Here’s the thing about the twits. Roald Dahl dedicated an entire chapter to explain that even if you had a double chin, buck teeth and a big nose, as long as you thought good beautiful thought it will shine through you and you will be beautiful with them. But if you thought horrible ugly thoughts than it will show on you. That’s why Mrs.Twit was called ugly. He didn’t mean ugly in the usual sense but ugly in thought.
Thank you for writing this comment mate, im 28 years old now and i read that book in primary 1, and i always remembered sitting at my desk reading that part, that even if youre the most horrifically ugly person in the world, as long as you are a good person and have good thoughts it will shine through.
Idk man. When I was 12 I tought this was just a rude part in the book preaching that ugly people where clearly bad people. But don’t worry, if you are ugly you have hope. Cause ugly thoughts made you ugly, so ugly people must have been bad or mean to turn ugly, and if you are born ugly you’ll have a chance to turn pretty if you think happy thoughts. Love the books, but plenty of short bits are very much of their time and his prejudices. It’s not evil and he didn’t mean to hurt children. It’s just bits of the regular stupid stuff we all teach the children we love. No book will ever be perfect, you can’t physically create an environment where children won’t be affected by our bad prejudices or judgments or moral failings. But you also can’t just use the “I loved the person I made this book for, so of course my book is perfect, you can’t edit my perfect work” defense.
I recall the original impetus for Dahl's Big Friendly Giant. He asked his daughter why she didn't read any of his books and she told him bluntly why should she since they were all wrote for boys. That must have hurt, but it gave us the BFG.
Fantastic video! I grew up on reading Roald Dahl, it's disgusting to hear that publishers are trying to edit his original works. The real world is ugly, children have to learn that one way or another.
I actually read the original version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where the Oompa Loompas were portrayed as dark skinned little people. Was thrilled that the Tim Burton version of the movie was more accurate.
That's what fairy tales were meant to do too, after all. Happy endings maybe, but a fear of dangers too. I think to throw the baby out with the bathwater would be very unwise.
@@AOT_HxH95 Yeah (it did have some artistic touches such as Mike Teavee being a genius and Wonka having a dentist for a father but it all adds to Roald’s story and makes sense) and it’s kind of insulting to the author that they’ve made a “Wonka” prequel based on the old movie that he hated. Did his widow die or something?
Instead of editing those books to adapt to newer standards, preserve the writing as it was and introduce children to other stories that provide better representations or clearer views of the world than that illustrated by Dahl. In doing so, you allow the context of such books to be kept in the societal and emotional condition with which they were written. Plus, much like a story increasing towards a climactic resolution, you can educate children on such elements in a way that expand their knowledge rather than believing such attitudes will go away upon editing those stories. I am not arguing that such stories are perfect and should be preserved to immortalize such faulty behaviors, but that one’s literary knowledge should not be solely limited to that of Dahl or other problematic literary figures. We must urge people to not think that Dahl’s mindset when he wrote it needs to be upheld and changed when it makes people feel uncomfortable. Leave Dahl where he is, he is not the pinnacle of literary writing, and read more books to gain a better understanding of the world and yourself.
I think all this waxing controversial is a big (and, frankly, pointlessly sanctimonious) waste of time. The book is a FANTASY. It doesn't "reflect its time," because what it describes never existed. Most children who read these books are going to be savvy enough to understand they're make-believe, and that what happens in them should not be literally emulated. The fact that this truth now has to be explained to grown-ups is pretty sad.
@@SeasideDetective2like the idiots who call Tolkien racist because orcs are apparently black guys being shown to be evil, different strokes for different folks, hell the first doctor who was a well known bigot. Why isn't he being cancelled, simple answer is Dahl and Tolkien have more presence, they go after dead people famous enough that calling them out will create a massive ripple
I don’t see why they can’t just add a few disclaimers in at the beginning in future editions, like they do if you try and stream an old movie. Not that hard to do, and for the few actually engaged parents out there, it facilitates discussion about the time and place the books were written, how things have changed etc.
@@Angel-od1bt My family and I never had those discussions. We didn't need to, because we understood the fictional nature of entertainment, and that it does not reflect reality and never has. There are, admittedly, some people who try to recreate fiction in the real world, but that's wishful thinking, not a belief system.
The oompa loompas were NOT unpaid. They lived in trees eating caterpillar mush for fear of being eaten on the jungle floor. As such, they weren't able to get to their favorite food, cacao beans. Wonka cut them a deal to live in his factory and eat all the cacao they wanted. He paid them for their work in exchange for room and board.
You have to understand while at first, it doesn’t seem that bad, maybe even ignorantly harmless. Its a fantasy world after all, but when you consider real life examples, it shows how nasty it is, even if the intent wasn’t. There are examples such as Fordlandia that give us a view, even today, how theres a huge problem with people who work on cacao farms being treated very poorly, underpaid, and in all seriousness, paid with cacao beans. Even if they sell the beans, they can’t make enough to live off them. Eerily similar doncha think? The Oompa Loompa’s being black Pygmy’s speaks for itself. I don’t think Dahl was being all that malicious with all that, if anything its more romanticized and idealistic, which is fine enough, but some changes have validation behind them. And to be fair, the oompa loompas are not as bad as JK Rowlings house elves who unironically want to be slaves. Wonka is borderline but still passed I say
"Representing every child" is literally impossible. There are children who are so sensitive that they will find particular stories naturally abhorrent, and no amount of bowdlerization is going to improve the situation. I remember being disgusted, angered, and even outright frightened by some of the "innocent" children's entertainments I consumed, but I didn't demand that they be rewritten to appease my emotional turmoil. If children do not like a book, then they don't have to read it or have it read to them. It's as simple as that.
Tell that to disney 😂 they've been stealing stories and changing them to be "family friendly". I agree with you, it's ridiculous to change stories like this, imagine if they had made Snow White the actual story instead of the weird ass concept we got back then. Same with the little mermaid. they've always been children's stories, it's not like kids randomly became more sensitive so why change them, kids were fine with them for hundreds of years 😂 they'll be alright if Snow white wakes up because the dwarves drop her and the apple piece comes flying out of her throat instead of the prince kissing her awake. 😂
Yeah, trauma can happen at any age. I learned that the hard way when my dad lost custody of my sister hurting her in a way I can’t describe here, and he also lost custody of me too because they didn’t want him to hurt me.
True! I was a highly sensitive child and now I'm a highly sensitive adult. I was upset by everything from Disney to Nick Jr. to the shows my parents watched while I played passively in the same room. I was deeply affected by the "nerdy" characters in media being shunned, bullied, and created as simply ridiculous and insufferable and annoying. But nothing could have saved me from or prepared me for "the real world." Still, here I am, figuring it out. As an adult I can look back and realize why I felt this way or that and how *fiction isn't reality*. Obviously there's lines that need to be drawn. Being frightened by fiction isn't what made me grow up with low self-esteem and depression and anxiety...that was part genetics, and part environment. In other words, "the real world".
I really hate the concept of watering down things for kids. Children aren’t stupid, and if they don’t understand a word in a book direct them to the dictionary or explain to them what context clues are. All this energy people waste trying to censor the voice and literary quirks of a dead man could be used actually helping children learn and realize they have potential because everyone’s attention span is screwed nowadays and everyone is depressed. [for context i’m a 15 year old high school senior, grew up reading these books and still read them regularly]
@@assassin8636 I know there are people who aren’t depressed/have a bad attention span, but my point is that instead of making a fuss over some potentially offensive language in a literary classic, if they care about the kids so much those same people could be teaching them to read and enabling them to think critically and form their own opinions [which would probably help their self-esteem.] about half of the adult US population can’t read over a 6th grade reading level, and it’s going to repeat with Gen Z and Gen Alpha with more disastrous results if we refuse to actually teach kids anything except how to pass tests. Just because people read a lot of stuff on the internet doesn’t make them literate, since unless you’re in some very niche communities [like gun history or something like that] you’ll only encounter language dumbed down and abbreviated which doesn’t apply to the real world very well. And by the way people respond to innocuous/nuanced statements [especially Twitter] you can tell that they don’t understand what they’re reading either.
Roald Dahl’s books defined my childhood and it’s genuinely painful to see his work altered in these ways. His books never felt as though they were speaking down to you like most children’s books do. I hope children will continue to read the classic versions of his stories and learn the valuable lessons in those pages.
You're right! It always felt like we were on the same level as the author. Felt like he was letting us in on all the tea of the universe of that story, rather than just creatively setting a scene or telling a story.... kind of in the way your fun grandpa might tell you an embellished story of his childhood.
I feel like it’s a little more complicated than “he had some bad views but his kids books are totally fine, and he had a rough life.” A writer’s views and beliefs, good or bad, are bound to come up in their writing, even if they’re not conscious of it. Yes, at their core, Dahl’s villains represent horrible adults, but we can’t ignore that there are certain patterns in the physical appearances of these characters, too. I don’t think the solution should ever be banning or censoring, though. I think a good way of going about it is having an open discussion in classrooms about these topics. Dahl would probably agree that kids are able to grasp these kinds of topics. There’s a way to explain to kids why certain things aren’t okay without taking away from the enjoyment of the books.
