Roal Dahl censorship

Shakespeare is studied and analysed to death though, no kid is picking it off the shelf and reading it alone for fun.

I’m not particularly ‘for’ anything being changed but I can certainly see its place in children’s books. It’s all very well people saying that it should encourage a discussion but who honestly sits down with kids beyond year 4 or so and looks at every single book they read to the point where they are able to challenge individual words/names that appear? The fact is that kids read alone the vast majority of the time. Adults, on the other hand, should be able to contextualise things themselves.

 

I can’t speak for all staff so in all honesty, I don’t know. It’s not a widespread agreement that people do, and I think a lot don’t as they are often used with year groups that are a bit young to be going into all that, but I’m sure some must.

 

Is that Bill Bailey's alter ego?

 

If we are going to start changing texts, I would start with the Bible.

 

On a slightly different point...As Roald Dahl is no longer with us can these new versions of his books legitimately be called works by Roald Dahl? I suppose his foundation will claim to represent him but they are palpably not completely Roald Dahl now are they? Are they?

 

You need to look up dearth Stephen.

 

A lengthy editing job there! And wouldn't that mean removing bits that would otherwise cause people to question it?

This whole re-editing area makes me wonder if in a few years from now 'A Kestrel for a Knave' (and the film) would be safe? I'm thinking of the scene where Billy encounters Judd returning home drunk, again!

 

They said the same about records and that's not happened. I still see plenty of people reading books, and a lot of them are younger. I

 

Publishers appear to have compromised..
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...nounces-unaltered-16-book-classics-collection

 

Fair enough.

 

Nice publicity for their new collection being released.

 

Isn’t it.?

 

Seems like a hard headed financial decision, modifying the books for a new audience and simultaneously still selling the originals. No doubt some people will be so riled up about the apparent "wokery" that they'll go out and buy an original. Win-win.

 

I think that’s what Jamdrop was alluding to mate. & my worldly self agrees. There’s no publicity like controversy. These books will fly out of the shops. Cynical, exploitative, but genius marketing..
Mrs C & myself are working on a children's book about wildlife & countryside conservation.. Must remember to throw a controversy spanner in there. I’m known for that..

 

Blackbirds, Tits & blue footed Boobies..
I’m not scared of censorship..
squawk..

 

As Jamdrop said earlier though, that's different isn't it?

While yes the last few generations have all had the same/similar experience with Shakespeare, I'm sure we all had a different experience to people that consumed his work at the time of its release, which is the case with Roald Dahl.

We all read shakespeare as a historical piece, whereas we read Roald Dahl as modern/contemporary work. Kids reading it unedited now will have a different experience as it would be viewed more in the past.

 

There is an irony in all this i.e. the job title 'Sensitivity readers'. Let's call them by the real name ' Censors'.

There are probably limits to what ideals/language should be promoted i.e. .inciting violence/antisemitism/ racism etc. but who has the right to decide what is and what is not offensive and what I, as an adult, what I should read and should not read or and watch?
Warnings on sleeve notes should suffice and/or in reviews and if you feel you will find it offensive, you don't have to read/watch it, in the same way you can change channels or hit the off switch. I would be interested to know the selection process for these committees of 'censors' and what qualifies them to be guardians of our morals.

The biggest danger IMO is ''deleting' historical documents and novels written in different times with different morality should be treated as such. Few these days would be swayed by arguments put forward in , for example, Mein Kampf. 'In cinema the 'classic ''Gone with the Wind' based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell is unashamedly pro-Confederate and sympathetic to the slave owners and KKK given her grandfather fought in the war on the Confederate side. The treatment of the house slaves and portrayal of many of them as unintelligent and lazy and glossing over the horrendous way they were treated makes for very uncomfortable viewing to modern eyes. Nevertheless, deleting such works from history means, means repeating past mistakes since we can never learn from the past (not that we seem to do anyway given the parallels between the conflict in the early mid 20th century and what is happening in Ukraine now as just one example).

Orwell '1984' and Bradbury 'Farenehit 451' predicted this.

 

https://newsthump.com/2023/02/27/ja...-is-just-like-orwells-1984-insists-simpleton/