"Rewriting Childrens Novels" Topic

Roald Dahl's children's books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin…

Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer "fat."

The Guardian: link

Censorship is censorship regardless of what they call it.

As a man beast, I object to the negative connotations of the word "beastly". Remove it a once!

If they are striving to make the story reflective of modern society, they should make them all "gravitationally challenged".

That's because there is no word for fat in the upcoming Newspeak dictionary. Gloop later becomes an unperson after falling into the fudge extraction pipe. We suspect he was Eastasian spy. Long live the wokeletariat!

I think the word would be "double-plus-unslender."

This happens all the time…. Mark Twain, H.P.Lovecaft, W.E. John's.

I'm sure you will be able to get unmodified versions from the Roald Dahl research groups.

Actually, this could be great for future geeks like us. Imagine the joy at rediscovering a long lost text of your childhood favorite!

Kinda like finding out about the movie The Four Feathers from the 1930's after only knowing about the remake staring the joker.

Even in the author's lifetime, the Umpah Loompahs were changed from being a black African tribe when it was pointed out to the author that their relationship to Willy Wonka looked an awful lot like slavery! So they became 'pinkish skin' in later versions of the book, orange-skinned in the first movie, and Indians (India) in the second movie.

Yup, and Tolkien rewrote parts of the Hobbit after the first edition. Hence the "not that old story of Bilbo's" reference in LOTR.

Roald Dahl is another of those "tricky" authors – his antisemitism in particular.

No one made him say: "Even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."

link

There's an interesting snippet in that story regarding the Royal Mint deciding he wasn't a suitable person to commemorate on the UK's coins.

"Even in the author's lifetime, the Umpah Loompahs were changed from being a black African tribe when it was pointed out to the author that their relationship to Willy Wonka looked an awful lot like slavery! "

If the author does it, or the author approves it, then it's okay. If not it's censorship and a missed learning opportunity.

If we can't write fat anymore than use in class and train the kids to say something else. I think is just more snowflakes who can't hang in the real world.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer "fat."

Then it's okay to describe him in clinical terms, like "morbidly obese" or "plus-average Body Mass Index"… ;-)

On another note, most of the Winnie the Pooh IP has entered public domain, so people can now go to crazy town with their own fan fiction… :-p

I have left a certain authors organization for its refusal to stand up to PC/Woke censorship.

The irony is, for decades these same people have been decrying book banning as the greatest sin ever perpetuated by anyone— and now they have become the censors.

Well, I'm not for censorship. Leave the work intact; the kids and their parents can discuss anything problematic, if need be.

The truth is, every great author has ideas which are going to offend somebody. In some ways, that's probably why they are great authors! The idea is to discern for oneself what one agrees with and what one does not.

I have no problem with a living author choosing to alter a work. Many have, sometimes in deference to changing views of language, sometimes because their own views changed, and sometimes because technological developments made books meant as contemporary to feel dated (Julie Blume updated her some of her novels to include cell phones). In some cases, the author felt the change made the story better— Tolkien and C.S. Lewis both did this to their most famous fantasy works; I think such authorized changes should be allowed to stand.

But when some pathetic hack comes along and starts chopping out sections of great authors because this so-called "editor" wants to appease the sensibilities of the permanently offended, I take a strong stand against it.

The words of Pink Floyd come to mind: "We don't need thought control."

Because that is what these pathetic, self-righteous little fools are trying to do— control thought. Well, that's not your job, you little hack. Your job is to help an author express his or her vision according to the author's wishes, NOT YOURS. And if someone dislikes it, THEY CAN WRITE THEIR OWN DAMN BOOK.
(Although probably they don't have the talent or the ability to present rational arguments in a lengthy form, so not.)

This stuff ticks me off.

And, for the record, Augustus Gloop is FAT because he is a spoiled GLUTTON whose parents refuse to fulfill their responsibility of teaching him good eating habits. The novel isn't a condemnation of the kids— it's a condemnation of permissive, wimpy, hands-off, don't-make-the-little-darling-feel-bad parents. Unfortunately, it seems that message didn't sink in to a lot of people— probably including the parents of these so-called "editors."

