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

Probably because he hated almost all of the film adaptations of his work for changing the focus, story, and terminology.

Dahl was a notorious gold digger, he spent 30 years in a marriage he had no interest in because she was minted.

That's your opinion Bog, I'd love to know how you so emphatically know this to be true. Even if it was true, I wouldn't or couldn't give two fiddlers f**ks about his past private personal situation. It's his artistic work that concerns me because I am the audience of the original work.

Not particularly a fan of Hook, but he is spot on here.

Now, I don't agree with misogyny and I'm very well aware Dahl had some awful opinions that I disagree with. It has been a very long time since I've read that book, and I'm sure there probably is misongyny in there, but Dahl decided that it should be in the book, and it was, despite the editors input. So I'm sure he would have taken the removal of fat, or explanation that not all women are bald, very on board.

This was a man born over a hundred years ago, of course he's going to have some distasteful views to a modern audience. You don't try to remove parts of the past you find distasteful, you contextualise and learn from them.

His views were just as distasteful then too 😁

There isn’t misogyny in The Witches, because like you suggest, Roxburgh did some editing and Dahl took it on board in order to get the book published. He wasn’t stupid either and he wasn’t so pig-headed that he didn’t understand the concept of earnings from book sales by making the books appeal to as wide an audience as possible -

During this period, Dahl was open to making changes to the less politically correct elements of his books. He could not help noticing his sensibility was rooted in another generation, and he was smart enough to be conscious of the disconnect. He grudgingly edited out the more racist and disturbing parts of The BFG, and when it came time to edit his manuscript of The Witches, he was also open to more substantial alterations.

Roxburgh's revisions to The Witches were far more extensive than those he had proposed on The BFG. The editor's major suggestion was that the Witches should turn the narrator into a mouse, an idea that it is now impossible to imagine The Witches without. Dahl saw that these were improvements and went ahead, but Roxburgh had to be more subtle about his other objections to the novel. Apologizing in advance, he pointed out that the women in the story "took a lot of abuse."

Despite changes to tone down that aspect of the final manuscript, feminists saw The Witches as a complete disaster. Catherine Itzin reported that the book is an example of "how boys learn to become men who hate women." In a reference guide to YA literature, Michele Landsberg wrote that, "Almost every one of his numerous books rehashes the same tired plot: a meek small boy finally turns on his adult female tormentors and kills them."

…

‘Matilda’ was also given the Roxburgh treatment, possibly what led to them falling out and Dahl taking the revised manuscript with him to another publisher -

In 1985, the 71-year old Dahl began to fall seriously ill and his mind had started to go. A plagiarism incident revolving around a story he had stolen tarred his name and his writing became at the same time roundly terrible and excessively sexual. It is no wonder that his first effort at Matilda was so different from the classic we know today. A row with Roxburgh after he had incorporated all of the man's work on the book drove Dahl to another publisher for it, and Matilda was released by Viking instead, immediately selling more than any book Dahl had ever written.

http://thisrecording.com/today/2011/6/1/in-which-we-consider-the-macabre-unpleasantness-of-roald-dah.html

In principle though, I do agree with you that it’s important to be true to the original, and it’s equally important to contextualise*… BUT, if the priority is that the works be commercially viable, then Dahl even if he were alive today, and knowing the sort of person he was, would grudgingly accept that his original works needed updating in order to be commercially viable.

*In the interests of disclosure - I used read Shakespeare’s plays to my son when he was between six and nine years of age like they were bedtime stories. One of our favourite parts is still to this day Lady Macbeths ‘Unsex me here’ soliloquy -

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1t6rXKUu57rG1pKZjw2Tx0hMV90bQTYRFS3FhSNnwrfQ/mobilebasic

Fcuking cracking stuff 😂

ps - the explanation that not all women are bald, wasn’t that. It’s written in the context of explaining what signs to look out for. Witches are bald, but the updated version simply means to convey that just because a woman is bald, doesn’t mean she’s a witch. I dunno if you remember the 2020 film, but there was controversy then around the other signs to look out for -

Numerous disability advocates, including British Paralympic swimmer Amy Marren, accused the film of perpetuating bias against individuals with ectrodactyly and other limb differences. Lauren Appelbaum, a spokesperson for advocacy group RespectAbility, said the film portrays limb differences as "hideous or something to be afraid of." On November 4, 2020, Warner Bros. issued a statement in which they apologized for offending people with disabilities. They further added that they had worked with "designers and artists to come up with a new interpretation of the cat-like claws that are described in the book. [...] The film is about kindness. [...] It was never the intention for viewers to feel that the fantastical, non-human creatures were meant to represent them." Hathaway also issued an apology over the film's portrayal, saying "I particularly want to say I'm sorry to kids with limb differences... Now that I know better I promise I'll do better."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witches_(2020_film)

How to spot a witch -

https://chillingwithlucas.com/days-out/how-to-spot-a-witch/

That proves my point that he wouldn't agree with these changes.

How? He is dead, short of getting the ouija board out how could you possibly know? I imagine his family would know him better, no?

You'd swear Dahl was some of purist who gave his work away for free, he was as commercial an author as you'll find.

Compared to contemporary books, they are dated.

But that's okay it happens, terms like "timeless" and "classic" are normally marketing speak to sell a reprint. It happens all media not just books.

Like I said previously there is amazing work by Irish authors if people want to protest that way. I'm sure they will appreciate it instead of giving it to the commercial juggernaut that is the Dahl Dynasty.

Ah Woke Wars. Many a keyboard casualty.

What Dahl had to say about physical appearance and 'nasty traits'.

The people that did this crap will always be ugly.

It was in the Daily Mail so it must be true.

My kid lives The Twits.

The first half is about a vicious old couple pranking each other to the point of attempting murder. The second half is about them trapping birds inhumanely, then being killed in a horrific manner when a family of monkeys that they abuse escape.

It's the only non-picture book he is particularly interested in. He's a very nice kid, no attempts at murdering people or abusing animals at all.

His biographer's opinion and some other folk who knew him is irrelevant to me.

I am the audience. I was over 30 years ago and currently still are the audience from reading my own collection to my young son.

His biographer's opinion and some other folk who knew him is irrelevant to me.

Good for you, but we can't have a meaningful debate if you keep shrinking down what you deem relevant.

So we will leave it there.

"Woke-ism" gone mad