• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

News Roald Dahl Rewrites

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think people need to have a careful think about priorities, here.

Texts that are continuously in print, evolve. It's normal. It's a positive response to changing times with changing sensibilities. Changing "men" to "people" or changing the gender of male characters to female isn't censorship. Removing the word "fat" isn't censorship - it's modern retellings focussed on inclusion.

When did you last see an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in which Juliet was 13? Did you grow up with Renard the Fox pissing in the wolf's children's eyes to blind them, then eating them, or did you read the modern version? What about all the Hans Christian Andersen stories featuring child rape, grandmother murder and so on? Did you read those to your kids, or the modern edits? Did you complain when you watched the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy, because the female characters had more agency and a bigger role than in the books? There's a hell of a lot less brutality, rape and racism in the modern bible, as someone has pointed out.

When I was at school, it was normal for kids who were overweight, walked with a limp, had a squint or even wore glasses to get bullied purely because of their appearance and this was merely a reflection of popular culture. Fat characters in cartoons had limited intelligence and were clumsy. Ones with glasses were always brainy and never the hero. Bad guys often had buck teeth and other "ugly" features, plus black hair, of course. Girls in stories got scared and were comforted by boys. Or they were complete know-it-alls who weren't popular. Look on any social media platform at people getting irate in the comments section about any celebrity. The "boomers" and my generation (X) will slam the famous person for their appearance, dress sense or sexuality. The younger people will slam their politics or hypocricy. The texts people over 40 read as kids still influence their prejudices today. Sadly. Publishers can help make sure this stops.

If I were a parent, I'd rather read my kids a version of a classic children's book that doesn't contain hate and prejudice, and has the kind of balance of male and female characters that we encounter in the real world. If that means the publisher changing a few small details here and there to fit in with what modern parents want, fair play to them. Better than being stuck in the past.
 
RG Worsey said:
I think people need to have a careful think about priorities, here.

Texts that are continuously in print, evolve. It's normal. It's a positive response to changing times with changing sensibilities. Changing "men" to "people" or changing the gender of male characters to female isn't censorship. Removing the word "fat" isn't censorship - it's modern retellings focussed on inclusion.

When did you last see an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in which Juliet was 13? Did you grow up with Renard the Fox pissing in the wolf's children's eyes to blind them, then eating them, or did you read the modern version? What about all the Hans Christian Andersen stories featuring child rape, grandmother murder and so on? Did you read those to your kids, or the modern edits? Did you complain when you watched the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy, because the female characters had more agency and a bigger role than in the books? There's a hell of a lot less brutality, rape and racism in the modern bible, as someone has pointed out.

When I was at school, it was normal for kids who were overweight, walked with a limp, had a squint or even wore glasses to get bullied purely because of their appearance and this was merely a reflection of popular culture. Fat characters in cartoons had limited intelligence and were clumsy. Ones with glasses were always brainy and never the hero. Bad guys often had buck teeth and other "ugly" features, plus black hair, of course. Girls in stories got scared and were comforted by boys. Or they were complete know-it-alls who weren't popular. Look on any social media platform at people getting irate in the comments section about any celebrity. The "boomers" and my generation (X) will slam the famous person for their appearance, dress sense or sexuality. The younger people will slam their politics or hypocricy. The texts people over 40 read as kids still influence their prejudices today. Sadly. Publishers can help make sure this stops.

If I were a parent, I'd rather read my kids a version of a classic children's book that doesn't contain hate and prejudice, and has the kind of balance of male and female characters that we encounter in the real world. If that means the publisher changing a few small details here and there to fit in with what modern parents want, fair play to them. Better than being stuck in the past.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I'm sticking up for the supermarket cashiers who've been airbrushed out - why? - do the inclusion folk think they're not brainy enough?
And black cloaks and black tractors - c'mon - I've nothing against changing enormously fat to enormous but this is just silly.
 
AgentPete said:
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.
Click to expand...
David Walliams was maybe outselling Roald Dahl just a little too much.
 
