespectful.

And minor revisions is a very subjective concept. Talk to anyone who has published about what "minor" revisions can actually mean. In some cases those minor revisions have been because the editor or reviewer doesn't fully understand what they're reading.

ll

So the Dahl estate sold that after his death and it expires in 2060, giving the copyright to the publisher. While they have the right to change the text as they see fit, if Dahl was alive still he would have to approve these changes on top of the changes he had previously made for initial publication 50 years prior. Which I think people annoyed by this would agree, he wouldn't.

How do you know he wouldn't?

He willed his estate to his family, it was his family who initiated the review before Netflix bought it.

They also made it into a commercial juggernaut.