Roal Dahl censorship

Microfiche ?

 

Plenty of classic books contain language and topics that are unacceptable now. Mark Twain (Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer) had some racist elements, Enid Blyton (all of her!) is very dated - except perhaps for The Faraway Tree but even that still has been updated. Are they better updated, so the kids still read, understand and enjoy them, or left as they are to be forgotten about?

 

A lot of RD work has antisemitic undertones, I've been reliably told. But the problem with rewriting history and rewriting other people's words (especially in children's books) is that you remove the lesson. Surely it's better to have conversations with young people about issues of the past rather than erase them. It's an argument for proper parenting, though the state has done nothing but remove the rights of parents over recent decades so why should they care.

It's same with removing statues, you also remove the lesson and an opportunity for growth.

The aim of course is to get everyone to a point where we say "who cares?". But we should care. It's all well and good pandering to the thought police until they come for you and yours. That's not to defend RD, but I can guarantee that on this current trajectory there will be things you and I say today quite reasonably that we won't be say in ten years time.

Just my thoughts.

 

Double Plus Good

 

Very well done on throwing that away. You would be amazed how many people still hold those kind of views

 

There are both sides to this. One edit stands out to me on this specific instance.. one edit for the BFG (Dahl) was removing the description of him wearing a 'black cloak' and replacing it with the word 'cloak'. Why?

It is not the editing/updating but the decision making and level of editing that leads to the accusations of 'thought police' being in control. Clearly offensive words that have pretty much been offensive for many decades and from the outset were intended to be derogatory like 'ni**er' have no place in literature unless 'contextual'.
Overall my view is language changes but evolves naturally and should not be forced upon society. Social media has provided a platform for minority pressure groups which then become 'amplified' by the media intent of whipping up a storm to increase circulation.

 

I was an avid reader as a (very) young kid. I loved Enid Blyton and read all the Three Golliwogs books by the time I was 7 and all the famous five books (repeatedly) by the time I was 9.
All they remind me of now is innocent happy times and characters who wouldn't harm a fly. I'd like to think I grew up with those values.
I didn't read much Dahl, but what I did read I enjoyed.

The point being, I am not sure I could read sanitised versions now and evoke the same feelings. And I'm conflicted as to whether today's kids should. My gut feeling is that good educators would allow reading of the original, combined with reasoned discussion of why things were written that way and how things have evolved since.

 

Agreed, just said same.

 

The copyright of Roald Dahl's books is owned by the Roald Dahl Story Company, which is owned by Netflix, which is owned by venture capitalists. The sole reason to change the words in these book is to make more money.

 

That's Entertainment. Or is it feeding ducks in the park and wishing you were far away? Can never remember.

 

I’m a bit torn on this. Arguments for and against are both somewhat compelling.

Initial reaction was that sanitising works of literature is of little benefit, and we are doing a mis-service to our kids to assume they won’t be able to see antiquated language/attitudes and recognise them as that, as opposed to think they are normal and fine in modern times. Kids can and do see that.

But there is the other angle, already eloquently argued on here. The spirit and message of the books, even just the basic story, can be lost if a child, particularly a younger one, is convinced they are reading an old fashioned relic. They would perhaps concentrate more on the prejudicial undertones or old fashioned names/descriptions then the story itself and the morals the author intended. In the name of keeping great stories fresh for kids, then yes, actually - this does make sense.

It should never go too far and kids studying a text in secondary school should see the originals. For example in GCSE English Literature, I recall my class did Of Mice And Men, in which racism, ageism and even misogyny are key elements. The language used to describe Lenny and his condition/limitations wouldn’t stand the test of time and certainly not his treatment by most characters in it. The language reflects not only the time it was written, but also the time it was set though. It’s a key part of the whole thing.

For younger kids the deeper connotations are less key compared to getting them interested in the story and holding the interest; in fact just getting them to want to read in the first place.

The fairy tales, some centuries old, that we all know have certainly been rewritten and altered over the years, otherwise they wouldn’t still exist.

But even with the fair argument to change some basic elements to keep these great books ‘relevant’, there is also the argument that we shouldn’t do that as it is just as fair to say if a book by a well known and loved author is becoming outdated and inappropriate, instead of changing this and keeping the cash flow running for the estates of the long dead, such as Dahl or Blyton, they ought to be allowed to go out of print, as many thousands if not millions of other books have; and the market be taken by writers of new books written with modern attitudes in mind.

