“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been re-patent, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered and the process continues day by day and minute by minute, history has stopped nothing exists except for an endless present in which the party is right”
If Roald Dahl hated the Hollywood adaptions of Charlie in the Chocolate Factory and the Witches, then he'd *hate* this....all the spinning he's doing in his grave could power New York from all the centrifugal force alone.
I’ve Heard some people claim that it isn’t a big deal because they have made changes to the text of these books throughout their different publication histories (e.g. changing the pigmy’s from the original publication into oompah loom paths). But that misses the point. Roald Dahl was involved with those updates and decided to change his own art, and therefore was a continuation of his own art. Now, it is a corporation trying to pander to specific groups by turning everything bland and dull. And then they sign it all off by plastering Roald Dahl name onto something that he didn’t create. They just use the name to give their work an air of authenticity that it hasn’t earned. The audacity that it would take to do something like that is gross to me.
Of course sometimes even the artist being involved might not be a good idea. Imagine a scenario in which x artist is forced by the government to rewrite his work or he'll be imprisoned. It seems unlikely but who knows. An artist being involved doesn't give it credibility by default. It matters how he decided. Or was he forced somehow.
This is just shy of burning books. Worse in a way; insidious rather than overt. No reasonable person would support book burning ( presumably), but rewriting books is likely not to bother people anywhere near as much, so they get away with it. Some people will even think it's perfectly reasonable. I'm seriously concerned about this.
To be fair, when I saw this on Twitter, almost every tweet was in opposition to these changes. Companies like Puffin (or Penguin here in the States), are pushing so hard to cater to a certain mindset, that they're starting to push even those they think they're catering to away from them.
Will we ever get back to some resemblance of normality we once had or is this the dystopian future of nerfing the universe only a small percentage of humans actually want?
Unhatched shrimp? Squirming worms is a really good one. This is almost like bowdlerization, but it's actually worse. At least Thomas Bowdler just cut out the naughty bits from Shakespeare and the Decline And Fall of The Roman Empire. He didn't put in new sections to replace the parts that were excised. Children reading the edited version of Roald Dahl's books will probably never know that the text used to be different. In that sense it's a greater betrayal of the author's original intent. Apparently this happened during Dahl's lifetime as well, although it falls under the argument about racial stereotypes you mentioned earlier. According to the roalddahlfans website, the Oompa-Loompas from Charlie And The Chocolate Factory used to be African Pygmies, but after a long debate and a lot of criticism, Dahl finally agreed to change the Oompa-Loompas into fantasy creatures similar to the ones in the movie. Based on that earlier reluctance to change something that was extremely controversial at the time I suspect he would be firmly against the current changes to his work. There's a massive hubris to the idea that standards have changed, so modern editors need to "improve" the flawed but still popular works written in the past. And the idea that children must not be exposed to anything that doesn't conform to current standards is the usual sort of argument made by conservative book banners, not publishing companies.
An excellent screed. Publish or don't publish, but don't change a single damned word of an author's text. And if you don't like it, write your own damn story, if you can!
While some of these edits are kinda of ridiculous and the original texts should be available somewhere, we also have to keep in mind that these books have already been edited numerous times throughout the decades. In the very first version the Oompa Loompas were African Pygmy’s that wonka enslaved, and they changed that around the time the movie came out.
One can see why that change was made. It was demeaning to black people in a way that probably didn't occur to Dahl when he wrote it. But it's noteworthy that the change to the Oompa-Loompas only happened after a long and very public debate between Dahl and his critics, and in the end he made it himself. It wasn't done to his book after he died and couldn't object, like the current edits.
I think that stuff about the Oompla Loompas is super intriguing and I don't think it should have been changed as it kind of subverts the more dark side of the story, like it completely changes the tone
Another source of insideous editing that I've found and which drives me bananas is the use of American English terminology in British editions of works by British authors, set in Britain with British characters. I couldn't find my original copy of Danny the Champion of the World to read to my son, so I bought a new one. Terms like "flashlight" and "motor" instead of "engine" I find utterly infuriating. The most egregious example I've come across is Neil Gaiman himself reading the audiobook of Neverwhere, a story set on London, also talking of "fawcetts" and "sidewalks". Do these publishers really think Americans are incapable of understanding British English, or that the use of these terms in some way discourages enjoyment of the books in America? And why do they end up back on the shelves in their original country?! I'm going out on a limb when I suggest there probably aren't Australian or New Zealand versions of these books too...
They are idiots. When I come across outward or colloquialism I don’t know, I look it up. It allows me to learn, and become more knowledgeable. These “editors” are doing just the opposite.
If they dont like Roald Dahl any more, they should write something completely new and see how it sticks.
"And if you tolerate this then your children will be next" never has it been more true
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been re-patent, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered and the process continues day by day and minute by minute, history has stopped nothing exists except for an endless present in which the party is right”
I can’t work out whether this is deliberate cultural vandism, deliberate cynical fanbaiting, or a dastardly combination of both.