I think you found the problem there. The publisher doesn't think children are smart enough to have a conversation like that. It's not trying to be sensitive, it's asserting that kids are idiots.
The problem is who gets to decide what is okay, and what is not. People have a great deal of difference related to that subject. What you think is not okay versus what is okay is going to vary widely from the next person. In my opinion there is no discussion to even have about any subject on it being right, or wrong in this context. Who are you to decide that. The best solution is for children to read them and come up with their own conclusions, and judgements. Very likely the children will have no problem with the material as they have not been programmed by people that think they are the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.
@@leviturner3265 That’s why I suggested open discussions. Teachers can still educate on and bring awareness to the topics, but the students can also give their individual inputs. It doesn’t need to be as preachy as you’re making it out to be, though education is still necessary. Generally things like “we shouldn’t be mean to people or treat them badly” are universally agreed on (though even then, that’s a concept that is usually first taught by somebody). When it comes to bigger conflicts (racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc), context could be needed. If there’s no conversation about it at home or in the classroom, that kid could grow up and become an adult with bad misconceptions, denying that there are problems because they haven’t personally experienced them.
@@a.shyperz9033 Oh I told a social worker there was something queer about her and she took it the wrong way. Curse my autistic Victorian schoolgirl vocabulary.
I do believe that Roald Dohl does deserve his criticism. HOWEVER, I do not believe Dohl’s writing should be rewritten as a result from it. For all older properties, we need to see them as products of their time and the author’s background. Like you said, Dohl had amazing depictions of children that everyone can relate to, and that should not be forgotten about. If penguin wants children’s literature to be more inclusive, they should put their focus on newer works written by authors today, and I think authors today can learn a lot from Dohl’s depiction of children and the adults in their lives.
Yes, keep the text, so that people can understand the criticism. We're prevented from authentically facing human nature and society's past transgressions by simply erasing them.
i remember reading a quote about censorship once, especially censoring old works. something like "Censoring these works would be saying that these views and opinion that no longer are shared never existed. be aware they exist and that we think they are wrong but keep them."
I grew up loving his books, my father read me James and the giant peach and the twits, and I still really like them. There’s also a lot in his books I find offensive and stupid, and I don’t agree with a lot of Dahl’s personal beliefs which bleed into the books quite a lot, but that doesn’t mean that there is EVER an excuse to go back and rewrite his work. That is abhorrent. One can make up their own mind on wether they still want to buy or read his books, and wether you want your kids exposed to certain things, but if you don’t simply don’t buy them. The fact that they have the audacity to rewrite them (and in such stupid ways to boot) makes me furious
However, the glorification of his books should indeed be looked at with a double lense. The part with pygmies and his somewhat bigoted views should be condemned.
Its unfortunate that Dahl held these horrid beliefs about minority groups, as a ND kid growing up with his books I appreciated how his child protagonists were human and treated as individuals. I especially related to Matilda because of her strength in the face of an unjust authority figure as at the time I was dealing with adults in my life who only cared about control. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for we just keep comparing them to how adults function or off of how convenient and pleasant in demeanour they are and if we treated kids like individuals then I imagine the world would be a bit happier of a place
Well something that was missed in this video was that it's not actually known if he held those beliefs. What is known is that he would be controversial to get a rise out of people. His family said that he wasn't anti-semitic which I guess you could doubt their claims, as they have a reason to. But his publisher (I think it was him) was jewish and said that he would say these things to get a rise out of people, and said that it didn't actually reflect his true beliefs. I think it was just him being a bit mental at times, which can happen when you suffer such a big concussion like he did. I imagined it made him a bit manic and especially after the horrors of the wars, he probably just wanted to get a rise out of people to distract him. His books doesn't really reflect him holding these beliefs and considering everyone close to him said that it doesn't reflect what he actually believed, I think the above is more true
How are you not a bigger channel? This is better than 95% of the "video essay" summaries edited by AI you see on this garbage heap of a website. Great work.
Man people really think children can’t handle the word “ugly”, once I heard a 9 yr old say the b word and no one cared, and yet people think kids will start crying if they here the word “ugly”, also I get make the Oompa Loompas little people and not little men, even though it’s only change of wording, but why are they now Abstinent? Them drinking wine or beer is not gonna make children cry or drink beer
9 year olds say a lot worse than that. Especially boys. Thats the age at which you want to learn every swear word in existence and impress your friends with them. And then ask an older boy what they actually mean. lol
I think this is a perfect example of how people aren't always one sided good or bad. Dahl had his good sides, and his bad sides which deserve criticism. But no one can be completely perfectly.
He is dead. Critiquing him will change nothing. He is a person that was a writer. If you like his books, read them and praise them. If you do not like them do not read them or praise them. Criticism of him will do nothing, he is dead and therefore cannot change. Besides he cannot rebuff the criticism. Typically, people like authors based on their books, and the like actors based on their acting and movies not upon the actor, or author's personal beliefs. That is reserved for philosophers.
I agree with putting children in a ditch, my reasoning for this is that kids are smart, when I was a child I was independent. When I didn’t know how to play a video game I’d figure it out. Now whenever I’m with little kids and they ask for help, I tell them figure it out, and then they do. Kids have wild imaginations and think differently than us, if we just always help them we restrict their creativity and make them too dependent on others.
Roald Dahl was probably my favorite author as a kid and reading The Witches for the first time was an experience I’ll always remember. I think people forget that someone can do great things but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily a great person.
i feel like the original of any story is important, it’s like a piece of history wrapped up in someone’s mind. beautiful and tragic stories of life and death, tales of mystical creatures and monsters, breaking and bonding relationships. the love, hate and every emotion brought out in his stories are straight from his own mind, he’s eloquent and intelligent, and just a man that was a boy, writing and living and feeling
. Jesus Christ saves He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit can give you peace purpose and joy and his will today John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
To this day I vividly remember my primary school teacher reading “Danny the Champion of the World” to our class and I was utterly enthralled by it. Ever since then I’ve been a fan of his work, if not for him I wouldn’t be anywhere near as interested in literature.
This is an excellent and concise piece about Dahl's works but I wish you'd discussed more about how widespread these changes actually are. Are schools removing older copies and replacing them with these versions? Are teachers and parents generally on board with this change, or is this just a few loud folks getting too much attention? I find that a lot of headlines about political correctness are drawn from one or two people making a big stink and then journalists make it sound like there's a whole widespread outrage. It would be great to hear more about public reactions and the effects of this publishing decision. If many teachers are onboard, or if everyone is angry, either way it would be interesting to dissect.
Definitely a few loud people getting a lot of attention. The whole world is this way now, the people on top are trying to divide everyone. Divide & conquer
Something you didn't touch upon was that His family said that he wasn't anti-semitic which I guess you could doubt their claims, as they have a reason to. But his publisher (I think it was him) was jewish and said that he would say these things to get a rise out of people, and said that it didn't actually reflect his true beliefs. Pretty much everyone that was close to him would say that he would say things just to get a reaction out of people and a lot of the stuff he said doesn't reflect what he believed. It sounds like he just had a twisted way to tease people and given the times he lived in, probably wasn't aware of the impact his jokes would have. You have to remember he grew up in a British schools and when you consider the other people of that time (Bowie, Beatles, etc) they often had that "humour to them where they would say things to get the media to react to them, rather than actually say what they believed.
I think it's deeper than to "get a rise out of people" considering those were prominent beliefs at the time?? Like he wasn't the only one who had those beliefs about other groups. How liberal do you think media was capable of being back then?
You know, I reckon that if I was expecting to live off the profits of Dahl's writing for the rest of my life, I'd say that he wasn't really antisemitic too.
@@simonchristopher8324 I mean, you don't have to believe him, but it's certainly worth adding some context. As mentioned, British humour back then was often to say controversial things that they didn't necessarily mean. As mentioned, you don't have to take it at face value, but if you're making a video on him being anti-semitic, it's pretty important thing to inclue.
This just makes me sad, I hate when this kind of thing happens. It doesn’t matter what a book says it matters how they learn to react from it. If every book is some kind of happy wonderful fairy tale you’re living in a fantasy world. I know as a child I loved Dahl and plenty other dark books.
I often forget how many adapted films and shows are Dahl works, as they continue to be popular and relevant today. Thanks for putting this in a modern context, it’s a a stark difference compared to children’s literature today.
