News Roald Dahl Rewrites

MattScho

Hemmingway's rules for writing

  • MattScho
  • Replies: 4
Bloo✒️

Writing non-English in English

  • Bloo✒️
  • Replies: 12
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunatly, I can't access the article without signing up, which I won't. But I get the gist from the title, and may I say:

Grrrrrrr.

Nothing should be re-written or edited without the author's consent. If the author isn't there anymore, tough doodoos.

Literature is the mirror of its time. If that was the language of the time ...

Would anyone dare do this to mainstream religious texts (ie the Bible etc)? Just saying.
 
Barbara said:
Unfortunatly, I can't access the article without signing up, which I won't. But I get the gist from the title, and may I say:

Grrrrrrr.

Nothing should be re-written or edited without the author's consent. If the author isn't there anymore, tough doodoos.

Literature is the mirror of its time. If that was the language of the time ...

Would anyone dare do this to mainstream religious texts (ie the Bible etc)? Just saying.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly! Re the bible. And why not the Bard?
 
A Guardian piece on the topic: Roald Dahl rewrites: edited language in books criticised as ‘absurd censorship’
I wanted to be outraged, but the changes fell a bit short of outrageous censorship to me. Dropping the word fat from the augustus gloop description and leaving it at "enormous" left me kind of "meh."
However, a different piece in the Guardian talked with philip pullman, and he had a fascinating take. I couldn't refind the article, but a basic summary: There are a lot of really good children's and YA writers putting out a lot of really good stuff today. Dahl should be left as it was written. If this generation finds him offensive, his work will fade, naturally, and readers/kids will move on to works that are more suited to modern sensibilities, and that's a good thing.

Also, suggesting the purity of the original words of the Bible and Bard doesn't work, does it? Both have been rewritten repeatedly, famously, for a lot of different reasons.
 
Exactly, Mel. Where does it end? Are they going to hunt through every book in history to delete stuff someone might be offended by?

It may be in the name of a perceived greater good but it's still censorship.

Apparently we have freedom of speech ... but "don't say anything offensive, alright?".

It may just be a word here or there. But it still worries me because it's a slippery slope. Who decides what's good, bad, wrong and right? Something that is 'bad or wrong' can be declared as 'good or right' and vice versa, depending on agenda and standpoint.

And, where does that leave today's authors? I agree that we need to be mindful of our output and most decent, intelligent author will be, but ... We end up having to second guess everything we write.

Hey, maybe using AI to write our books isn't such a bad ideaaaaaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh :D :oops::rolleyes:
 
MattScho said:
suggesting the purity of the original words of the Bible and Bard doesn't work, does it? Both have been rewritten repeatedly, famously, for a lot of different reasons.
Click to expand...
They have. But would they be touched today? I'm not so sure. But probably. Maybe they need to be.

And maybe religious texts was a bad example. Religions are fluid, they change, views morph, and texts prob should be 'updated' accordingly. The same way one changes scientific material to go with new insights.
 
Last edited:
MattScho said:
A Guardian piece on the topic: Roald Dahl rewrites: edited language in books criticised as ‘absurd censorship’
I wanted to be outraged, but the changes fell a bit short of outrageous censorship to me. Dropping the word fat from the augustus gloop description and leaving it at "enormous" left me kind of "meh."
However, a different piece in the Guardian talked with philip pullman, and he had a fascinating take. I couldn't refind the article, but a basic summary: There are a lot of really good children's and YA writers putting out a lot of really good stuff today. Dahl should be left as it was written. If this generation finds him offensive, his work will fade, naturally, and readers/kids will move on to works that are more suited to modern sensibilities, and that's a good thing.

Also, suggesting the purity of the original words of the Bible and Bard doesn't work, does it? Both have been rewritten repeatedly, famously, for a lot of different reasons.
Click to expand...
Re: Philip Pullman...https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/roald-dahl-philip-pullman-edits-b2285643.html
Granted you are right on the rewrites of the Good Book, etc. But let's put that in context: take the most recent edition of each and let's change them to be more inclusive? Non, merci. Which is, BTW, the response of French publishers to the Dahl rewrites. Non merci, say Dahl's French publishers to rewrites
No to the pablumization of literature! (Not sure that's a word, but if not I just invented it!)
 
Changing "enormously fat" to "enormous" isn't much but still probably grave-turning for Roald as he famously had many a fight with his editor over meticulously chosen words.
But hang on? No black cloak? No black tractor? This is woke gone mad. Children aren't daft enough to think black tractor is somehow derogatory to black people. (are we still allowed to say black people?)
And changing a witch's posed job from "cashier in supermarket" to "top scientist" - what's wrong with being a supermarket worker?
And Fantastic Mr Fox now has 3 daughters instead of sons - what's so wrong about having sons?

Salmon Rushdie calls it a cancelling of freedom of speech, and he - above almost anyone - should know.

