Children's author Roald Dahl has been 'updated' by changing some of the language in his books. Some will undoubtedly see that as political correctness gone awry and others will applaud the revisions.

Is this a good, or necessary, 'fix'? It's a big deal to edit a person's work. The decision about whether to read or skip a book is up to individuals (or to parents when it comes to kids and their books). Surely we can acknowledge that as time goes by and society changes some earlier works will not age well. For example, for many years the movie Gone with the Wind was lauded as a great work. More recently, it has been criticized as being "a product of its time [depicting] racial and ethnic prejudices". But would we want to see the film edited to make it more au courant with today's sensibilities? Isn't it better to just make a different film? Besides, would we want to whitewash the past or rather be realistic about previous errors?


This article discusses what has been altered in Dahl's works:


https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/opinions/roald-dahl-revisions-reinforce-prejudice-thomas-ctrp/index.html

Excerpts:

“Roald Dahl’s books for children, some of the most beloved works of fiction ever written, have had a makeover. According to a notice from their publisher, Puffin, sensitivity readers have “reviewed” the stories’ language, and in some instances, altered it to “ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”


“The idea isn’t new, and it’s not necessarily bad. Remember the Oompa Loompas, the live-in workforce Willy Wonka trafficked from the “deepest and darkest part of the African jungle” in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”? In Dahl’s original version, published in 1964, they were Black pygmies. His 1973 rewrite, published after the 1971 movie starring Gene Wilder, recasts them as “little fantasy creatures.” A welcome improvement, I’m sure we can agree.”


“This posthumous overhaul has gone much further, however. The monstrous tractors in “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which we can safely assume did not come from “darkest Africa,” are no longer “black.” The earthworm in “James and the Giant Peach” doesn’t have “lovely pink” skin but “lovely smooth skin.” No one is “pale,” Mrs. Silver, of “Esio Trot,” is “kind,” not “attractive,” and the word “fat” has been exorcised across the board.”


“At best, the effect has been to add a little harmless balance to the books. Making the Small Foxes in “Fantastic Mr. Fox” female rather than male has no material effect on the narrative or prose. But many of the changes obfuscate the intended meaning. The worst of them serve to reinforce prejudices, rather than banish them.”


“The edits don’t alter the reader’s mental picture of Augustus Gloop. He is clearly a fat child. Singling out the word “fat” as offensive misdiagnoses the problem. “Fat” is — or ought to be — a neutral descriptor, and it’s being reclaimed as such by fat activists and writers. Removing it implies that there is something embarrassing about that label in particular, and reactivates a taboo many people are making a passionate effort to shift.”


“This retroactive application of shame rears up again in “The Witches.” In one paragraph describing the witches’ dedication to hunting children no matter what they’re up to, a sentence has been changed from “Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman” to “Even if she is working as a top scientist or running a business.” In Dahl’s day, women were less likely to do certain jobs than they are now, and we can accept in good faith that things have changed for the better. Here’s to everyone typing their own emails! However many people still work as cashiers, which is perfectly respectable. The “upgrade” to “top scientist” might be intended as aspirational, but it also bears a trace of snobbery.”


“Other updates might have flown under the radar had they not been so poorly written. In “The Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “Each man will have a gun and a flashlight” has become “Each person will have a person and a flashlight.” “Badger sat down and put a paw around his small son” is now “Badger sat down and put a paw around the small badger.” One suspects that Dahl would be every bit as offended by an editor unable to swerve unnecessary repetition as he would by the inference of sexism.”


“Like all literature, Dahl’s work is a product of its time, but its modern refurbishment has only served to prove that today’s writers and editors are every bit as fallible as those of the past. Such a fearful approach to historic books, one that treats each volume as though it may be the only one a child will ever consume, undermines the whole point of reading. The takeaways children glean from fiction depend on a much broader context, from their upbringing to their education to popular culture and, of course, other books.”