I find the concept of children being illiterate to be quite inaccurate, based on my own experience as a child myself. I remember watching Bones, a crime drama with lots of gore (specifically dissecting corpses to find how they died) with my mother when I was around 7-10. Even disregarding that considering it is an anomaly, I watched National Geographic and Animal Planet since I was 6. Brain Games was one of my favourite shows and there was another (can't remember the name) which scientifically showed the best way to tie shoes and pick a lock. Despite only being 6, I was able to enjoy and understand these shows. And I was able to enjoy books too. Furthermore, the idea of having to represent every child doesn't even need to be there. I am a Chinese guy born in Australia who has mostly lived in South East Asia. Despite this, I was able to relate a lot to Matilda who is a British girl who lived in Britain. I was 12 when I read it and was in secondary school at that point and I related a lot with her due to her constant use of pranks to get back at people who did bad things to her, the annoyance she felt with how everyone underestimated her (I was a gifted child, but not a prodigy) and how she saw the people in her school such as her senior and her teachers. You don't need to make a new character for each individual demographic. Do that and you'll have a bloated cast and you won't get anything done. The average child may be less intelligent than the average adult, but they are not completely idiotic. Making a few characters with relatable traits is enough for anyone, including a child, to see themselves in that character. Even at my very impressionable age of 7 when I first read The Witches, I was still able to understand that they were not meant to represent all women (hell I didn't even know if those witches were even human) and when reading The Twits at that same age, I was able to understand that they were not detestable because of their appearance but because they were just really bad people. The only book that I can think of which may not be good for kids may be Esio Trot, but even then they'd probably be able to tell that the protagonist is an a-hole. Like Roald said, his sins may be scarlet but his books were read. He is not perfect, definitely not, but no one is. For his time, that was a moral blind spot and we cannot judge people in the past to the same standards we judge them now. Judge them based on the morals of their era. And even with that, his books are seperate from his antisemitism, minus that one book, meaning thst reading it is completely fine.
I learned English watching National Geographic documentaries with subtitles and was reading books in English by the time I was 10 or 11. Went to the library myself every week and once I ran out of 500 page adult fantasy books in my own language I had to go to the English section for more. Illiterate, ha. I remember being younger and not being allowed to read books above my age level in the school library. I had to throw a fit about it and get my parents to plead with the teachers to let me read what I wanted. As if they were scared that a few books for 11 year lds were going to damage my precious 8 year old brain, but then on 9-11 they wheeled the tv into the classroom because that was something important we had to talk about. Most adults are absolutely psychotic.
Not a big fan of the weird jumpy editing when showing text, it makes it look like you are encouraging reading along (something I like to do) but the editing makes it hard/frustrating to do. Either show text legibility, or don’t show it at all. But overall great video!!
being angry for such words is genuinely silly and childish, and shows just how sensitive adults have become to represent children they no longer are nor ever will be
To be honest, they're acting no better than most of the adult characters in Matilda, thus proving Dahl's point that adults often underestimate children even further.
The whole point about the Oompa Loompas is that Wonka is a terrible person. Dahl recognizes Wonka's factory is a death trap, and he certainly knows the OLs are being exploited. That's what makes the book funny.
I'm not sure about that, actually. It would be hard to argue that the oompa loompas wish for any other life, particularly given that they look and sound waay more like fairytale creatures than actual real life tribal communities. Hell, they look and sound more like background dancers than anything else. I think Dahl sees Wonka as a brilliant inventor that grew out of love with humanity in general, to only focus on the joy of creation, temporarily reeled back only by the realization of his own mortality. To just call Wonka evil is in my opinion to miss much of his characterization in the books. He's a dangerous individual but ultimately just a genius kid that never grew up, never embraced adult ethics the way that Charlie wants to. He's similar to Peter Pan.
@@HereTakeAFlower you dont want to call him "evil" and then call it "not embracing adult ethics". Semantics. He is clearly evil and quite mad. The man tortures children for his own entertainment, and to teach them a lesson, instead of simply sending them away from his factory after they fail his tests.
I don’t really agree with the editing of his works, I do believe that kids deserve much more credit than adults often give them. If there’s anything that hasn’t aged well, then explain it to your kids. I’m fine with like maybe a preface saying “these books are of their time” or something kind of like what they do with the Looney Tunes shorts. Dahl was bigoted in a lot of ways but he at least trusted children more so than a lot of adults which is a recurring theme of his work
Dahl is a controversial figure and there does need to be some discussion on him as a person but never in my life did I think he was phobic of any person or type when it came to his books. I don't think it's right that his work needs to be amended to suit the newer generations but I also think to quell those people who do complain an introduction explaining that it was a different time or brief trigger warning can be implemented. It doesn't wash away his original text but satisfies those who take issue with it. Or those who complain could simply not read those books?
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people tried to rewrite the Bible. I would understand, because I absolutely hate some of the characters in the Bible. I always thought many of the "moralistic" figures in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, were arrogant, tactless, and unforgiving. (I don't blame the Israelites for throwing Jeremiah down a well, if he really was that obnoxious.) But fundamentalist Christians revere these figures, and I respect their beliefs and their right to read the original works. If you throw a tantrum every time someone offends you, you are exhibiting all the bigotry you accuse them of displaying.
Can't you see that censorship on the basis of whatever current flash in the pan ideology is bad for the original text?. Christ, Shakespeare has a lot of problematic language, Dickens has stereotypes... The censors are the new puritans, they deserve to be ignored, not to get access to texts.
Im LGBT+ and a hater of racism so I suppose im a supporter of modern sensitivity stuff. But I think censorship of old works is a really bad thing, the world isnt all sunshine and lollipops and kids arent stupid and should learn about the history of what our world was like in the past.
I have always been a big fan of Roald Dahl, even writing a biography of him when I was younger, But I have never heard of these censorships- or the racism- It’s literally the only stuff that wasn’t the biography I made. You’d make a great teacher!
I must commend the makers of this video. It’s rare to see an unbiased portrayal of a subject older than 20 yrs of age that is depicted warts and all without the need to demonize or apologize. Even the greatest individual has faults and opinions/viewpoints once accepted that now are outdated or unacceptable. Keep up the good work. Allow your audience to decide.
I think it's simply disrespectful to change the work of Dahl when he clearly didn't want it to happen when he was alive. It's also important to see how media has change and evolved throughout the decades. Things that were acceptable then isn't now and people (children in particular) need to see that while it may not be acceptable to call someone fat or ugly, that was accepted then and it'll stop us from going backwards in terms of cultural acceptance. You wouldn't change how Shakespeare is written when it would perfect sense to make it more accessible to readers but we don't because its Shakespeare. It should be the same for Dahl. Also how Mrs. Twit is now not described as ugly is ridiculous. The pictures show that she is in fact ugly both inside and out. It was her ugly thoughts that altered her appearance with time and it's a good for children to know that you don't have to conventionally beautiful to be called as such as in the very same book, it describes a woman who doesn't have the most desirable features but is still beautiful because of her personality. Mrs. Twit appearance is supposed to represent her ugly personality. Also also, the witches were also described as not women. They may try to act like women but they are a separate creature that ISN'T a woman. The gran literally says (I may have misquoted but it was similar) "They may look like ordinary women but they are demons disguised as women" And there was nothing saying that men where better than women in that book. This is a long comment but Dahl is my favorite childhood author and heavily inspired the way I write perspectives of people who are in terrible situations and have to try and work around what they can't change. I will defend him if he can't do it himself. RIP Roald Dahl, you don't deserve to have your books changed like this.
I fully understand changes to make the language a bit more inclusive - it presents the books to a wider audience - but changes to protect children from language they're going to be exposed to throughout their lives won't help anyone
I don't agree leave his work alone. He didn't want his work edited when he was alive so why disrespect him now he is deceased? At the end of the day you have control over what your child is going to read. If you do not like it do not let them read it simple as that!
The majority of the things are just ridiculous just descriptive or biological the only thing that actually was offensive was the oompa loompa thing defo pretty racist
The quote is by Hilaire Belloc, another kid's book writer who preceded Roald Dahl - 'When I am dead, I hope it may be said: His sins were scarlet, but his books were read.' His short story "Matilda who told lies..." always struck me as having some, tangential, connection to Roald Dahl's character of the same name.
As a kid I read some of his stories and I found each one had a dark side to it that made me uneasy. It also put things into perspective because my childhood wasn't that troubled.
I don't have a problem with updating language in beloved children's books, I want them to remain relevant as they were for me as a child. So change 'queer' for 'strange' because that's how he used it in the originals; update the amount of money Charlie finds so children can better understand and imagine themselves there; and by all means change some of the descriptions of protagonists so they focus on their character flaws rather than finger-point at their looks. But only where it doesn't interfere with the story or undermine Dahl's own voice. He was a product of his time and his experiences and he was always on the side of children finding their way through tough circumstances to triumph. That is what will and should always remain.
I probably wouldn't be too opposes to an "edited" version that doesn't replaces things to be "politically correct" but simply to avoid conclusion, such as replacing "gay" in its classic context, which would likely confuse some children due to it's entirely different modern meaning.
I would 100% read the originals to them if I have any children in the future, on the off chance I come across anything that actually is offensive/problematic I can deal with that myself.
Oh my god... How snowflakes change everything. I grew up reading "The Witches" and every time I saw a bald woman I wouldn't think that she was a witch. People just can't make a difference between reality and fiction anymore.
The meaning of the snowflake is that it originally was supposed to be a positive thing, like "everyone is a special snowflake, no two people are the same" but then it evolved, as a mocking use towards people who think that just because they're different that they're important. It also has the double meaning that since snowflakes easily melt, the "special snowflakes" can't stand up to any real heated discussion.
The man is a writer and artist. Do not change his work. Of one doesn't like it, do not read it. Would we repaint an artist's painting if someone was offended by it?
Yes, but Quentin Blake is the one who drew all of the pictures in the books. I also thought at first it was Dahl who drew all of these characters but no, it was Quentin Blake himself.
i grew up reading rhold dhal and never saw any problem with it!!!!!i was 11 when i started reading him!!this is absolutely absurd that the publishers did this and outright wrong.i absolutly love the originals and always will.fantastic job!!