I have an uncensored copy of the BFG. I'm keeping it. Maybe it'll be worth a few thousand in years to come. (Must rush out and find a copy of "Revolting Rhymes" before they sabotage that too. I love the revolting rhymes.)

www.spectator.co.uk

The rewriting of Roald Dahl is an act of cultural vandalism

The vandals have come for Roald Dahl. His books for children are to be cleansed of their ‘offensive’ content. Sensitivity readers – what we used to call censors – have been employed to pore over his works and expurgate any word or passage that might hurt a kid’s feelings. If you weren’t worried...
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Contracts folks: Once I have signed agreed changes with my editor and my book is published, any alteration will be in breach of copyright for posterity. The only changes that will ever be permissible are those agreed and signed off by me (not my publisher and - God Forbid - not my family). If I am dead, tough. Pesky fingers off my writing!
 
Hannah F said:
Contracts folks: Once I have signed agreed changes with my editor and my book is published, any alteration will be in breach of copyright for posterity. The only changes that will ever be permissible are those agreed and signed off by me (not my publisher and - God Forbid - not my family). If I am dead, tough. Pesky fingers off my writing!
Click to expand...
Family is likely doing this for financial reasons too. 'No changes after death' should be a global literary rule!
 
The Guardians version and they are usually identical in view with th NYT.
Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.
Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances. The word “fat” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word “ugly” has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.
Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”.
Hundreds of changes were made to the original text – and some passages not written by Dahl have been added. But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”.
In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”
In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”
Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”
References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.
Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.
Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company made the changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which its spokesperson describes as “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature”.
A notice from the publisher sits at the bottom of the copyright page of the latest editions of Dahl’s books: “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”
A spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said: “When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.”
 
The most doubtful changes are the additional lines and paragraphs to my mind. However changing fat to enormous wouldn't bother Dahl that much I wouldn't think. But as far as erasing `Kipling and any trace of colonial attitudes?
Isn't it enough to tell children things were different in those days? Are children really not supposed to know that racism, etc was rampant and seriously damaging in past decades? I mean how do you understand racism etc existed if it's erased?
In a way it seems the unintended consequences of erasing any mention of Kipling etc will be the same as refusing to teach that racism was a thing. Already young middle-class white women seem to find it impossible to imagine what it was like for
their grandmothers in the 50's and 70's. No visceral understanding of what it took for even privileged women to reach a point where they were not the "first woman to ever."
So there is this conundrum. Sexism, racism are still problems. 'What do you mean still? When were they ever a problem? I've never seen any,."

I really don't like giving so much power to Inclusive Minds
 
Last edited:
Well-meaning but someone who writes "lived experience" is not the best censor I can think of. Does have more than a sprinkle of the grey Stalinist in the phrasing.

From Inclusive Minds on having the power to influence the winning manuscripts of the Kate Greenaway award :

"For the first time, the Judges will have access to our Inclusion Ambassador network, to help them increase their awareness and understanding of inclusion and representation within nominated titles. As well as this, a dedicated Inclusion Ambassador Shadowing Group will read the shortlisted titles, providing feedback from their lived experience to help inform judges’ decision-making.
 
Pamela Jo said:
Well-meaning but someone who writes "lived experience" is not the best censor I can think of. Does have more than a sprinkle of the grey Stalinist in the phrasing.

From Inclusive Minds on having the power to influence the winning manuscripts of the Kate Greenaway award :

"For the first time, the Judges will have access to our Inclusion Ambassador network, to help them increase their awareness and understanding of inclusion and representation within nominated titles. As well as this, a dedicated Inclusion Ambassador Shadowing Group will read the shortlisted titles, providing feedback from their lived experience to help inform judges’ decision-making.
Click to expand...
Argh.... Shades of 1984.
 
Mel L said:
Re: Philip Pullman...https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/roald-dahl-philip-pullman-edits-b2285643.html
Granted you are right on the rewrites of the Good Book, etc. But let's put that in context: take the most recent edition of each and let's change them to be more inclusive? Non, merci. Which is, BTW, the response of French publishers to the Dahl rewrites. Non merci, say Dahl's French publishers to rewrites
No to the pablumization of literature! (Not sure that's a word, but if not I just invented it!)
Click to expand...
They had that exact same fight, changing the Bible to be more inclusive, and it led to war and the Spanish Inquisition.
And rap versions of Sharkespeare are called both barbarous and magical. I admit, Shakespeare is different, it was never intended to read, but heard, and because of that has been re-interpreted thousands of time, often for accessibility reasons that aren't that different from this discussion, are they?
As for the French, uhm, are they using Dahl's words? I'd suggest they are saying no thanks, we already changed his words to suit our readers, and we don't want to do it again. A brilliant translation is, IMO, a separate work of art.
 
Michael Deacon writing in The Telegraph:

Noddy Goes to Toyland

It was a beautiful day, and Noddy had gone to visit his best friend: a bearded gnome who lived in a toadstool house.