/rant

I agree with you one hundred per cent, Parzival. This is the first step on a slippery slope to Newspeak and Thoughtcrime.

There is, of course, the other option suggested by Phillip Pullman and which, incidentaly, we already apply to 99% of books.

When tastes change we just let them go out of print.

Turns out that big literary estates and their beneficiaries don't like that option.

Which is why, for example, you'll find no evil golliwogs in Enid Blyton anymore…and why the N-word was removed from non-academic editions of Twain.

…money talks and out-of-date B-bleep-t walks. Because it turns out that very few of these incensed defenders of Dahl etc are actually willing to put their hands in their pockets and buy the books they so passionately defend. Which suggests they don't really care all that much after all….

Speaking of things changing, Winnie the Pooh is in public domain so go see "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey".

link

Yeah – that's an interesting one as Disney have retained copyright on the things they added to Winnie the Pooh that are not in the books – sort of a rewriting without the author's permission….

Parzival, yes, indeed!

Children need to learn to deal with bad words and bad thoughts, which they will be exposed to throughout their lives.

Even the dreaded "n word" has a context. It means something quite different in Kipling and in Twain. Given that African-Americans, those most entitled to be offended by it, seem to use it freely among themselves, I think they can handle 'Nigger Jim" in the context that Twain is writing one of the great ANTI-RACIST books, and thta Jim is one of the noblest characters in literature. You know, maybe introduce the concept of IRONY to students.

Or else we go along with the mentality thats blacks are weak-minded victims who must be protected from bad words (unless they use them).

@20thmaine:
You have absolutely no idea whether anyone decrying this has bought the books or not. That's just a straw man argument you stuck in because you don't actually have a logical response that can defend this. And who gives a rip about copyright lapsing? That's irrelevant, and yet another straw man.

I've bought the original books. I've read them. I've bought and read LOTS of books. But YOU clearly haven't read them, or you'd realize just how absurd the supposedly "better" edits are— they're ridiculous, removing whole passages that are not in any way offensive— for example, two tractors are described as being colored "black." You know, with black paint. Now the word "black" has been removed because having black-painted tractors is somehow racist. That's not a case of our culture moving on, that's a case of woke "sensitivity readers" being freakin' INSANE. Because you have to be insane to be offended by bald witches. Oh, not witches. That, apparently, is not the problem. That they're described as "bald" is.
Unbelievable.

And it continues on. In none of the edits is Dahl expressing anti-Semitism, racism, or even sexism. If he were, I'd indeed agree that letting the works fall out of print is acceptable— people don't tend to buy stuff they no longer agree with anyway, so that's what naturally happens in a free economic system. No need for the censors to come along with their black markers and scissors… or for that matter, torches and pitchforks.

And, for the record 20thmaine, this action is being condemned across the political spectrum— Brian Cox, Salman Rushdie, and many others are joining in to slam Penguin/Puffin for this gross plunge into censorship.

Piers Morgan has weighed in— link

But keep tossing out the straw men, 20th. They shred very nicely.

Well – a strawman to fight my strawman, hmm?

You can't possibly know what books I have read or bought now can you?

Is that your own petard you seem to have hoisted yourself by?

Piers Morgan is against it – I shudder at the intellectual weight he brings to the argument.

You seem to have ignored Phillip Pullman's very sensible suggestion. You also seem to have ignored that this is a commercial decision to keep the money cow delivering. And you seem to have ignored the additional, but related, issue of Roald Dahl's antisemitism. And ignored that any number of books have been modernised in the same way. Where was Piers Morgan when The Famous Five needed defending? Piers Morgan also missing in the battles to defend Biggles. What did Piers Morgan have to say about Huckleberry Finn? We should be told. Where is Morgan when it comes to undoing the modifications and suppressions of her siblings' texts perpetuated by C. Bronte. Will no-one unedit Dickens? What terrible conspiracy is responsible for modifications in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle? Why are the complete works of Angela Brazil not kept in constant print? Is there some terrible conspiracy to suppress the works of Mrs Oliphant? Come on Piers, tell us why "And then there were none" by Agatha Christie should revert to its original title (so bad they had to change it twice because the first change was just as bad as the original!).