I read a great many Dahl books with my kids when they were young and as a youngster did the same. The overriding thing for me was that he never insulted kids intelligence and gave them agency. For that I'm grateful, because it showed children that they are capable and can overcome fear. He's one of modern history's great authors, regardless of any controversial views he might have held.
I was never encouraged to read Dahl growing up because the movie version of Willy Wonka gave me nightmares and I was told the books weren't that good by several other adults in my life, who didn't understand their popularity (including both librarians we had, who recommended other books with similar theming). The only one who liked him was my dad. I feel a bit cheated as I really did like the books later in life, but this was in the late 90s and early 2000s when most people were into edgier content and felt his books were "syrupy" comparatively for having happy endings??? It's weird how opinions change. Anyways, the books I was reading instead were pulp horror novels for adults and a lot of uber-edgy teen stuff, which was oddly deemed better writing for a literal child to consume by people I now know had no taste whatsoever. It wasn't until I got older that I began to notice that I would have recognised a lot of abuse and prejudice in my life towards me if I had just trusted my gut and picked up Matilda instead of something different. (BTW, I still enjoy pulp horror. But Dahl is pretty much pulp horror for kids in some places.)
I eagerly await the day where another movement is put into place to un-woke things like books and try to make them more respectful to the author while at the same time, keeping it suitable for kids of the day; without changing everything to extremist soft-skinned "inclusiveness". I'm okay with making things more inclusive but to change someone's work after it was published because it "hurt your feelings" is disrespectful. Even more so after then died. It's like going back to history and removing everything that happened to make it "safer". Some things needs to stay as they were because that's how it was meant to be back then, to understand a different time and see where we came from; to grow as people, not hide what we dislike under a blanket of CEO approved safe words. It's from learning we grow, from mistakes we learn. If you hide kids from everything that could be seen as offensive; you're doing more harm because you're not preparing them for the world. So when they do enter the world they are underprepared and will be eaten alive. Kids aren't stupid (not all of them), then need fantasy to escape reality and stories to help them overcome reality.
GOD DAMN! I watched this all the way through before i clocked your sub count, how the actual fuck do you ONLY have 495 subs while ur pumping out quality of hits magnitude? Thats criminal, i hope this stands as some sort of mark and we come back in a few months and its more like 4.9k, the effort you put in clearly shows and i was genuinenly shocked ur sub count wasnt higher!
and GOD DAMN IF I WASNT RIGHT! just checked in, gone from 499 to 1.7k in 12 days!!!!!! DUDE I TOLD YOU!😝 If you get huge and need an editor, just remember i saw it coming, I told you so and also, i need a job😂
Some of these "changes" really feel like they happened because of woke modern audiences like why the hell does a word like "crazy" need to be censored.
Dahl wasn't a perfect man he was born in the 1910s of course his views are backwards but unlike so many he tried to do the right thing and in the end his bigotry didn't define him he was defined for being an author who understood how children felt and how to tell a wickedly good story in the process
great video! i’m realizing now when looking at and hearing Roald Dahl for myself, i now imagine a movie made about him; and i just see and hear Willem Dafoe playing Dahl
Well it’s nice that they are respecting the original author’s wishes…😒 God someone needs to hold these guys accountable for the cultural vandalism they are committing here…
Jesus Christ saves He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit can give you peace purpose and joy and his will today John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
I think a better way to go about 'adapting' dahls books would be for there to be an index of some kind. Put asterisks next to 'problematic' lines and then explain why in a modern context one might use diffrerent lines. I still think the books dont need any adaption, but in some cases, like the witches line where they talk about women being secretaries and such, an asterisk saying something along the lines of 'when this book was written, many women had these career paths. Nowadays, many women work in all kinds of workplace' could work. It does feel a bit infantilising having to spell everything out, but i think its better than outright censorship. Plus, if progression in the world is going well, kids should know certain things without having it be spelled out for them. I read witches as a kid and i never thought women could only be secretaries, because my mum wasnt one.
.. This is what happens when society reject Christ these things because more and More common Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
Rewriting the works of dead authors should be what's really controversial there. That it evidently is not is a sad commentary on our present decadent and bankrupt culture
When I saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory as a 6 year old in theatres in 1972, when Violet Bouregard turned purple and blew up into a balloon, it scared me to death. But I wouldn't want them to change things, this gender neutral shit is annoying enough in new works, let alone rewriting classics. Its good to know how things used to be.
My brother always talks about how the world is doomed because the next generation is filled with idiots. I always respond with "Children are way smarter than anybody gives them credit for. Should they know we got their back? Of course, but we shouldn't act like they're dipshits eating crayons for lunch like a fucking marine."
People used to think novels were bad for women because, supposedly, women were stupid. I like Roald Dahl because is stories were basically G rated horror movies. Dahl’s descriptions of women were NOT “anti-women”. If you complain about the Grand High Witch, Aunt Spike, Aunt Sponge, Mrs. Trunchbowl, Mrs. Twit etc but you don’t likewise complain about Mr. Twit, Mr. Wormwood, the evil giants in the B.F.G etc. Roald Dahl isn’t sexist, YOU are.
Editing these books to what we think is "good" now is such a bad idea. Like I don't see the point of removing the word black as a colour or turning an ugly character to a good looking one? They treat children like idiots now.
"my sins were scarlet and my books were read" is a hell of a quote
You’re my favorite UA-cam thumbnail resolution
@@mediansswho?
@@medianssWdym?😭😂
maxresdefault is the greatest accomplishment that the internet has made
@@AdrianHernandezAE I'm so glad we have maxresdefault
Here’s the thing about the twits. Roald Dahl dedicated an entire chapter to explain that even if you had a double chin, buck teeth and a big nose, as long as you thought good beautiful thought it will shine through you and you will be beautiful with them. But if you thought horrible ugly thoughts than it will show on you. That’s why Mrs.Twit was called ugly. He didn’t mean ugly in the usual sense but ugly in thought.
That explaination wasn’t Roald Dahl that was a poem from Shel Silverstein
@@the55g30 no it wasn’t??? just read the fourth chapter of the twits or even just look it up online, you seem to have been fed misinformation.
Thank you for writing this comment mate, im 28 years old now and i read that book in primary 1, and i always remembered sitting at my desk reading that part, that even if youre the most horrifically ugly person in the world, as long as you are a good person and have good thoughts it will shine through.
Idk man. When I was 12 I tought this was just a rude part in the book preaching that ugly people where clearly bad people. But don’t worry, if you are ugly you have hope. Cause ugly thoughts made you ugly, so ugly people must have been bad or mean to turn ugly, and if you are born ugly you’ll have a chance to turn pretty if you think happy thoughts. Love the books, but plenty of short bits are very much of their time and his prejudices. It’s not evil and he didn’t mean to hurt children. It’s just bits of the regular stupid stuff we all teach the children we love.
No book will ever be perfect, you can’t physically create an environment where children won’t be affected by our bad prejudices or judgments or moral failings. But you also can’t just use the “I loved the person I made this book for, so of course my book is perfect, you can’t edit my perfect work” defense.
But he still depicted them as really ugly, so doesn’t that kinda mute the point
I recall the original impetus for Dahl's Big Friendly Giant. He asked his daughter why she didn't read any of his books and she told him bluntly why should she since they were all wrote for boys. That must have hurt, but it gave us the BFG.
I’d say his books are gender neutral if anything, the only one exclusively for boys I’d say is Danny The Champion Of The World
Which daughter said that to him?
@@mrcritical6751 Man thats one of his best books
@@PilotG5 agreed, loved that one growing up
Matilda had a female led character
Fantastic video! I grew up on reading Roald Dahl, it's disgusting to hear that publishers are trying to edit his original works. The real world is ugly, children have to learn that one way or another.
I know, right?! How sensitive do they think kids are?!
I actually read the original version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where the Oompa Loompas were portrayed as dark skinned little people. Was thrilled that the Tim Burton version of the movie was more accurate.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 That movie is more or less a more direct adaptation compared to the 1971 movie.
That's what fairy tales were meant to do too, after all. Happy endings maybe, but a fear of dangers too. I think to throw the baby out with the bathwater would be very unwise.
@@AOT_HxH95 Yeah (it did have some artistic touches such as Mike Teavee being a genius and Wonka having a dentist for a father but it all adds to Roald’s story and makes sense) and it’s kind of insulting to the author that they’ve made a “Wonka” prequel based on the old movie that he hated. Did his widow die or something?
Roald Dahl is the first author most kids ever discover, to censor his books is a disgrace
girl the first books i ever cared for were dr suess
Also I can vouch, was my number 1 favorite author for years as a kid. still is of course.
Baffled and fairly distressed I live in a time Dahl is being demonised.