-----

The article mentions the use of "sensitivity readers" to comb over the kids' books in order to revise any language that may be deemed potentially offensive. The idea of sensitivity readers clangs with me. Who gets to decide whether such editors are too sensitive or not sensitive enough? Where does it end? As time rolls by will we need sensitivity readers to check up on previous sensitivity readers who may be judged as having been too merciless with their red pencils or not strict enough? Could we get to the point where the original work is lost altogether?


Reading about these edits to Dahl's kids' books got me wondering what changes could (or should) be made to the Book of Mormon that may make it more palatable in this day of increased consciousness about the power of language - how it can teach, explain, inspire but also deceive, mislead, offend. Too, some words and ideas just become obsolete as we hopefully move towards more enlightenment, inclusion and reality.

Would editing/updating the BoM to make it more 21st century be a welcome improvement or more like just lipsticking a pig?

I'm guessing exmos, at least, would vote the latter. Some things are just beyond salvation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 04:11PM by Nightingale.

I like preserving the originals so there is no questioning or hiding what the past was like. I also like being able to read things without them being hurtful, racist or or misleading. Like you said, why not just write a new book?

I kind of like the idea of having both a "Classic" and "Updated" version available. Or maybe they could change things but with footnotes that explain any changes they made and why. I guess I kind of like the redline function in Word where you can make changes but always click to see what changes were made. No way would they be that honest about the BoM edits.

It's truly a dilemma for me when it comes to altering books. The trick is finding a good way to explain past and present cultural history without overtaking the story. Most young people can understand concerns if explained rather than trying to ban a book. Authors edit subsequent revisions of their books all the time. It didn't really bother me until recently if they didn't explain in the forward what they did and why.

Let me know when y'all figure out a way to balance censoring, "canceling," and honesty with politically correct sensitivities. I give up.

I'm not comfortable with this debate either way.

At the very least, all of the original books must be preserved and held available for those who want to read them. Perhaps libraries could put the revised versions on their shelves and keep the unedited ones behind to counter for specific requests--like the dirty magazines in a convenience store but without the disapproving smirks from the cashiers.

But it's more than just historical interest. Mark Twain, for instance, would almost certainly fall afoul of the revisers and yet his work was brutally honest about the evils of racism personal and institutional. I daresay some of the best African-American and Latino writers will come under scrutiny at some point as well and I don't think "editing" them into conformity would be justifiable at all.

That said, there are a couple of reasons for thinking this is a tempest in a coffee mug. First, while liberals bite their fingernails over this stuff, the (what's the opposite of "woke?") asleep right is banning books right and left. Clearly the left takes freedom of the press a lot more seriously than the cultural warriors of Florida and Ohio do.

Second, and more important, we've been through this before. Think of Mother Goose and the way she is available in many different editions, including some that intentionally removed the risque bits that grinning European mothers told their children for centuries. And speaking of "grin," there are the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson, whose books were censored long ago not just in deference to the sensitivities of four-year-olds but to prevent psychological harm to adults who despite long exposure to Hollywood Horror in no way prepared them for the violence, child abuse, and general sadism of the originals. I seriously know no mother or father who would knowingly subject a little kid to those exemplars of Germanic parenting.

Where does that leave me with regard to the censorship? I guess I tentatively think the deracination (literally, in this case) of Dahl is a better way to keep him in libraries and homes than to leave the books as they are and letting them gather dust in the shelves of some research institution--as long as the originals are readily available for older children and adults.

Again, these are tentative thoughts and I could possibly be pushed off of these positions by compelling arguments. But I guess I think what's good for the Goose is acceptable for the gander.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not comfortable with this debate either way.

Yes, I'm only just thinking about it after reading that article (I don't keep up much with what is happening in the world of children and school). I think there's pros and cons both ways which makes for a thorny problem.


> At the very least, all of the original books must
> be preserved and held available for those who want
> to read them.

This could be a good compromise.


> ... I don't
> think "editing" them into conformity would be
> justifiable at all.

Yes, the idea clangs.