Anyway – keep throwing out the partial responses, they shred very nicely.

The problem is that we don't trust the "editors" trying to protect us from badthink.

+1 to Bunkermeister. If the author is involved/is OK with changes, that's entirely different than changing a manuscript without consent or post authoris mortem. The exceptions I would make are: first, the author sold the rights entirely to the publisher/editor; and second, scholarship has found alternative manuscripts or texts that replace lacunae in ancient authors. It is a slippery slope from 'editing' to 'censorship.'

As a former Latin teacher, even in those cases where Caesar or Virgil or Livy were simplified for students, I have observed the authors of textbooks were careful to disclaim such occurrences.

Words may come into vogue and may go into disuse. It doesn't make the author's choice of them inconsequential.

Thanks for proving my point, 20thmaine. No, I can't know. Neither can you know that about others, which is what you first asserted. (That *boom* you heard was your petard blowing up in your own face.)

But actually, I have some evidence— your own statements. You are ignorant of the actual changes, and ignorant as to how the books were worded. Ergo, it is probable you haven't read the books in question, nor do you know what the changes are. *Boom*, again.

Yes, I have heard the claim that Dahl was an anti-Semite. I know no details, so shan't comment either for or against him. But was his anti-Semitism in these books? That's the only thing which is relevant. Tell me, is every author you read and admire holy and pure of any personal failings or, the horror, Unacceptable Opinions? Perhaps you like Hemingway. Or Steinbeck. Or Golding. Or Marlowe. Or Fleming. Or Faulkner. Or, or, or. Pick an author; they've probably done or said or written something offensive to someone, especially the Permanently Offended crowd.

As for the rest, I knew you would go apoplectic on the name Piers Morgan.

Where was Piers… who knows? Who cares? Irrelevant. Straw man argument.

And with Agatha Christie, that title actually was offensive in the US at the time, (though apparently not in the UK), and Agatha Christie allowed the US publisher to change it, and change the poem— this process continued through her lifetime, and so was authorized by her. So not an accurate comparison at all on your part.

But calling Augustus Gloop "fat" is in no way truly offensive, nor declaring witches to be "hags" or making them "bald" or to have "double-chins" or saying they are "ugly." If it's all about keeping books in print, these changes have nothing to do with that, as nobody of any note was rejecting the books in the first place.

As for the rest, :eyeroll:

For the record, I do not think that any of the words of deceased authors should be altered— I think they should be explained. People can learn; they do not have to be protected from words.

Parzival, your final point is, IMHO, the correct response to words or phrases in any literary work that have since become controversial – or are now used with a different meaning, or have become difficult to understand because of change. When I taught English I had to explain to sniggering pupils that when Wordsworth wrote in his famous poem Daffodils that 'a poet could not be but gay' he was not referring to his sexuality.
More recently, one of my pupils could not understand what a 'fireman' was doing aboard the train in an extract from The Railway Children because she had never read Thomas the Tank Engine or seen a steam locomotive; to her the word meant the job we now call 'firefighter'.
I was once accused of being 'racist' by a school inspector because I explained to a pupil from Asia that in English usage, 'farmer' meant the person who owned or ran the farm, not the individual workers on the farm.
Re tractors not being 'black': a friend of mine worked in a junior school where the staff were not allowed by the headteacher to ask for a 'black coffee' but had to say 'coffee without milk'. And 'English' lessons had to be called 'Communication Studies' – yet it was okay to refer to 'French lessons'.
I remember a coloured gentleman many years ago being asked on the radio what he thought about the gollywog being used on Robertson's jam jar labels. He replied, "If that was the most important thing I had to worry about, I'd be a very happy man."