MattScho said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dahl changed "pygmies" himself in the late 1960's (ref: Chris Lancaster, The Telegraph).
 
AgentPete said:
The obvious answer is to simply have two editions. Let people choose which they want.

But that would have avoided all the free publicity... :)
Click to expand...
There are at least two editions, unless the publisher goes to every school library and charity shop, sizes the old copies and burns them all. (Which would count as censorship.)
 
Hannah F said:
Yeah, but I'm sticking up for the supermarket cashiers who've been airbrushed out - why? - do the inclusion folk think they're not brainy enough?
And black cloaks and black tractors - c'mon - I've nothing against changing enormously fat to enormous but this is just silly.
Click to expand...
What's the context of the cashiers bit? Cos that does sound strange.
 
RG Worsey said:
I think people need to have a careful think about priorities, here.

Texts that are continuously in print, evolve. It's normal. It's a positive response to changing times with changing sensibilities. Changing "men" to "people" or changing the gender of male characters to female isn't censorship. Removing the word "fat" isn't censorship - it's modern retellings focussed on inclusion.

When did you last see an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in which Juliet was 13? Did you grow up with Renard the Fox pissing in the wolf's children's eyes to blind them, then eating them, or did you read the modern version? What about all the Hans Christian Andersen stories featuring child rape, grandmother murder and so on? Did you read those to your kids, or the modern edits? Did you complain when you watched the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy, because the female characters had more agency and a bigger role than in the books? There's a hell of a lot less brutality, rape and racism in the modern bible, as someone has pointed out.

When I was at school, it was normal for kids who were overweight, walked with a limp, had a squint or even wore glasses to get bullied purely because of their appearance and this was merely a reflection of popular culture. Fat characters in cartoons had limited intelligence and were clumsy. Ones with glasses were always brainy and never the hero. Bad guys often had buck teeth and other "ugly" features, plus black hair, of course. Girls in stories got scared and were comforted by boys. Or they were complete know-it-alls who weren't popular. Look on any social media platform at people getting irate in the comments section about any celebrity. The "boomers" and my generation (X) will slam the famous person for their appearance, dress sense or sexuality. The younger people will slam their politics or hypocricy. The texts people over 40 read as kids still influence their prejudices today. Sadly. Publishers can help make sure this stops.

If I were a parent, I'd rather read my kids a version of a classic children's book that doesn't contain hate and prejudice, and has the kind of balance of male and female characters that we encounter in the real world. If that means the publisher changing a few small details here and there to fit in with what modern parents want, fair play to them. Better than being stuck in the past.
Click to expand...
Ronnie, I can't agree but I respect your point of view. Also, I think it raises an interesting question: what is the purpose of literature? To entertain, to provoke, to share ideas? If it is to 'used to promote a political cause or point of view', even in the guise of improving society, then isn't that propaganda?
I am very much afraid of the well-intentioned, so-called 'woke' culture dumbing down our society by stripping back language in the name of ideals. The price is too high, however noble the cause.
 
RG Worsey said:
What's the context of the cashiers bit? Cos that does sound strange.
Click to expand...
Witches:
"Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket [top scientist] or typing letters for a businessman or driving round in a fancy car (and she could be doing any of these things), her mind will always be plotting and scheming and churning and burning and whiz-zing and phizzing with murderous bloodthirsty thoughts."

If they'd really thought about it they'd have left her as "a cashier in a supermarket" then changed the next bit to [or as a businesswoman]
 
Mel L said:
Ronnie, I can't agree but I respect your point of view. Also, I think it raises an interesting question: what is the purpose of literature? To entertain, to provoke, to share ideas? If it is to 'used to promote a political cause or point of view', even in the guise of improving society, then isn't that propaganda?
I am very much afraid of the well-intentioned, so-called 'woke' culture dumbing down our society by stripping back language in the name of ideals. The price is too high, however noble the cause.
Click to expand...
My name isn't "Ronnie".

My point is that parents, who buy these books for children, don't want books promoting bullying, discrimination and a male centric world. The publisher is very sensibly updating a book that's long been in print, in order to keep parents buying it and kids enjoying it.