I have a bad feeling, hopefully unfounded, that originals would be lost to time and at some point nothing would ever be able to get sorted out again. I'm a big fan of things staying sorted.


> Where does that leave me with regard to the
> censorship? I guess I tentatively think the
> deracination (literally, in this case) of Dahl is
> a better way to keep him in libraries and homes
> than to leave the books as they are and letting
> them gather dust in the shelves of some research
> institution--as long as the originals are readily
> available for older children and adults.

Sounds like a good compromise. In the spirit of being a good Canuck, I'm all for compromise. Each side gets a little bit of what makes them happy, which is better than one side walking away feeling they got nothing. In that case, the matter remains unsettled.


> Again, these are tentative thoughts and I could
> possibly be pushed off of these positions by
> compelling arguments. But I guess I think what's
> good for the Goose is acceptable for the gander.

Yeah, my position isn't firmed up. It's interesting to ponder though. If I had kids in school then of course it would be more of an up close and personal thing for me. As it is, it's another social issue to ponder, with no particular rush, and hopefully I end up coming down on the right side.

The trick, as always, is to figure out the right side and who gets to decide that.

Editing, erasing - not guaranteed to always attain the best outcomes. That crazy little red pencil isn't infallible.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like preserving the originals so there is no
> questioning or hiding what the past was like.

I agree. As to whether the books then get used or shelved, that's up to subsequent generations. Hopefully, hiding won't be part of the future.


> I guess I
> kind of like the redline function in Word where
> you can make changes but always click to see what
> changes were made. No way would they be that
> honest about the BoM edits.

Yeah, could you imagine? How does white and delightsome get PC'd when their history demonstrates that it was racist?

Though, as I've said previously, as a 'convert' I never interpreted that phrase as literally referring to skin colour. That never entered my head. One of the synonyms of 'white' is 'pure', which is how I interpreted it, in a religious context. Pure of heart. Pure of soul. I didn't know until I bumped into RfM that there was a decidedly racist tone to the phrase in keeping with racist ideas and acts in Mormon history.


> Authors edit subsequent
> revisions of their books all the time.

Yes and that's understandable and desirable, especially if they want to stay relevant, attract new audiences, correct errors, make more money for selling more books.

Obviously that is vastly different than others taking it upon themselves to edit an author and *not* make it obvious what has been changed and why.

It's like warping reality, which is disturbing.

It's also egregious to change another's work, or to pass it off as one's own, when you think how much society values creativity and literally hands out awards for it. A creator has a right to protect their own creation to the point they can sue, and win, if someone steals their words or work. Plagiarism is considered the 8th deadly sin (so to speak) and someone known to plagiarize another's work can be failed in school, denied a degree, criticized, castigated, denounced, disrespected and cast out.

But the 'fat' description of the boy in Dahl's book is unfortunate and certainly may colour how young kids learn to interact with others, perhaps judging and condemning them, which isn't what we want to be teaching - quite the opposite.

So what do we do about that? Maybe the redlining is a solution but how is it practical?


> Let me know when y'all figure out a way to balance
> censoring, "canceling," and honesty with
> politically correct sensitivities. I give up.

Yeah. The goal of achieving balance is often elusive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 06:42PM by Nightingale.

Some of Dahl's books are considered classics of children's literature, and are therefore worth preserving. I think that blatantly racist or offensive language needs to be removed, but I'm not in favor of the changes that seek to otherwise modernize the books. IMO there is value in children seeing how things were done in the old days. For instance, we don't modernize Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books, but instead leave her accounts of pioneer life intact.

So now the more than 3000 corrections to the BoM are a good thing. More corrections are in order. They can edit out racial language and the NSFW Laban thing.

The LDS prophet can claim the ability to use the seer stone. Who will prove him wrong? The church can add and modify scripture at will if it wants to.

The catch is in how they try to hide the changes. If they cover up and do not openly explain modifications, that is the main problem. The original books need to remain available and not hidden in a vault somewhere.

