Words like "fat" and "idiot" and "ugly" have been removed on the basis (I assume) that they might encourage impressionable youngsters to be abusive and judgmental.
However there has been vociferous criticism of the changes from all and sundry, including the Prime Minister and the Queen Consort. They defend the original texts and don't see why they should be altered. They say the changes mute the vigour of the books, which thousands of children are still enjoying, although Dahl himself died in 1990.
Surely it's all rather a storm in a teacup. I can't see what's wrong with a few reasonable changes to his books to reflect modern life and remove possibly offensive language. It's not as if Dahl's books are being totally rewritten and turned into something unrecognisable as his.
Anyone who objects to the original texts is free to stop buying them and find something more "wholesome" for their kids to read. No one is forcing them to read Roald Dahl. Why not keep printing the original versions for those who enjoy them, and just ignore those who don't?
As far as I know, none of his extensive family have objected to the changes. It would be interesting to know what they think.
PS: Books are routinely altered, and sometimes totally rewritten, after a publisher's editor has looked at them. But nobody complains about that.
PPS: Puffin say they will in future publish both the original and amended texts.
PPPS: Alice in Wonderland might need some changes, especially to the Red Queen who keeps threatening to behead everyone!
Noooooooooooo..... They cannot change Alice in Wonderland!!!! Sacrilege. *Passes out at the very thought*.
ReplyDeleteSx
A beheading or two sets you up for the day....
DeleteI understand the concern about those words, as they are offensive. But he used those words on purpose to create the characters. Part of the charm of his books are their absurdity and it’s something that bright children love.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: Some of the suggested amendments are absurd. How is "enormous" any better than fat? And what's wrong with someone "turning white"?
DeleteLet them loose on the brothers Grimm....
ReplyDeleteHelen: Yes, plenty of raw material there. Like the wolf in Red Riding Hood who eats both the grandmother and Red Riding Hood. There are in fact sanitised versions where neither of them get eaten.
DeleteI had the unexpurgated versions....
DeleteFly: For some reason I never read Dahl when I was young. I was reading Enid Blyton (The Secret Seven, The Famous Five) and comics like Eagle and the Beano. My literary tastes at that age were pretty unambitious.
DeleteI have never read his stuff. Thanks to super staff at the local junior library I was reading historical stuff - Henry Treece, Rosemary Sutcliffe.....but also the Beano!
DeleteFly: It looks like your childhood reading was much more intelligent than my own!
DeleteI think the changes are absolutely ridiculous, yet another example of giving in to flaky people. And from what I see around me children don't need words in books to become abusive and judgmental.
ReplyDeleteGood point about children ready to be abusive and judgmental without the help of Roald Dahl and co. Children can be just as mean as adults if the mood takes them.
DeleteI heard about this and think it's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMary: Some of the amendments are plain daft.
DeleteEditing books without the authors' permission should be forbidden. How are we to learn about previous/other cultures if we make them match some people's current ones?
ReplyDeleteThat reminds me of Michael Moore's movie This Film Not Yet Rated where he exposed the raters' obsession with sex. At that time they weren't rating for violence or language or anything except sex.
Linda
Linda: I agree, the author's permission should be required. Or perhaps the title page should say "by Roald Dahl, with amendments by Joanna Somebody". Thank goodness books don't have to be rated like films.
DeleteIt's not a "storm in a teacup". It's outrageous. And that's before we even get to the author's copyright. Whatever next? Re-write (make that sanitize) history?
ReplyDeleteBooks like Dahl's were written in their time - as indeed were Twain's "Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyers"!, not to mention Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin". The N- word was part of the culture, even if we don't use it any longer (chance being a fine thing).
Nick, as I am writing this I am besides myself. What next? Chuck Jane Austen on the fire because her heroines' mothers were always on the look-out for suitable husbands for their daughters instead of sending them to Oxford and Cambridge (colleges)?
Personally? Personally, I call people fat if indeed they are. And a chocolate baby is a chocolate baby. The Apple of my Eye (him with the long blond locks, blue eyes, not to mention white of skin - Hitler would be proud of and, no doubt, give me, the Angel's mother, a medal for services rendered to the motherland - never mind that the Angel is half English) does, occasionally, remind me it might be a good idea to be less graphic in my choice of language. At least in public. Well, a tool is a tool - and language, oh so evocative language, is nothing more than a tool. Hence a spade is a spade, a fork a fork. Where I stop short is calling anyone an idiot. Not even Puffins' decision makers.
Thanks for that, Nick. Can't say I feel better at venting but at least it's out in the open, on the page and to be mutilated if you want to play at being an editor.
U
Ursula: Blimey, that's quite a comment. Maybe if I had read Roald Dahl as a child I would be more resistant to any changes. But I don't disagree with changes in principle, if they're removing offensive language (racist, misogynist etc). The question is whether the language changed really needs changing. For instance changing "fat" or "ugly" or "idiot". Changing fat to "enormous" still conjures up someone fat. And changing "went white" to "went pale" seems pointless. Nobody's seriously suggesting every well-known book should be "updated", only more recent books. I gather the James Bond books have been "updated" to remove racist language, which seems fair enough. But the overwhelming consensus seems to be that books shouldn't be altered in any way, but simply seen as "of their time".
DeleteConcerning Ursulas comment which I take as a quite stupid statement. She calls a fat person fat and a black child a chocolate baby. So may I call her a non educated person ? She seems to know little about other cultures and traditions which is sad and makes me angry. Her words are insulting.
DeleteFor your post I make a difference between art ( literature, theater, cinema, music etc) and daily life language. If we start now to change things in books etc .we can burn 90% of the
World literature. Children can be cruel but not compared to adults as you suppose.
Hannah
Hannah: Indeed, if we objected to every book that includes possibly offensive or abusive language, as you say a huge number of books would disappear forever. And what was left would be totally bland.
DeleteUrsula is right, we wouldn't change the work of the Brontes. Or of Shakespeare. We haven't sanitised the Bible either. Editing really just shows that we don't trust the reader.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, i thought i left a comment on your post about dogs and it doesn't seem to be there. The comment is of no consequence but I'd like to know: did i forget to press "publish" or did it go to spam?
Kylie: Yes, making changes to long-time classics that are admired just as they are would be ridiculous. I think you may be right that changes just mean you're not trusting the reader.
DeleteI don't know what happened to your comment on dogs. It didn't turn up as an email and it wasn't in spam. Can't help you there!