It's both.
I can't wait to see the Othello rewrite.
The only where Iago was justified in doing what he did?
Cultural vandalism. The estate that gave their permission should be ashamed of themselves
If Roald Dahl hated the Hollywood adaptions of Charlie in the Chocolate Factory and the Witches, then he'd *hate* this....all the spinning he's doing in his grave could power New York from all the centrifugal force alone.
I’ve Heard some people claim that it isn’t a big deal because they have made changes to the text of these books throughout their different publication histories (e.g. changing the pigmy’s from the original publication into oompah loom paths). But that misses the point. Roald Dahl was involved with those updates and decided to change his own art, and therefore was a continuation of his own art. Now, it is a corporation trying to pander to specific groups by turning everything bland and dull. And then they sign it all off by plastering Roald Dahl name onto something that he didn’t create. They just use the name to give their work an air of authenticity that it hasn’t earned. The audacity that it would take to do something like that is gross to me.
Of course sometimes even the artist being involved might not be a good idea. Imagine a scenario in which x artist is forced by the government to rewrite his work or he'll be imprisoned. It seems unlikely but who knows. An artist being involved doesn't give it credibility by default. It matters how he decided. Or was he forced somehow.
This is just shy of burning books. Worse in a way; insidious rather than overt. No reasonable person would support book burning ( presumably), but rewriting books is likely not to bother people anywhere near as much, so they get away with it. Some people will even think it's perfectly reasonable. I'm seriously concerned about this.
To be fair, when I saw this on Twitter, almost every tweet was in opposition to these changes. Companies like Puffin (or Penguin here in the States), are pushing so hard to cater to a certain mindset, that they're starting to push even those they think they're catering to away from them.
@@SunnysFilms That's good to hear.
Imagine if this option was available in 1930s Germany.
I thought there was an ammendment guaranteeing free speech.
Will we ever get back to some resemblance of normality we once had or is this the dystopian future of nerfing the universe only a small percentage of humans actually want?
This is criminal
Unhatched shrimp? Squirming worms is a really good one.
This is almost like bowdlerization, but it's actually worse. At least Thomas Bowdler just cut out the naughty bits from Shakespeare and the Decline And Fall of The Roman Empire. He didn't put in new sections to replace the parts that were excised. Children reading the edited version of Roald Dahl's books will probably never know that the text used to be different. In that sense it's a greater betrayal of the author's original intent.
Apparently this happened during Dahl's lifetime as well, although it falls under the argument about racial stereotypes you mentioned earlier. According to the roalddahlfans website, the Oompa-Loompas from Charlie And The Chocolate Factory used to be African Pygmies, but after a long debate and a lot of criticism, Dahl finally agreed to change the Oompa-Loompas into fantasy creatures similar to the ones in the movie. Based on that earlier reluctance to change something that was extremely controversial at the time I suspect he would be firmly against the current changes to his work.
There's a massive hubris to the idea that standards have changed, so modern editors need to "improve" the flawed but still popular works written in the past. And the idea that children must not be exposed to anything that doesn't conform to current standards is the usual sort of argument made by conservative book banners, not publishing companies.
An excellent screed. Publish or don't publish, but don't change a single damned word of an author's text. And if you don't like it, write your own damn story, if you can!
The world would be flooded with books if everybody who said to write a better story actually did so.
What would clive barker think
of "sensitivity readers"
???🤔
that's so wrong
While some of these edits are kinda of ridiculous and the original texts should be available somewhere, we also have to keep in mind that these books have already been edited numerous times throughout the decades. In the very first version the Oompa Loompas were African Pygmy’s that wonka enslaved, and they changed that around the time the movie came out.
One can see why that change was made. It was demeaning to black people in a way that probably didn't occur to Dahl when he wrote it. But it's noteworthy that the change to the Oompa-Loompas only happened after a long and very public debate between Dahl and his critics, and in the end he made it himself. It wasn't done to his book after he died and couldn't object, like the current edits.
I think that stuff about the Oompla Loompas is super intriguing and I don't think it should have been changed as it kind of subverts the more dark side of the story, like it completely changes the tone
Another source of insideous editing that I've found and which drives me bananas is the use of American English terminology in British editions of works by British authors, set in Britain with British characters. I couldn't find my original copy of Danny the Champion of the World to read to my son, so I bought a new one. Terms like "flashlight" and "motor" instead of "engine" I find utterly infuriating.
The most egregious example I've come across is Neil Gaiman himself reading the audiobook of Neverwhere, a story set on London, also talking of "fawcetts" and "sidewalks".
Do these publishers really think Americans are incapable of understanding British English, or that the use of these terms in some way discourages enjoyment of the books in America? And why do they end up back on the shelves in their original country?!
I'm going out on a limb when I suggest there probably aren't Australian or New Zealand versions of these books too...
They are idiots. When I come across outward or colloquialism I don’t know, I look it up. It allows me to learn, and become more knowledgeable. These “editors” are doing just the opposite.
i love you