Of course the church also has a problem reconciling the fact they taught the BoM was perfect (divinely directed) and then needed to change the most perfect book later.

>>The original books need to remain available and not hidden in a vault somewhere.

This is why you don't burn your old copies of BoM. I thought about doing so but then I learned about how many revisions the book had gone through already.

If ever the book is altered and they try to slip it in as if the book has always been like that? All I have to do is take out my old triple combination baptism scriptures with my name printed in gold on the lower corner of the cover. All marked up with highlighter and colored pencils and margins notes. "Here you go," I say to one of my younger siblings. "Check this sucker out. Read it and tell me how much of the spirit you feel."

I'm waiting for a history of WWII in which both Hitler and Hirohito apologized for creating minor disturbances and were so grateful that nobody was seriously injured.

And in America, everybody will be pleased to remember how kind, thoughtful, and courteous the European settlers were to all the indigenous peoples, summed up in the old saying, "The only good Indian is all of them!"

In the coming glorious new world, all competitions will be run with strict handicapping so that every race ends with everyone tied for first place!

Our AI overlords will only allow what is best for us.



...of course, I'm just kidding around.  

The couple hundred million of us that any AI knows would make sense to have in the world would totally enjoy life.  Heaven on Earth!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And in America, everybody will be pleased to
> remember how kind, thoughtful, and courteous the
> European settlers were to all the indigenous
> peoples, summed up in the old saying, "The only
> good Indian is all of them!"

Ouch, EOD. Made me wince.

Would that 'twere...

  
  
  

I hope it's obvious I was relating to your post. Your comments are often quietly brilliant but perhaps quite easily underappreciated, due in part to their subtlety. As in whoosh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 06:45PM by Nightingale.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . often quietly brilliant but
> perhaps quite easily underappreciated, due in part
> to their subtlety. . .

Yep. Our very own Mark Twain: so eccentric, so droll, that you don't even feel the blade.


------------------------
> As in whoosh.

Still rubbing it in, Nightingale?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As in whoosh.

> Still rubbing it in, Nightingale?

Haha. That took me a minute. Clever!

EVERTHING is obvious to me!!  ...except on the many frequent occasions when nothing is obvious to me...

You know, we're all perfect, except when we're not...

It's like not being so pessimistic about your optimism; you know, like how you often fail to realize just how great you really are.

Okay, okay. Sometimes you're just eccentric and droll.

I wrote "Would that 'twere" meaning that I wish this could have been true:

> elderolddog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ...everybody will be pleased to
> remember how kind, thoughtful, and courteous
> the European settlers were to all the indigenous
> > peoples...

This phrase, that I mentioned in the OP, is a good example of political correctness gone wild:

"...a sentence has been changed from “Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman” to “Even if she is working as a top scientist or running a business.”

summer makes a good point about the benefits of kids seeing what things were like in the past. Do we have to pretend there was equality and respect or that females were all scientists and business owners? I agree with the article writer that by changing types of work it indicates that certain jobs are not respected or worthwhile and that women performing them are less than.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This phrase, that I mentioned in the OP, is a good
> example of political correctness gone wild:
>
> "...a sentence has been changed from “Even if
> she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or
> typing letters for a businessman” to “Even if
> she is working as a top scientist or running a
> business.”

Agreed.

There's a difference between eliminating the cruel on the one hand and social re-engineering on the other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 06:35PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a difference between eliminating the cruel
> on the one hand and social re-engineering on the
> other.

VIP.

Meaning: Very. Important. Point.

I have determined, on your behalf,
that a 'creamy chocolate frosting'
sandwich made with sourdough bread
is not what I'd call good eating.

You're welcome.

This isn't about "social engineering."

This is about for-profit entities trying to avoid potential lawsuits.

You don't think that lawyers attempting to avoid lawsuits can be both the result of social engineering and a means for advancing such engineering?

