Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pollyfossil t1_j95phhy wrote

There's an important context that hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far, which is that Dahl's books are for children. Adults play a huge role in selecting what books children read (teachers, librarians, parents) and if I were a school librarian, although I might not drop Dahl from a library because of his quite cruel fatphobia, for example, it would give me some concern. If I were a parent I'd probably raise it as an issue to discuss with a child reading the book. There is a possibility that if these relatively small changes weren't made, then some people might choose not to stock Dahl's books, or to recommend them to kids. In this context, it's in the publisher's interest to make the changes because they reflect a change in general attitudes about certain things, especially when it comes to books aimed at children. The alternative would potentially be Dahl gradually falling out of favour and being read far less widely.

4

noctisfromtheabyss t1_j96i2cv wrote

Interesting how we assume our contemporary standards for what is acceptable for a child to read, in terms of maturity,, to be superior to past generations. When I look at the rates of anxiety and depression and the general malaise many adults are feeling now dealing with adulthood, I don't think we should be so arrogant to assume we got it right now.

2

pollyfossil t1_j96u3jb wrote

I'd see it just a pragmatic response from the publisher to changing social attitudes. Personally, I don't think it's cool to use fatness for example as a short hand for laziness, greed or stupidity and I might not choose to give books to kids that do make that association. I think that the rates of depression and anxiety among young adults have a lot more to do with climate collapse and economic conditions that are making it increasingly difficult to aspire towards independence (e.g. getting a job that enables you to pay for your own place to live) than with a culture that emphasizes inclusion and diversity.

2

noctisfromtheabyss t1_j96ux6v wrote

A world in which censorship is viewed as pragmatic is a frightening world indeed.

And I am living in the same world as young people with the same economic conditions from a poor family and no college degree and yet I feel far more suited to dealing with this Hellscape than many of my contemporaries. I reckon that has to do with my mom raising me with my head not in the sand to the horrors of the world around me.

2

pollyfossil t1_j96zcvs wrote

I can't see myself why reading books that make fun of fat people or bald people is vital to the psychological formation of the young. There are much more important things to concern ourselves with, both in terms of "censorship" (how about the banning of books in schools that include LGBTQ characters and themes, for example?) and in terms of making the world a less awful place for future generations.

3

noctisfromtheabyss t1_j9702ve wrote

Because it robs them of the opportunity to see how norms have changed, and explanation of why it changed and why that language is unacceptable today. Which in my opinion builds a far better and informed citizen than those who simply do because they are told its wrong with no deeper understanding of why its wrong. Might even get so bad people start justifying book censorship...

1

pollyfossil t1_j973z3d wrote

I teach literature to college students that was published 100s of years ago, so I'm very familiar with the fact that norms constantly change and that reading literature that reflects different worldviews and different mentalities is enriching and intellectually challenging. I'm also aware of the fact that texts go through multiple editions for different reasons and we need access to all of those editions in order to understand them fully from a scholarly perspective. The changes that are being made to these Dahl editions are being made with the permission of the copyright holder, so that's their decision - it's not been made by a committee of the politically correct. It's therefore more accurately described as revision, rather than censorship. It may well be of interest to future researchers on children's literature, but I don't understand why it's been seen as indicative of the downfall of civilization.

2

noctisfromtheabyss t1_j974r42 wrote

Did the author approve of these changes? Was this revision made to better reflect the authors intentions or was it made to censor words and phrases that the publisher things will make people on twitter angry and thus reduce sales?

Its actually frightening that you teach literature and youre ok with an artist work being changed without their permission/consent and that your justifying altering said work for profit motive.

1

pollyfossil t1_j97bu83 wrote

He's been dead since 1990. If you're so exercised about his work being changed, you'd want to take that up with his literary estate, which has approved these changes (quite possibly in the interests of profit).

1

noctisfromtheabyss t1_j97dgeu wrote

I've always wondered, do you spice up the boots with like a dry rub or sauce or do you just raw dog it when licking?

1

pollyfossil t1_j97mtpd wrote

Ooh, what a stinging put down! I'm not sure I'll ever get over it.

1

Dagwood_Sandwich t1_j9epd0e wrote

Theres also the point that Dahl himself reedited some of his works after initial publications to correct his own potentially offensive missteps. The oompa loompas were originally African pygmies for example. Its interesting to think what he would think if he were alive. Of course he’s not so we cant ask him.

There are subtleties here. His words aren’t sacred. If he’d included a few words that we now consider really offensive slurs but weren’t at the time, I think most people would be okay with publishers removing them. Its really the specifics that seem overreaching and somewhat arbitrary.

Its also the issue of passing off these changes however slight as his work. Publish a totally new reimagined version if you want recontextualize, adapt, etc. but call it something new.

2