"described as being colored "black." You know, with black paint. Now the word "black" has been removed because having black-painted tractors is somehow racist."

Not just tractors, but also a character wearing a black cape. According to the news story I saw, it was edited to be a 'dark cape.' (rolls eyes)

It's hard to tell if George Orwell is crying or laughing at us from the grave…

Penguin/Puffin UK have now announced that they will "also" publish "Classic" editions of Dahl's book without the "sensitivity" edits.
(Probably because some of their own authors were upset about this.)

So those of us who can handle "mean" words can read the real Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and delight in the author's wicked sense of humor, while the snowflakes can curl up in their safe places and be sheltered from all possible offense. That is, until they find something else to be offended by. Probably words like "the" "is" and "not."

After spending thirty five years teaching children aged eight to thirteen, I don't believe that it is the children who enjoy Roald Dahl's books who might be offended or upset by Augustus Gloop being 'fat' or tractors being 'black'. It is 'woke', well-meaning but lacking common-sense adults, who have forgotten what is like to be a child, who imagine these words are a problem.

If someone… 'a child', finds something 'confusing' and questions it… and 'asks'… that IS Education. They have to learn that 'THINGS'change and can be seen from several viewpoints… not just one. That becomes 'History and 'Life'. Of course, the answer just might 'confuse' even more!

If 'things' are changed, so that those questions cannot be made? Well, MY generation has' some' idea of societies, past, present, when this has occurred… and I Fear for the future. But they won't be there to 'question'.

As small child there were several 'Favourite' books, which will have ben 'changed' or disappeared entirely, due to 'content'. THOSE books have NOT affected My attitudes to others. Characters were enjoyed… esp. if 'Naughty'!
What DOES annoy me, is the current 'trend'!

As a teen, read Orwell… pretty much got things right.

Oh good grief. Now they're going after James Bond.

Now I'm going to say this— yes, James Bond in the novels can be a repulsive person, and no, I don't want to read such words or actions. BUT I also know that Ian Fleming used terms common to the UK in the day that, like Agatha Christie in her time, weren't considered offensive there, but were offensive in America. And while Ian Fleming clearly put offensive attitudes into Bond, wasn't Fleming trying to create an objectionable hero— the rough and ready man who will do whatever it takes to carry out his mission and defend his country and her allies? Is Bond not supposed to be a difficult person to root for— even an anti-hero in a sense? He's the knife held behind one's back, the thug to whom the Law turns a blind eye, the one who does What Must Be Done. He is "licensed to kill" when no such license should exist— a murderer on behalf of the British government, and a judge, jury and executioner when the "niceties" of law and diplomacy will not and cannot serve.
In short, you're not supposed to like Bond!
You're supposed to feel uncomfortable about some of his actions and attitudes— he is not a "nice" man. He's a killer, to the core.*

But even if that weren't the case, and even though I find certain words or attitudes in the novels personal or socially distasteful, I don't need the books altered. I can see through the words to the story, if need be, and if I can't, well, it's not the book for me. I'll go read something else. Which is how freedom of expression is supposed to work. The artist decides what he wants to convey; I, and I alone, decide what I (or my children) will receive.

*The movies softened the Bond character a great deal— though in Dr. No and From Russia With Love the coldness is there, and Daniel Craig brought that cold Bond back in the largely faithful Casino Royale film.

It has now been reported that Scholastic has edited the popular Goosebumps series by author RL Stine to remove words like "plump," among other innocuous terms, and Stine (who is very much alive) says that he did not authorize these edits and was not consulted on them, and wasn't even made aware any changes had been done. (Which I would think probably gives him grounds for a massive lawsuit for breech of contract by Scholastic.)

This sort of crap is going too far. If the author is living, the author should have the SOLE say as to whether changes are made, and the publisher should tell the author that they want to make changes, and let him or her decide what, if any, changes will be made. And if the publisher and the author cannot reach agreement, then the publisher must give the rights back to the author and he or she can go find a publishing house more amenable to the author's wishes.