“Hello, Big Ears!” said Noddy.

“How dare you call me that,” gasped the gnome. “There is nothing wrong with the size of my ears, and it’s extremely hurtful of you to draw attention to them in this cruel and insensitive manner. What a horrid little bully.”

“How dare you call me ‘little’,” gasped Noddy. “It’s extremely hurtful of you to draw attention to my height in this cruel and insensitive manner. What a nasty old man.”

“How dare you call me ‘old’,” gasped the gnome. “That’s blatant ageism. Right, that’s it. I’m never speaking to you again.”

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

On Saturday, the caterpillar ate through one piece of chocolate cake, one ice-cream cone, one pickle, one slice of Swiss cheese, one slice of salami, one lollipop, one piece of cherry pie, one sausage, one cupcake, and one slice of watermelon.

That night he felt sick. And all because of the hateful body-shaming that remains rife in our shockingly fatphobic culture.

The next day, thankfully, he realised that he was actually a perfectly normal and healthy size for a caterpillar, and found the strength and courage to resist the pressure we cruelly place on caterpillars to transform themselves into beautiful butterflies. Because, he had realised, he was already beautiful, just the way he was.

Mr Tickle

That day Mr Tickle tickled everybody.

He tickled the policeman.

He tickled the greengrocer.

He tickled the doctor.

He tickled the butcher.

He even tickled old Mr Stamp the postman.

And that is why, after years of touching people inappropriately without their consent in a flagrant violation of their personal boundaries, Mr Tickle has quite rightly been cancelled.

The Gruffalo

“Where are you going to, little brown mouse?

Come and have lunch in my underground house.”

“It’s terribly kind of you, Fox, but no –

I’m going to have lunch with a gruffalo.”

“A gruffalo? What’s a gruffalo?”

“A gruffalo! Why, didn’t you know?

He has terrible tusks, and terrible claws,

And terrible teeth in his terrible jaws…”

“Hey!” cried the Gruffalo. “That’s not nice!

I’ve never said anything mean about mice!

What’s wrong with my tusks, I’d like to know?

Or my teeth, or my jaws? This is really low.

It hurts me when animals see me and scream.

No wonder we monsters have low self-esteem.

You shouldn’t judge somebody based on their looks.

I’m glad they’re rewriting these horrible books.”
 
I should note that I actually have no idea how one goes about making Oompa Loompas gender neutral and what that would mean to their portrayal (does it reduce the number of sex scenes). OTOh, they were in Dahl's first edition pygmies, and that change doesn't bother me.
 
Just bought a second-hand copy of Revolting Rhymes, and it's got me thinking: this could all be a great stunt to get his uncensored books flying off the shelves. Was Sophie feeling her estate pockets a little threadbare?
 
Peyton Stafford said:
It was done to the Bard. See

en.wikipedia.org

Thomas Bowdler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Few editors have achieved the notoriety of Thomas Bowdler. He was trained as a physician, but when illness prevented him from practicing medicine, he turned to warning Europeans about unsanitary conditions at French watering places. Bowdler then carried his quest for purification to literature, and in 1818 he published his Family Shakspeare [sic], a work in which he promised that "those words and expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family." The sanitized volume was popular with the public of the day, but literary critics denounced his modifications of the words of the Bard. Bowdler applied his literary eraser broadly, and within 11 years of his death in 1825 the word bowdlerize was being used to refer to expurgating books or other texts.

Ah the brave new future where AI will write me a story on demand as dirty or as sanitised as I require in the moment. I see the path to the Eloi opening up. Fascists and Stalinists already embody the Morlocks. Which does beg the Q-why has no one come forward with AI written porn? You cant tell me that it hasn't been tried. It must be awful... The Pizza delivery boy is covered in cheese melted greasily into the hairs of his manly chest?
 
Pamela Jo said:
The Guardians version and they are usually identical in view with th NYT.
Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.
Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances. The word “fat” has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word “ugly” has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.
Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”.
Hundreds of changes were made to the original text – and some passages not written by Dahl have been added. But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”.
In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”
In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”
Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”
References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.
Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.
Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company made the changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which its spokesperson describes as “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature”.
A notice from the publisher sits at the bottom of the copyright page of the latest editions of Dahl’s books: “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”
A spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said: “When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.”
Click to expand...
This all sounds fair enough to me. Storm in a tea cup.
 
Don’t be deceived. This is a business decision, purely and simply.

Some time ago, I had exactly the same folk tell me that they would only publish a ms they were considering from me if the ending was changed to make the protag straight, not gay.

I’m pleased to say the author refused.

Again, it’s just about the bucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MattScho

Hemmingway's rules for writing

  • MattScho
  • Replies: 4
Bloo✒️

Writing non-English in English

  • Bloo✒️
  • Replies: 12
Back
Back
Top