@@sybill123ful”most” does not mean “all”
His books, especially matilda, inspired me so much and indirectly introduced me to david walliams who has the same illustrator
Instead of editing those books to adapt to newer standards, preserve the writing as it was and introduce children to other stories that provide better representations or clearer views of the world than that illustrated by Dahl. In doing so, you allow the context of such books to be kept in the societal and emotional condition with which they were written. Plus, much like a story increasing towards a climactic resolution, you can educate children on such elements in a way that expand their knowledge rather than believing such attitudes will go away upon editing those stories. I am not arguing that such stories are perfect and should be preserved to immortalize such faulty behaviors, but that one’s literary knowledge should not be solely limited to that of Dahl or other problematic literary figures. We must urge people to not think that Dahl’s mindset when he wrote it needs to be upheld and changed when it makes people feel uncomfortable. Leave Dahl where he is, he is not the pinnacle of literary writing, and read more books to gain a better understanding of the world and yourself.
I think all this waxing controversial is a big (and, frankly, pointlessly sanctimonious) waste of time. The book is a FANTASY. It doesn't "reflect its time," because what it describes never existed. Most children who read these books are going to be savvy enough to understand they're make-believe, and that what happens in them should not be literally emulated. The fact that this truth now has to be explained to grown-ups is pretty sad.
@@SeasideDetective2like the idiots who call Tolkien racist because orcs are apparently black guys being shown to be evil, different strokes for different folks, hell the first doctor who was a well known bigot. Why isn't he being cancelled, simple answer is Dahl and Tolkien have more presence, they go after dead people famous enough that calling them out will create a massive ripple
I don’t see why they can’t just add a few disclaimers in at the beginning in future editions, like they do if you try and stream an old movie. Not that hard to do, and for the few actually engaged parents out there, it facilitates discussion about the time and place the books were written, how things have changed etc.
@@Angel-od1bt My family and I never had those discussions. We didn't need to, because we understood the fictional nature of entertainment, and that it does not reflect reality and never has. There are, admittedly, some people who try to recreate fiction in the real world, but that's wishful thinking, not a belief system.
That would be great if they let them be published in the first place, honey.
The oompa loompas were NOT unpaid. They lived in trees eating caterpillar mush for fear of being eaten on the jungle floor. As such, they weren't able to get to their favorite food, cacao beans. Wonka cut them a deal to live in his factory and eat all the cacao they wanted. He paid them for their work in exchange for room and board.
Ok...?
@@sussybaka119 I'm reacting to what was said in the video. You would have to pay attention to and actually watch the video.
@@sussybaka119 Did you not watch the video?
You have to understand while at first, it doesn’t seem that bad, maybe even ignorantly harmless. Its a fantasy world after all, but when you consider real life examples, it shows how nasty it is, even if the intent wasn’t.
There are examples such as Fordlandia that give us a view, even today, how theres a huge problem with people who work on cacao farms being treated very poorly, underpaid, and in all seriousness, paid with cacao beans. Even if they sell the beans, they can’t make enough to live off them. Eerily similar doncha think? The Oompa Loompa’s being black Pygmy’s speaks for itself.
I don’t think Dahl was being all that malicious with all that, if anything its more romanticized and idealistic, which is fine enough, but some changes have validation behind them. And to be fair, the oompa loompas are not as bad as JK Rowlings house elves who unironically want to be slaves. Wonka is borderline but still passed I say
@@sussybaka119get a life💀
"Representing every child" is literally impossible. There are children who are so sensitive that they will find particular stories naturally abhorrent, and no amount of bowdlerization is going to improve the situation. I remember being disgusted, angered, and even outright frightened by some of the "innocent" children's entertainments I consumed, but I didn't demand that they be rewritten to appease my emotional turmoil. If children do not like a book, then they don't have to read it or have it read to them. It's as simple as that.
Tell that to disney 😂 they've been stealing stories and changing them to be "family friendly". I agree with you, it's ridiculous to change stories like this, imagine if they had made Snow White the actual story instead of the weird ass concept we got back then. Same with the little mermaid. they've always been children's stories, it's not like kids randomly became more sensitive so why change them, kids were fine with them for hundreds of years 😂 they'll be alright if Snow white wakes up because the dwarves drop her and the apple piece comes flying out of her throat instead of the prince kissing her awake. 😂
Yeah, trauma can happen at any age.
I learned that the hard way when my dad lost custody of my sister hurting her in a way I can’t describe here, and he also lost custody of me too because they didn’t want him to hurt me.
True! I was a highly sensitive child and now I'm a highly sensitive adult. I was upset by everything from Disney to Nick Jr. to the shows my parents watched while I played passively in the same room. I was deeply affected by the "nerdy" characters in media being shunned, bullied, and created as simply ridiculous and insufferable and annoying. But nothing could have saved me from or prepared me for "the real world."
Still, here I am, figuring it out. As an adult I can look back and realize why I felt this way or that and how *fiction isn't reality*. Obviously there's lines that need to be drawn. Being frightened by fiction isn't what made me grow up with low self-esteem and depression and anxiety...that was part genetics, and part environment. In other words, "the real world".
Exactly!! History should stay as it is
@@saltiestsiren no. That's 100% a you problem.
I really hate the concept of watering down things for kids. Children aren’t stupid, and if they don’t understand a word in a book direct them to the dictionary or explain to them what context clues are. All this energy people waste trying to censor the voice and literary quirks of a dead man could be used actually helping children learn and realize they have potential because everyone’s attention span is screwed nowadays and everyone is depressed.
[for context i’m a 15 year old high school senior, grew up reading these books and still read them regularly]
Thank you, for giving me hope for the young generation!
Bella L
15 year old high school senior?!! Who let young Sheldon on UA-cam
I mean not everyone is depressed and have bad attention span
@@assassin8636 I know there are people who aren’t depressed/have a bad attention span, but my point is that instead of making a fuss over some potentially offensive language in a literary classic, if they care about the kids so much those same people could be teaching them to read and enabling them to think critically and form their own opinions [which would probably help their self-esteem.] about half of the adult US population can’t read over a 6th grade reading level, and it’s going to repeat with Gen Z and Gen Alpha with more disastrous results if we refuse to actually teach kids anything except how to pass tests.
Just because people read a lot of stuff on the internet doesn’t make them literate, since unless you’re in some very niche communities [like gun history or something like that] you’ll only encounter language dumbed down and abbreviated which doesn’t apply to the real world very well. And by the way people respond to innocuous/nuanced statements [especially Twitter] you can tell that they don’t understand what they’re reading either.
@@NibblesTheGuinea I’m on track to graduate early and i already have college secured, i’m really excited :]
Roald Dahl used to taste test for Cadbury's. That's how he knew so much about how chocolate was made in the first place.
Roald Dahl’s books defined my childhood and it’s genuinely painful to see his work altered in these ways. His books never felt as though they were speaking down to you like most children’s books do. I hope children will continue to read the classic versions of his stories and learn the valuable lessons in those pages.
You're right! It always felt like we were on the same level as the author. Felt like he was letting us in on all the tea of the universe of that story, rather than just creatively setting a scene or telling a story.... kind of in the way your fun grandpa might tell you an embellished story of his childhood.
I feel like it’s a little more complicated than “he had some bad views but his kids books are totally fine, and he had a rough life.” A writer’s views and beliefs, good or bad, are bound to come up in their writing, even if they’re not conscious of it. Yes, at their core, Dahl’s villains represent horrible adults, but we can’t ignore that there are certain patterns in the physical appearances of these characters, too. I don’t think the solution should ever be banning or censoring, though. I think a good way of going about it is having an open discussion in classrooms about these topics. Dahl would probably agree that kids are able to grasp these kinds of topics. There’s a way to explain to kids why certain things aren’t okay without taking away from the enjoyment of the books.
Yeah. I somehow managed to disagree with the people in the video and the video maker’s opinion.
I think you found the problem there. The publisher doesn't think children are smart enough to have a conversation like that. It's not trying to be sensitive, it's asserting that kids are idiots.
best take on this situation.
The problem is who gets to decide what is okay, and what is not. People have a great deal of difference related to that subject. What you think is not okay versus what is okay is going to vary widely from the next person.
In my opinion there is no discussion to even have about any subject on it being right, or wrong in this context. Who are you to decide that. The best solution is for children to read them and come up with their own conclusions, and judgements. Very likely the children will have no problem with the material as they have not been programmed by people that think they are the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.
@@leviturner3265 That’s why I suggested open discussions. Teachers can still educate on and bring awareness to the topics, but the students can also give their individual inputs. It doesn’t need to be as preachy as you’re making it out to be, though education is still necessary. Generally things like “we shouldn’t be mean to people or treat them badly” are universally agreed on (though even then, that’s a concept that is usually first taught by somebody). When it comes to bigger conflicts (racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc), context could be needed. If there’s no conversation about it at home or in the classroom, that kid could grow up and become an adult with bad misconceptions, denying that there are problems because they haven’t personally experienced them.
As a 13 year old, queer doesnt meen gay! It meant strange back then.
I'm literally gay and I can't even see how anyone could misunderstand that or get offended over it
Why does your age matter here?
I got in trouble for using it in that sense when I was around your age because my abusive lesbian foster parent didn’t understand.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 oh what happened?
@@a.shyperz9033 Oh I told a social worker there was something queer about her and she took it the wrong way. Curse my autistic Victorian schoolgirl vocabulary.