I know a lot of civil rights activists who would disagree with you.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't think that lawyers attempting to avoid
> lawsuits can be both the result of social
> engineering and a means for advancing such
> engineering?
>
> I know a lot of civil rights activists who would
> disagree with you.

I was trying to take the percieved "social agenda" out of it in the sense that the fundies use in in their culture wars. Corporations just want to make money and avoid lawsuits, so ersatz and bland, no sharp edges, etc.

Entertainment companies nowadays aren't like the old studios run by risk takers -- like Warner Bros. making anti-Nazi films before the Pearl Harbor attack and America's entry in WW2 at the height of the orginal "America First" movement. That's another reason why they make sequels. Safe, secure, return on investment.

Another good example is warning lables on everthing to avoid lawsuits -- even if they don't make sense.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2023 03:32PM by anybody.

No, they came after telling the truth in context about the Confederate generals.

I think all the statues should be preserved with giant plaques that explain the travesty of slavery and the person's role in protecting slavery. They are not heroes. People should never forget their names.

The new words always mean the same as the old words but just come with airbags. They also come with a shelf life anD soon enough they will be deemed unacceptable and offensive and a new word will be given its day to shine.

It's basically a way to stay in good with our peers when they ask, "Does this dress make me look fat?" and we lie to not hurt their feelings.

The word curvy has been ruined because it used to refer to ess shaped roads through canyons or pretty moldings and many beautiful things and now it just means layers of unhealthy body parts burgeoning and leading to being "insulin challenged".

I am sick of semantic games as ways to avoid the truth or hide the past. Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can get you sued, lose a job, and lose a reputation.

Oh, I don't know. Many years ago, I was at my community pool, lounging around. I saw two girls, maybe 16 or 17 years old. They were both what many might consider overweight, maybe 30-40 pounds over their ideal weight. So, overweight, but not morbidly so.

They were both wearing bikinis, and they looked *amazing*. Did they meet our cultural ideals for beauty -- no. But they both had young, smooth skin and abundant curves. I liked that they obviously felt very comfortable with their bodies, and had tons of self-esteem. Who knows what life had in store for them? But for that one day, they were both gorgeous.

The concept of "fat" is often cultural. I have a set of birdfeeders and a feeding station for the ground animals in my back woods. And oh heck, are those cardinals ever fat. I am at peace with that, and I suspect they are as well. Every ounce of body fat represents to them a day that they won't starve to death.

I would suggest taking the middle path on this concept.

If those girls liked being fat--good for them. If some people find it beautiful. Great! But it is still technically fat. Scientific term, not cultural term . So are we only concerned with image? At thirty to forty pounds extra any doctor would use the kinder term, overweight, as in how it affects your health, organs etc.

I would just say that the concept of being fat comes from actually having a lot of fat on your body. So if you are carrying an extra 30 or 40 pounds, saying you are carrying a lot of fat is actually accurate. Fat. When I look in the mirror at even 15 pounds over I think, "Uh oh, I'm getting fat." Or can men be curvy too? I guess Husky is the kinder term for that perhaps.

What is next? Looking at the back of your package of food and the ingredients listed in grams are no longer "protein, carbohydrate, and fat", but "thin, tasty, and curvy"?

The point I was making is that it is the same thing no matter whether you say fat or curvy. We solve problems semantically these days. I find the revolving door of re-labeling to be disingenuous.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If those girls liked being fat--good for them. If
> some people find it beautiful. Great! But it is
> still technically fat. Scientific term, not
> cultural term . So are we only concerned with
> image? At thirty to forty pounds extra any doctor
> would use the kinder term, overweight, as in how
> it affects your health, organs etc.
>
> I would just say that the concept of being fat
> comes from actually having a lot of fat on your
> body. So if you are carrying an extra 30 or 40
> pounds, saying you are carrying a lot of fat is
> actually accurate. Fat. When I look in the mirror
> at even 15 pounds over I think, "Uh oh, I'm
> getting fat." Or can men be curvy too? I guess
> Husky is the kinder term for that perhaps.