If anyone thinks that's "dumbing down", that strikes me as nostalgia overcoming common sense.
 
One of my problems with this is that it's done without actual author consent. I know I know, he's dead, but maybe the works of dead authors should be left alone. Kids can look at those works and think 'Gee, look at the times back then. We don't want that again.' Keeping books the way they were, gives parents a 'teaching point' (don't know the right word for that) where they can explain to the kids how times change and what was good and what is bad about an era and why. Leaving books the way they are, can help educate kids that other times were less inclusive, rather than "brushing the past under the carpet by changing it". It can provide a talking point. Art is born in the context of its time. Should we air brush Picasso's women for example to make them more inclusive to fit with the times? (I think not.) There are lessons that can be learnt from seeing that which isn't 'considered right' anymore. It is only when we know both sides, that we can truly understand one. Sort of. And anyway, there are always plenty of other good, wonderful books they can buy if they don't like the language in RD.
 
Last edited:
Barbara said:
One of my problems with this is that it's done without actual author consent. I know I know, he's dead, but maybe the works of dead authors should be left alone. Kids can look at those works and think 'Gee, look at the times back then. We don't want that again.' Keeping books the way they were, gives parents a 'teaching point' (don't know the right word for that) where they can explain to the kids how times change and what was good and what is bad about an era and why. Leaving books the way they are, can help educate kids that other times were less inclusive, rather than "brushing the past under the carpet by changing it". It can provide a talking point. Art is born in the context of its time. Should we air brush Picasso's women for example to make them more inclusive to fit with the times? (I think not.) There are lessons that can be learnt from seeing that which isn't 'considered right' anymore. It is only when we know both sides, that we can truly understand one. Sort of. And anyway, there are always plenty of other good, wonderful books they can buy if they don't like the language in RD.
Click to expand...
I do wonder if this drive to revise isn't a Netflix thing. Having bought the Dahl rights, and being desparate for popular new content, they have a vested interest in the books continuing to be viewed as essential reading among kids, as their next audience are, right now, those kids. In fact, don't have several new series underway: Charley and Chocolate Murders, Matilda Wormwood's Diaries, and, of course, the Oompa Loompa Cartoon Adventures.
It's not unlike any marketing effort in that regard. If we seriously don't want changes to Dahl's works, we need to pause to consider the impact of that fact: Netflix now owns the characters. they make them do whatever they want. I expect it won't be long before the porn comes out. Actually, Dahl would have liked that.
As for the books, while I get the idea that a dead author cannot defend their work, and that's a bit sad, I'd suggest the practical (publisher's) view is very much the opposite. The author is dead, what they gonna do?
I mean, look at what they did to the Hobbit after JRRT died? Before turning a sweet book into a hot mess of a movie trilogy, they released an edition illustrated by some of the worst comic artists of a generation, to prop up a truly crap musical-ish cartoon movie take. The liberties taken with AA Milne so completely dwarf the discussed edits on Dahl as to make them seem entirely overstated. Seriously, how many of the Pooh works out there today even try to mimic Milne's original text? Okay, not talking about the Pooh slasher film, but the hundreds of kids books and cartoons and cartoon movies, which use a character who is charming only because Pooh is charming in Milne's work.
Overall, I think the best argument against revision is the notion that there is a duty to die and get out of the way for the next generations of writers. Quit hogging the sales, dead people.
 
Good analysis, I think. Mostly, it really is about trying to reinvigorate the brand.

I do so agree with letting authors from previous eras lie quiet in their graves. If the world moves on, so be it. And of course, one of the great joys of children’s literature is discovering long-dead authors whose voices still speak freshly and directly to today’s young people… E Nesbit is one such, I couldn’t believe how transfixed my kids were by her writing when I read them aloud, especially her lesser-known stories. Simply magical to watch.
 
Have we seen the latest: a massive compromise by Puffin..?
From The Bookseller Breaking News

"Puffin UK has announced plans to publish a classic collection of Roald Dahl’s works to keep the original text in print after the publisher’s recent changes to new editions came under scrutiny.