I do believe that Roald Dohl does deserve his criticism. HOWEVER, I do not believe Dohl’s writing should be rewritten as a result from it. For all older properties, we need to see them as products of their time and the author’s background. Like you said, Dohl had amazing depictions of children that everyone can relate to, and that should not be forgotten about. If penguin wants children’s literature to be more inclusive, they should put their focus on newer works written by authors today, and I think authors today can learn a lot from Dohl’s depiction of children and the adults in their lives.
Yes, keep the text, so that people can understand the criticism. We're prevented from authentically facing human nature and society's past transgressions by simply erasing them.
I think everybody will agree with your take
i remember reading a quote about censorship once, especially censoring old works. something like "Censoring these works would be saying that these views and opinion that no longer are shared never existed. be aware they exist and that we think they are wrong but keep them."
I grew up loving his books, my father read me James and the giant peach and the twits, and I still really like them. There’s also a lot in his books I find offensive and stupid, and I don’t agree with a lot of Dahl’s personal beliefs which bleed into the books quite a lot, but that doesn’t mean that there is EVER an excuse to go back and rewrite his work. That is abhorrent. One can make up their own mind on wether they still want to buy or read his books, and wether you want your kids exposed to certain things, but if you don’t simply don’t buy them. The fact that they have the audacity to rewrite them (and in such stupid ways to boot) makes me furious
However, the glorification of his books should indeed be looked at with a double lense. The part with pygmies and his somewhat bigoted views should be condemned.
That shit didn't happen it is degenerate leftwing fake news.
Its unfortunate that Dahl held these horrid beliefs about minority groups, as a ND kid growing up with his books I appreciated how his child protagonists were human and treated as individuals. I especially related to Matilda because of her strength in the face of an unjust authority figure as at the time I was dealing with adults in my life who only cared about control. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for we just keep comparing them to how adults function or off of how convenient and pleasant in demeanour they are and if we treated kids like individuals then I imagine the world would be a bit happier of a place
“ND”?
@@silashurd3597 Neurodivergent!
@@silashurd3597 They most likely mean “neurodivergent”; it’s an acronym that gets used fairly frequently in the community.
Multiple unjust authority figures.
Well something that was missed in this video was that it's not actually known if he held those beliefs. What is known is that he would be controversial to get a rise out of people. His family said that he wasn't anti-semitic which I guess you could doubt their claims, as they have a reason to. But his publisher (I think it was him) was jewish and said that he would say these things to get a rise out of people, and said that it didn't actually reflect his true beliefs.
I think it was just him being a bit mental at times, which can happen when you suffer such a big concussion like he did. I imagined it made him a bit manic and especially after the horrors of the wars, he probably just wanted to get a rise out of people to distract him.
His books doesn't really reflect him holding these beliefs and considering everyone close to him said that it doesn't reflect what he actually believed, I think the above is more true
How are you not a bigger channel? This is better than 95% of the "video essay" summaries edited by AI you see on this garbage heap of a website. Great work.
who the hell uses ai to edit videos stop making shit up
I don't cate how controversial he was. Do not censor the last remaining figment of his mind.
you should be worried about the quality of your own mind brother
You should be worried about the quality of your own comment Brother
Man people really think children can’t handle the word “ugly”, once I heard a 9 yr old say the b word and no one cared, and yet people think kids will start crying if they here the word “ugly”, also I get make the Oompa Loompas little people and not little men, even though it’s only change of wording, but why are they now Abstinent? Them drinking wine or beer is not gonna make children cry or drink beer
9 year olds say a lot worse than that. Especially boys. Thats the age at which you want to learn every swear word in existence and impress your friends with them. And then ask an older boy what they actually mean. lol
What the fuck is the "b word"
@@CaptainXJ acting like you don’t know
@@TheMostBritishBrit no fucking clue.
I think this is a perfect example of how people aren't always one sided good or bad. Dahl had his good sides, and his bad sides which deserve criticism. But no one can be completely perfectly.
He is dead. Critiquing him will change nothing. He is a person that was a writer. If you like his books, read them and praise them. If you do not like them do not read them or praise them. Criticism of him will do nothing, he is dead and therefore cannot change. Besides he cannot rebuff the criticism. Typically, people like authors based on their books, and the like actors based on their acting and movies not upon the actor, or author's personal beliefs. That is reserved for philosophers.
I agree with putting children in a ditch, my reasoning for this is that kids are smart, when I was a child I was independent. When I didn’t know how to play a video game I’d figure it out. Now whenever I’m with little kids and they ask for help, I tell them figure it out, and then they do. Kids have wild imaginations and think differently than us, if we just always help them we restrict their creativity and make them too dependent on others.
How funny
so glad that the birth rate is declining
Roald Dahl was probably my favorite author as a kid and reading The Witches for the first time was an experience I’ll always remember. I think people forget that someone can do great things but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily a great person.
Bro grew up in South Africa we loved this guy. Still look up to him. His stories just stand out
i feel like the original of any story is important, it’s like a piece of history wrapped up in someone’s mind. beautiful and tragic stories of life and death, tales of mystical creatures and monsters, breaking and bonding relationships. the love, hate and every emotion brought out in his stories are straight from his own mind, he’s eloquent and intelligent, and just a man that was a boy, writing and living and feeling
.
Jesus Christ saves
He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Holy Spirit can give you peace purpose and joy and his will today
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
To this day I vividly remember my primary school teacher reading “Danny the Champion of the World” to our class and I was utterly enthralled by it. Ever since then I’ve been a fan of his work, if not for him I wouldn’t be anywhere near as interested in literature.
I'm pretty sure his last words were "Ow! Fuck!"
People have just gotten absolutely ridiculous lately
They’ve always have been, this isn’t new.
This is an excellent and concise piece about Dahl's works but I wish you'd discussed more about how widespread these changes actually are. Are schools removing older copies and replacing them with these versions? Are teachers and parents generally on board with this change, or is this just a few loud folks getting too much attention? I find that a lot of headlines about political correctness are drawn from one or two people making a big stink and then journalists make it sound like there's a whole widespread outrage. It would be great to hear more about public reactions and the effects of this publishing decision. If many teachers are onboard, or if everyone is angry, either way it would be interesting to dissect.
Definitely a few loud people getting a lot of attention. The whole world is this way now, the people on top are trying to divide everyone. Divide & conquer
"To find out who rules over you look at those you cannot criticize."
-Voltaire
Something you didn't touch upon was that His family said that he wasn't anti-semitic which I guess you could doubt their claims, as they have a reason to. But his publisher (I think it was him) was jewish and said that he would say these things to get a rise out of people, and said that it didn't actually reflect his true beliefs.
Pretty much everyone that was close to him would say that he would say things just to get a reaction out of people and a lot of the stuff he said doesn't reflect what he believed. It sounds like he just had a twisted way to tease people and given the times he lived in, probably wasn't aware of the impact his jokes would have.
You have to remember he grew up in a British schools and when you consider the other people of that time (Bowie, Beatles, etc) they often had that "humour to them where they would say things to get the media to react to them, rather than actually say what they believed.
almost forgot that the man responsible for the genocide of jewish people, also had jewish roots
RIP Dahl, you would have loved internet troll culture
I think it's deeper than to "get a rise out of people" considering those were prominent beliefs at the time?? Like he wasn't the only one who had those beliefs about other groups. How liberal do you think media was capable of being back then?
You know, I reckon that if I was expecting to live off the profits of Dahl's writing for the rest of my life, I'd say that he wasn't really antisemitic too.
@@simonchristopher8324 I mean, you don't have to believe him, but it's certainly worth adding some context.
As mentioned, British humour back then was often to say controversial things that they didn't necessarily mean.
As mentioned, you don't have to take it at face value, but if you're making a video on him being anti-semitic, it's pretty important thing to inclue.
This just makes me sad, I hate when this kind of thing happens. It doesn’t matter what a book says it matters how they learn to react from it. If every book is some kind of happy wonderful fairy tale you’re living in a fantasy world. I know as a child I loved Dahl and plenty other dark books.
Exactly! I have learned new things from his books more than my school! It was amazing!
Excellent work. Glad YT reccomended this.
Changing literature to suit the current times. George Orwell warned us. Now here we are.
I’d say the same about Ray Bradbury.
I loved his works as a kid. They were not only the first chapter books I'd read, they were my favorites.
I often forget how many adapted films and shows are Dahl works, as they continue to be popular and relevant today.
Thanks for putting this in a modern context, it’s a a stark difference compared to children’s literature today.
As a child I read so many of his poetry books this man’s a legend
I find the concept of children being illiterate to be quite inaccurate, based on my own experience as a child myself. I remember watching Bones, a crime drama with lots of gore (specifically dissecting corpses to find how they died) with my mother when I was around 7-10. Even disregarding that considering it is an anomaly, I watched National Geographic and Animal Planet since I was 6. Brain Games was one of my favourite shows and there was another (can't remember the name) which scientifically showed the best way to tie shoes and pick a lock. Despite only being 6, I was able to enjoy and understand these shows. And I was able to enjoy books too.