What is considered fat or thin is very much based on how society views what is fat or thin, etc. By our genetics, humans come in all different sizes and shapes, and it is not always because of our own eating habits. On a recent edition of NPR's "On The Media,", it was explained that much of what society considers to be fat is actually based from a white viewpoint and has little to do with actual human genetics or health. Therefore, because humans come in all shapes and sizes, the only real concern should be if the individual(s) being considered are (mostly) healthy despite how much they weigh. This information is of course considered to be privledged between doctor and patient (at least in the U.S.), meaning that we probably have no right to judge a person by his/her weight--though we do it all the time.
>
> What is next? Looking at the back of your package
> of food and the ingredients listed in grams are no
> longer "protein, carbohydrate, and fat", but
> "thin, tasty, and curvy"?
>
> The point I was making is that it is the same
> thing no matter whether you say fat or curvy. We
> solve problems semantically these days. I find
> the revolving door of re-labeling to be
> disingenuous.

but I love the movie Gone With the Wind. It was my dad's favorite movie. I even memorized the theme to it on the piano for a recital. I have read the book many times, as has my daughter. Maybe everyone should read the book, but by the time you do, it will have been changed.

I don't know, I think fat sounds better than enormous. I'm overweight. I started gaining weight when I found out my husband was cheating on me and he was talking about leaving. In fact, my boyfriend's mother asked me if I've always this big. Isn't that sweet? He knew me years ago and knew I wasn't always this big. I am on insulin by the way. I'm pissed at who said something about it. I lost a bunch of weight with my son in the hospital twice this past year, diagnosed as schizophrenic this past hospitalization and we have to get him admitted to something before I lose my mind, but then I already have. I don't drink. I don't smoke. I OVEREAT and I don't even enjoy what I'm eating, so those of you who drink STOP and those who smoke STOP.

These books I consider to be works of art and they are changing an artist's work. Should we change the great paintings? Was I negatively impacted by Gone With the Wind or playing the music? I've read A LOT of books about history. I learn something from it. All of life isn't pretty. Most people have been through a lot of problems. I've lived through a lot of the years of gays fighting for rights. Hell, my husband should have never married me as I've paid a high price. If my story was written, would I want someone to dress it up to make it sound "woke?"

Call me fat rather than enormous. My dad was fat. He's the best man I've ever met.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2023 12:21PM by cl2.

Can't say 'fat'? Can't say 'this or that'? I've got news for the lunatic woke assholes, etc. I'll say what I damn well want to say. So take THAT and shove it up your fat ass. LOL!

Thanks for demonstrating what insensitive selfish people are like. For reasons you probably won't understand, you are making the opposite point you intended.

I am against "altering the text" which is newspeak for censorship. If the old ways seem odd to us, it should be part of our conversation. Editing the past is Orwellian, to say the least.

I understand that, Don, and feel largely the same way.

But let me ask the question a different way. If there is a piece of classical children's literature that contains stories of children being abused, tortured, abandoned, and otherwise abused, should that go unedited? I'm referring again to the fairy tales that were told to children 1-400 years ago throughout much of Europe.

If you read the originals, I daresay you'd want to burn the damn things lest a child read them. They are that bad. But by the time you and I were children, they had been edited to become the much warmer and cozier.

Was it a mistake to bowdlerize the Brothers Grimm? I don't think it was. It saved substantially good stories from the oblivion into which the originals fell, and those originals are still available to people like me who think that the history of literature is important. The truth is that the question of whether to eliminate the worst in those stories never even arose in less political times.

I think the Oompa Loompas are comparable. The notion of bringing African slaves into the modern West to run basically an amusement park is so repugnant as to leave us with just two options: alter the text or consign the story to the metaphorical fires of unreadability. In such cases I'd reluctantly vote for the editor's pen as long as our libraries continue to have, and keep available, the originals as well.