I’m not sure I buy into this. David Walliams and Tom Fletcher don’t struggle to shift copies of their books. The availability of Dahl, Blyton, Beatrix Potter, Dickens even, didn’t slow down the sales of JK Rowling. If you are going to write you need to have a good story and tell it well to compete.

It’s the same with music, more so now than ever. We can all access pretty much anything ever recorded in a nanosecond should we want to listen to it - new artists therefore need to do something new or do it better if they want to do well. Authors, kids or otherwise, deserve no more protection. Changing Fannie to Frannie and Dick to Rick dilutes nothing and just means attention wouldn’t be lost to the story to sniggers about the names being rude words and body parts. Changing Bessie to Beth I get and will likely end up being changed back in a decade or so as more old fashioned names are in vogue, especially for girls from what I’ve seen - you see a lot of Ivy’s and Elsie’s these days for example.

I don’t think removing ‘fat’ from Augustus Gloop’s description achieves a great deal as the connotation remains the same and the judgement of him for being gluttonous and ‘enormous’ is one and the same. I’m also not sure there were racial considerations in the tractors in Fantastic Mr Fox being black - though this was Dahl so they very much might have been written with that in mind.

Changing these things protects the legacy and reputation of people. Dahl had despicable elements to his character and does not really deserve that protection. It is also being done in the name of commercialism and ensuring the Dahl estate can still shift books. It’s a big cash cow for Puffin. Same applies to the Blyton rewrites. What is Noddy’s best mate called now? Hears Well?

But if doing it means some great stories continue to be enjoyed by a lot of kids; if it means we can get kids enjoying books and reading for an hour rather than playing Roblox on a screen or whatever, then is the whole thing worthwhile?

Still not sure either way. Probably though. There are a lot of dissenting voices on this but it isn’t a new or uncommon practice, just happens to have been highlighted and deemed newsworthy this time.

 

Despite it being less than 20 years old, there are already issues highlighted with some of the characterizations in Harry Potter. Ms Rowling being a TERF doesn't help.

 

Slightly off topic....
Has anyone watched any Korean films on Netflix with English subtitles? Some are based on 'legends' and feature 13th 14th century battles and heroes. So you get scenes where the characters are confronted in battle with overwhelming odds or suffered really bad wounds. The common 'go to' phrase that crops up, time and again, in the English subtitles in such situations is.... "Oh gosh!!"

Now I don't know about you but if I had just lost an arm from an enemy's sword I think my words may be a little stronger. Very 'polite' people those Koreans

 

...only amongst a small, but admittedly vocal, minority of people. Also your final sentence I find difficult to find relevant. An author's output should be judged on its own merits as a work. It should IMO have nothing to do with their religious or political opinions or views unless it encroaches on or influences their works.

 

Or at least to keep the gravy train rolling.

There is a cancel culture, no doubt about it, around things that have been written in the past, and the publisher or owner of the works is trying to stay in front of the curve and also take advantage of the massive amount of hysteria this kind of story will create. It's absolutely win win for them. I don't believe for 1 second that the owners have been receiving emails or any correspondence about any of the text in those books, so there wasn't any PC Brigade pile on that created this.

 

Netflix have bought the rights in order to make lots and lots of TV series. There's a wealth of material. It would take a long, long time for them to see any return on their investment from book sales alone. The TV series, a money spinner in itself, will also promote the sales of the books. Currently in the US there is a trend for banning books. Even the most benign. These measures are to preempt that happening. It's not to make the books more appealing to children, it's pandering to the worst side of US popular culture in order to make money. There's potentially Harry Potter amounts to be made such is the back catalogue.

 

Definitely. Children won’t want to read it soon if it’s not updated and so there’s no money to be made.

 

That’s basically my exact thoughts, plus what Farnham Red said here.

The only thing I’d challenge is that the two authors you chose (Walliams and Fletcher) are both celebrity authors, in that they were celebrities before they became authors. Between them and famous old authors such as Dahl and Blyton they take up almost all of the limited supermarket shelves and have huge publicity. It’s incredibly hard to be a new author now and get any sort of look in. Rowling definitely broke through but that was over 20 years ago.