Furthermore, the idea of having to represent every child doesn't even need to be there. I am a Chinese guy born in Australia who has mostly lived in South East Asia. Despite this, I was able to relate a lot to Matilda who is a British girl who lived in Britain. I was 12 when I read it and was in secondary school at that point and I related a lot with her due to her constant use of pranks to get back at people who did bad things to her, the annoyance she felt with how everyone underestimated her (I was a gifted child, but not a prodigy) and how she saw the people in her school such as her senior and her teachers.
You don't need to make a new character for each individual demographic. Do that and you'll have a bloated cast and you won't get anything done. The average child may be less intelligent than the average adult, but they are not completely idiotic. Making a few characters with relatable traits is enough for anyone, including a child, to see themselves in that character.
Even at my very impressionable age of 7 when I first read The Witches, I was still able to understand that they were not meant to represent all women (hell I didn't even know if those witches were even human) and when reading The Twits at that same age, I was able to understand that they were not detestable because of their appearance but because they were just really bad people. The only book that I can think of which may not be good for kids may be Esio Trot, but even then they'd probably be able to tell that the protagonist is an a-hole.
Like Roald said, his sins may be scarlet but his books were read. He is not perfect, definitely not, but no one is. For his time, that was a moral blind spot and we cannot judge people in the past to the same standards we judge them now. Judge them based on the morals of their era. And even with that, his books are seperate from his antisemitism, minus that one book, meaning thst reading it is completely fine.
I learned English watching National Geographic documentaries with subtitles and was reading books in English by the time I was 10 or 11. Went to the library myself every week and once I ran out of 500 page adult fantasy books in my own language I had to go to the English section for more. Illiterate, ha.
I remember being younger and not being allowed to read books above my age level in the school library. I had to throw a fit about it and get my parents to plead with the teachers to let me read what I wanted. As if they were scared that a few books for 11 year lds were going to damage my precious 8 year old brain, but then on 9-11 they wheeled the tv into the classroom because that was something important we had to talk about. Most adults are absolutely psychotic.
Not a big fan of the weird jumpy editing when showing text, it makes it look like you are encouraging reading along (something I like to do) but the editing makes it hard/frustrating to do. Either show text legibility, or don’t show it at all. But overall great video!!
being angry for such words is genuinely silly and childish, and shows just how sensitive adults have become to represent children they no longer are nor ever will be
To be honest, they're acting no better than most of the adult characters in Matilda, thus proving Dahl's point that adults often underestimate children even further.
so what does being angry on behalf of the opposite mean for you?
@@sybill123ful elaborate?
The whole point about the Oompa Loompas is that Wonka is a terrible person. Dahl recognizes Wonka's factory is a death trap, and he certainly knows the OLs are being exploited. That's what makes the book funny.
I'm not sure about that, actually. It would be hard to argue that the oompa loompas wish for any other life, particularly given that they look and sound waay more like fairytale creatures than actual real life tribal communities. Hell, they look and sound more like background dancers than anything else.
I think Dahl sees Wonka as a brilliant inventor that grew out of love with humanity in general, to only focus on the joy of creation, temporarily reeled back only by the realization of his own mortality.
To just call Wonka evil is in my opinion to miss much of his characterization in the books. He's a dangerous individual but ultimately just a genius kid that never grew up, never embraced adult ethics the way that Charlie wants to. He's similar to Peter Pan.
That's an interesting perspective. What if Dahl wasn't racist and was just trying to write a good villain? 😂
@@HereTakeAFlower you dont want to call him "evil" and then call it "not embracing adult ethics". Semantics. He is clearly evil and quite mad. The man tortures children for his own entertainment, and to teach them a lesson, instead of simply sending them away from his factory after they fail his tests.
I don’t really agree with the editing of his works, I do believe that kids deserve much more credit than adults often give them. If there’s anything that hasn’t aged well, then explain it to your kids. I’m fine with like maybe a preface saying “these books are of their time” or something kind of like what they do with the Looney Tunes shorts. Dahl was bigoted in a lot of ways but he at least trusted children more so than a lot of adults which is a recurring theme of his work
Dahl is a controversial figure and there does need to be some discussion on him as a person but never in my life did I think he was phobic of any person or type when it came to his books.
I don't think it's right that his work needs to be amended to suit the newer generations but I also think to quell those people who do complain an introduction explaining that it was a different time or brief trigger warning can be implemented. It doesn't wash away his original text but satisfies those who take issue with it.
Or those who complain could simply not read those books?
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people tried to rewrite the Bible. I would understand, because I absolutely hate some of the characters in the Bible. I always thought many of the "moralistic" figures in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, were arrogant, tactless, and unforgiving. (I don't blame the Israelites for throwing Jeremiah down a well, if he really was that obnoxious.) But fundamentalist Christians revere these figures, and I respect their beliefs and their right to read the original works. If you throw a tantrum every time someone offends you, you are exhibiting all the bigotry you accuse them of displaying.
@@SeasideDetective2 did i read this wrong or did you just say getting offended at something offensive makes you a bigot?
@@rraaiin Trying to silence someone for offending you is being bigoted. A bigot is an intolerant person.
@@SeasideDetective2 why should people be tolerant to intolerant people? that defeats the whole point of being tolerant of anything
Can't you see that censorship on the basis of whatever current flash in the pan ideology is bad for the original text?. Christ, Shakespeare has a lot of problematic language, Dickens has stereotypes... The censors are the new puritans, they deserve to be ignored, not to get access to texts.
Im LGBT+ and a hater of racism so I suppose im a supporter of modern sensitivity stuff. But I think censorship of old works is a really bad thing, the world isnt all sunshine and lollipops and kids arent stupid and should learn about the history of what our world was like in the past.
I have always been a big fan of Roald Dahl, even writing a biography of him when I was younger, But I have never heard of these censorships- or the racism- It’s literally the only stuff that wasn’t the biography I made.
You’d make a great teacher!
He would make an awesome teacher!
Incredible video. Very well written and edited beautifully 🙌 just subbed
I must commend the makers of this video. It’s rare to see an unbiased portrayal of a subject older than 20 yrs of age that is depicted warts and all without the need to demonize or apologize. Even the greatest individual has faults and opinions/viewpoints once accepted that now are outdated or unacceptable. Keep up the good work. Allow your audience to decide.
I think it's simply disrespectful to change the work of Dahl when he clearly didn't want it to happen when he was alive. It's also important to see how media has change and evolved throughout the decades. Things that were acceptable then isn't now and people (children in particular) need to see that while it may not be acceptable to call someone fat or ugly, that was accepted then and it'll stop us from going backwards in terms of cultural acceptance. You wouldn't change how Shakespeare is written when it would perfect sense to make it more accessible to readers but we don't because its Shakespeare. It should be the same for Dahl.
Also how Mrs. Twit is now not described as ugly is ridiculous. The pictures show that she is in fact ugly both inside and out. It was her ugly thoughts that altered her appearance with time and it's a good for children to know that you don't have to conventionally beautiful to be called as such as in the very same book, it describes a woman who doesn't have the most desirable features but is still beautiful because of her personality. Mrs. Twit appearance is supposed to represent her ugly personality.
Also also, the witches were also described as not women. They may try to act like women but they are a separate creature that ISN'T a woman. The gran literally says (I may have misquoted but it was similar) "They may look like ordinary women but they are demons disguised as women" And there was nothing saying that men where better than women in that book.
This is a long comment but Dahl is my favorite childhood author and heavily inspired the way I write perspectives of people who are in terrible situations and have to try and work around what they can't change. I will defend him if he can't do it himself. RIP Roald Dahl, you don't deserve to have your books changed like this.
I fully understand changes to make the language a bit more inclusive - it presents the books to a wider audience - but changes to protect children from language they're going to be exposed to throughout their lives won't help anyone
They shouldn't be rewriting them at all. It means it's no longer Roald Dahl's books being read.
I don't agree leave his work alone. He didn't want his work edited when he was alive so why disrespect him now he is deceased?
At the end of the day you have control over what your child is going to read. If you do not like it do not let them read it simple as that!
The majority of the things are just ridiculous just descriptive or biological the only thing that actually was offensive was the oompa loompa thing defo pretty racist
How so?
@@Finnbobjimbob.
The quote is by Hilaire Belloc, another kid's book writer who preceded Roald Dahl - 'When I am dead, I hope it may be said: His sins were scarlet, but his books were read.'
His short story "Matilda who told lies..." always struck me as having some, tangential, connection to Roald Dahl's character of the same name.
As a kid I read some of his stories and I found each one had a dark side to it that made me uneasy. It also put things into perspective because my childhood wasn't that troubled.
They shouldn't rewrite these books, they're a part of his time and is someone's work. This is madness!
Censorship erases the artist's vision. Sigh.
I don't have a problem with updating language in beloved children's books, I want them to remain relevant as they were for me as a child. So change 'queer' for 'strange' because that's how he used it in the originals; update the amount of money Charlie finds so children can better understand and imagine themselves there; and by all means change some of the descriptions of protagonists so they focus on their character flaws rather than finger-point at their looks. But only where it doesn't interfere with the story or undermine Dahl's own voice. He was a product of his time and his experiences and he was always on the side of children finding their way through tough circumstances to triumph. That is what will and should always remain.