"Now, Puffin has announced that it plans to release The Roald Dahl Classic Collection, to keep the author’s “classic” texts in print and offer readers a choice of both options. The 16 titles, including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, The BFG, Fantastic Mr Fox, George’s Marvellous Medicine and James and the Giant Peach, will be published under the Penguin logo, as individual titles in paperback, and will be available later this year. The books will include archive material relevant to each of the stories."
 
AgentPete said:
Good analysis, I think. Mostly, it really is about trying to reinvigorate the brand.

I do so agree with letting authors from previous eras lie quiet in their graves. If the world moves on, so be it. And of course, one of the great joys of children’s literature is discovering long-dead authors whose voices still speak freshly and directly to today’s young people… E Nesbit is one such, I couldn’t believe how transfixed my kids were by her writing when I read them aloud, especially her lesser-known stories. Simply magical to watch.
Click to expand...
The archaic language is exactly what attracted me to English authors like Milne, Nesbitt, Beatrix Potter and most especially Wind in the Willows. It helps the illusion of strange new worlds. My argument with RG would be kids don't want to read what their parents want them to read. This is something Pratchett's biography made clear. He was a reluctant reader. His mother was determined to make him read. Proper stuff. That was good for him. What HH Munroe termed Fibroid Stodge in one of his short stories. (Incidentally there is nothing like Saki to get a kid to read.) Then at 11 he got his hands on Wind in the Willows where toads talk, wear clothes and commit crimes. Mind blown he went on to devour everything opposite to the stuff his mother wanted him to read. Inclusive Minds are bent on doing good, but children are hard-wired to resist programming of any kind. Efforts to do so are more likely to end up with kids who don't want to read and prefer less sanitised entertainment. As evangelicals are finding out-thinking you can mold minds is how you create reactionaries.
 
E G Logan said:
Have we seen the latest: a massive compromise by Puffin..?
From The Bookseller Breaking News

"Puffin UK has announced plans to publish a classic collection of Roald Dahl’s works to keep the original text in print after the publisher’s recent changes to new editions came under scrutiny.

"Now, Puffin has announced that it plans to release The Roald Dahl Classic Collection, to keep the author’s “classic” texts in print and offer readers a choice of both options. The 16 titles, including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, The BFG, Fantastic Mr Fox, George’s Marvellous Medicine and James and the Giant Peach, will be published under the Penguin logo, as individual titles in paperback, and will be available later this year. The books will include archive material relevant to each of the stories."
Click to expand...
Compromise, or clever publisher, enjoying all the free advertising? My money is on the latter.
 
RG Worsey said:
Compromise, or clever publisher, enjoying all the free advertising? My money is on the latter.
Click to expand...
I think that’s right. When you’ve got the British Prime Minister commenting on your new edition, then you can safely say the marketing has succeeded.

It’s a bit like the media furore you see sometimes when an old-fashioned brand gets national attention for updating their image. “Pontefract Cakes no longer black? Scandalous!”

It riles the good burghers in Tunbridge Wells, apparently…
 
AgentPete said:
It’s a bit like the media furore you see sometimes when an old-fashioned brand gets national attention for updating their image. “Pontefract Cakes no longer black? Scandalous
Click to expand...
Pontefract is in the wrong place, also. Should be in Wales
 
I suspect a lot of people won't know what they are :) They’re certainly an… acquired… taste... (and fyi probably not vegan - altho I wasn't to know that aged five)
 
Eee, Ah proper loved a Pontefract Cake when I were a lad. In fact the mention of them has given me a liquorice craving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Café Life Tag Cloud

agent author authors book books cafe calls for submissions competition conferences contests creative writing editing fantasy fear fiction genre greetings huddle inspiration life literature litopia motivation new new member novel novels november philosophy poetry publishing reading romance science fiction self-publishing short stories short story stories story submissions time vanity winners words world writer writers writing writing contests zodiac
Back
Top