I probably wouldn't be too opposes to an "edited" version that doesn't replaces things to be "politically correct" but simply to avoid conclusion, such as replacing "gay" in its classic context, which would likely confuse some children due to it's entirely different modern meaning.
I would 100% read the originals to them if I have any children in the future, on the off chance I come across anything that actually is offensive/problematic I can deal with that myself.
Oh my god... How snowflakes change everything.
I grew up reading "The Witches" and every time I saw a bald woman I wouldn't think that she was a witch.
People just can't make a difference between reality and fiction anymore.
You sound offended. Maybe you shouldn't be such a snowflake.
@@MilesL.auto-train4013Keep pointing that finger, since 3 are pointing back at you
The meaning of the snowflake is that it originally was supposed to be a positive thing, like "everyone is a special snowflake, no two people are the same" but then it evolved, as a mocking use towards people who think that just because they're different that they're important. It also has the double meaning that since snowflakes easily melt, the "special snowflakes" can't stand up to any real heated discussion.
@@tau-5794☝️🤓
@@sybill123ful .
Lived just a few roads away from me
The man is a writer and artist. Do not change his work. Of one doesn't like it, do not read it. Would we repaint an artist's painting if someone was offended by it?
he is not an artist but the illustrator is pretty good and his artstyle fits roald dahl's book well
Yes, but Quentin Blake is the one who drew all of the pictures in the books. I also thought at first it was Dahl who drew all of these characters but no, it was Quentin Blake himself.
@@danielnidhiry5796 He isn't referring to the artwork in the book, but the book itself being art.
@@I_Love_Learning nah a person who makes art through books or writing is called a writer not an artist
@@danielnidhiry5796 I agree that artist is confusing, but a book is still art, and the creator is still an artist.
When you change literature you change history
i grew up reading rhold dhal and never saw any problem with it!!!!!i was 11 when i started reading him!!this is absolutely absurd that the publishers did this and outright wrong.i absolutly love the originals and always will.fantastic job!!
jesus christ this comment section is full of the most self centered ppl
what?i wasnt trying to be sel centerd!! i was just saying i read him as a kid??@@sybill123ful
Glad I read these unedited
The “need” to stop someone’s art-by actively distorting it-reflects desperation. They fear the art.
Love this channel!
I'm pretty woke, but I'm against changing a work to fit modern sensibilities. A foreword should suffice.
Brilliant man, brilliant video!
I'm glad to have grown up early 2000s reading his work!
Great video mate
Keep it up 👍
Thanks mate!!
I read a great many Dahl books with my kids when they were young and as a youngster did the same. The overriding thing for me was that he never insulted kids intelligence and gave them agency. For that I'm grateful, because it showed children that they are capable and can overcome fear. He's one of modern history's great authors, regardless of any controversial views he might have held.
I was never encouraged to read Dahl growing up because the movie version of Willy Wonka gave me nightmares and I was told the books weren't that good by several other adults in my life, who didn't understand their popularity (including both librarians we had, who recommended other books with similar theming). The only one who liked him was my dad. I feel a bit cheated as I really did like the books later in life, but this was in the late 90s and early 2000s when most people were into edgier content and felt his books were "syrupy" comparatively for having happy endings??? It's weird how opinions change. Anyways, the books I was reading instead were pulp horror novels for adults and a lot of uber-edgy teen stuff, which was oddly deemed better writing for a literal child to consume by people I now know had no taste whatsoever. It wasn't until I got older that I began to notice that I would have recognised a lot of abuse and prejudice in my life towards me if I had just trusted my gut and picked up Matilda instead of something different. (BTW, I still enjoy pulp horror. But Dahl is pretty much pulp horror for kids in some places.)
Uncontrollable genius often comes with unpalatable quirks.
I eagerly await the day where another movement is put into place to un-woke things like books and try to make them more respectful to the author while at the same time, keeping it suitable for kids of the day; without changing everything to extremist soft-skinned "inclusiveness".
I'm okay with making things more inclusive but to change someone's work after it was published because it "hurt your feelings" is disrespectful. Even more so after then died. It's like going back to history and removing everything that happened to make it "safer". Some things needs to stay as they were because that's how it was meant to be back then, to understand a different time and see where we came from; to grow as people, not hide what we dislike under a blanket of CEO approved safe words.
It's from learning we grow, from mistakes we learn. If you hide kids from everything that could be seen as offensive; you're doing more harm because you're not preparing them for the world. So when they do enter the world they are underprepared and will be eaten alive. Kids aren't stupid (not all of them), then need fantasy to escape reality and stories to help them overcome reality.
They should not make things more inclusive. He wasn't inclusive. His beliefs were reflected in his writing.
GOD DAMN! I watched this all the way through before i clocked your sub count, how the actual fuck do you ONLY have 495 subs while ur pumping out quality of hits magnitude? Thats criminal, i hope this stands as some sort of mark and we come back in a few months and its more like 4.9k, the effort you put in clearly shows and i was genuinenly shocked ur sub count wasnt higher!
and GOD DAMN IF I WASNT RIGHT! just checked in, gone from 499 to 1.7k in 12 days!!!!!! DUDE I TOLD YOU!😝 If you get huge and need an editor, just remember i saw it coming, I told you so and also, i need a job😂
Some of these "changes" really feel like they happened because of woke modern audiences like why the hell does a word like "crazy" need to be censored.
Roald Dahl lived around the corner from my grandmother in Llandaff, Cardiff. They knew eachother well. I miss her so much.
One of my favorite authors as a kid. It is a shame that we have to walk on eggshells
The censorship makes my stomach turn. It’s terrifying.
Dahl wasn't a perfect man he was born in the 1910s of course his views are backwards but unlike so many he tried to do the right thing and in the end his bigotry didn't define him he was defined for being an author who understood how children felt and how to tell a wickedly good story in the process
As long as we have the old versions knocking about, I'm down with this
I will always have my children read the originals
great video! i’m realizing now when looking at and hearing Roald Dahl for myself, i now imagine a movie made about him; and i just see and hear Willem Dafoe playing Dahl
Well it’s nice that they are respecting the original author’s wishes…😒
God someone needs to hold these guys accountable for the cultural vandalism they are committing here…
In my opinion when you delete history, you repeat history…
Jesus Christ saves
He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Holy Spirit can give you peace purpose and joy and his will today
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
I think a better way to go about 'adapting' dahls books would be for there to be an index of some kind. Put asterisks next to 'problematic' lines and then explain why in a modern context one might use diffrerent lines. I still think the books dont need any adaption, but in some cases, like the witches line where they talk about women being secretaries and such, an asterisk saying something along the lines of 'when this book was written, many women had these career paths. Nowadays, many women work in all kinds of workplace' could work. It does feel a bit infantilising having to spell everything out, but i think its better than outright censorship. Plus, if progression in the world is going well, kids should know certain things without having it be spelled out for them. I read witches as a kid and i never thought women could only be secretaries, because my mum wasnt one.
The warnings of 1984 become more apparent day by day...
..
This is what happens when society reject Christ these things because more and More common
Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
Rewriting the works of dead authors should be what's really controversial there. That it evidently is not is a sad commentary on our present decadent and bankrupt culture
I pray people keep old copys of his books even as pdf files
The video directly says that the company released both edited and "classical" versions of the book
When I saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory as a 6 year old in theatres in 1972, when Violet Bouregard turned purple and blew up into a balloon, it scared me to death. But I wouldn't want them to change things, this gender neutral shit is annoying enough in new works, let alone rewriting classics. Its good to know how things used to be.
1984 playing out before us
@@trainkid01*1984
@@khosrowanushirwan7591 yeah
Book censoring goes against anything artistic and individual.
My brother always talks about how the world is doomed because the next generation is filled with idiots. I always respond with "Children are way smarter than anybody gives them credit for. Should they know we got their back? Of course, but we shouldn't act like they're dipshits eating crayons for lunch like a fucking marine."
This video was fantastic! You'll have 100k subs in no time...
I know it had to be done, but I hate people changing the vibe. Like Orphan child shit getting changed was bull shit
One of the things I like about older children's books/media is that they don't think kids are stupid
I loved his books when i was a child. Why are they re-writing classics.
Because they can't create anything of their own remotely on that caliber.
It has to be re written to fit society's narrative
“Representing every child”? How? No book can represent every child. It would be better to let the representation happen naturally and not forced in
People used to think novels were bad for women because, supposedly, women were stupid.
I like Roald Dahl because is stories were basically G rated horror movies.
Dahl’s descriptions of women were NOT “anti-women”.
If you complain about the Grand High Witch, Aunt Spike, Aunt Sponge, Mrs. Trunchbowl, Mrs. Twit etc but you don’t likewise complain about Mr. Twit, Mr. Wormwood, the evil giants in the B.F.G etc. Roald Dahl isn’t sexist, YOU are.
Remember: Censorship is ALWAYS 100% political.
Woke and “inclusion” is the death of art.
Someone is mad.
I would be suffering from kidney failure for every time i take a shot from hearing those words
Great video! I love Roald Dahl, and I disapprove of editing old books.
Bruh, fuck censorship 🤦♂️
Editing these books to what we think is "good" now is such a bad idea. Like I don't see the point of removing the word black as a colour or turning an ugly character to a good looking one? They treat children like idiots now.