We routinely protect children from things based on their vulnerability--cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, pornography, etc. Can we not carve out a similar exception--age-based and therefore temporary--to the anti-censorship rule for little kids? Or does the specter of censorship admit only a binary choice in our polarized world?

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am against "altering the text" which is newspeak
> for censorship. If the old ways seem odd to us, it
> should be part of our conversation. Editing the
> past is Orwellian, to say the least.

I wonder if Dahl's work for grown ups will get the same treatment? I'd argue that his short stories are much better than his work for children. In both cases, he has a sadistic sense of humor.

If people object to old classics so much, wouldn't they be better to write new books instead? It seems almost parasitic to squeeze your own views into another's work.

Penguin Random House's imprint will publish two versions of Dahl's books, a "Classic" edition and a "Safe Space Version."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2023/02/27/book-publisher-backtracks-roald-dahl-rewrite-n2620022

Hope everybody's happy now!

The big question is why did one of Britain's best known children's authors come to be associated with one of Britain's most notorious pedophiles?

The glam rocker Gary Glitter actually LIVED with the Dahls for a while. Roald Dahl was too old and too conservative-minded to enjoy Glitter's music. They wouldn't have moved in the same social circles either.

Glitter has repeatedly been arrested for downloading images and child abuse in multiple countries.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/06/gary-glitter-hushes-tessa-dahl-tv-schoolgirls-paid-5-visit-him_n_6628676.html

Chilling footage of Gary Glitter smirking on TV and then frantically attempting to silence a friend as she discussed his encounters with adolescent schoolgirls has emerged.

Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, appeared on This Is Your Life in 1992, during which his friend Tessa Dahl (the mother of model Sophie and daughter of writer Roald) made an appearance.

The clip shows Michael Aspel addressing Glitter as follows:

“Well Gary, your fans cut across all age groups and include Patricia Neal and the later Roald Dahl. You were introduced to them by their daughter and she is here, Tessa Dahl.”

[Tessa Dahl walks onto the stage]

[Leaping to his feet] Glitter: “Tessa! Tessa!”

Dahl: “Gary actually came to live in my house when he was between jobs…”

Glitter: [laughing] “When I was absolutely broke!”

Dahl: “My sister Lucy turned it into quite a successful venture because she used to pack the train full of her adolescent school friends in school uniform and then skive school…”

[At this point Glitter puts finger in front of lips in ‘Shhhh’ motion]

Dahl: “… and she’d bring them up to the house and charge them £5 a head to come and gaze at Glitter.”

I just re-read this thread from February because I saw another article today about Roald Dahl. I so appreciate the thoughtful, insightful and interesting comments from you all.

Today's article starts with this headline:

Roald Dahl Museum says author’s racism was ‘undeniable’:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/roald-dahl-museum-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

Excerpts:

"The Roald Dahl Museum in England, founded by the widow of the children’s author, has acknowledged his racism was “undeniable and indelible.”


"His books have sold more than 300 million copies and have been translated into 63 languages, while there have been numerous adaptations of his work for both the big and small screens.


"However, the author has long been regarded as controversial for his openly antisemitic views.


"Now the museum, based in the village of Great Missenden in Buckinghamshire where Dahl lived, has posted a statement on its website to say that it “fully” supports an apology released by the Dahl family and Roald Dahl Story Company in 2020 for the author’s antisemitic views. The museum adds that it “condemns all racism directed at any group or individual.”


"In the 2020 apology, the Dahl groups said they “deeply apologise for the lasting and understandable hurt” caused by his statements. “Those prejudiced remarks are incomprehensible to us,” the statement said.


“Roald Dahl’s racism is undeniable and indelible but what we hope can also endure is the potential of Dahl’s creative legacy to do some good,” the museum said.


"In a statement sent to CNN, a spokesperson for the Campaign against Antisemitism said: “Mr Dahl’s stories entertain and delight millions of children and should continue to do so. At the same time, it is important that a museum and website dedicated to the author present the full story of his life and work, and that includes its darker side.”

-----

If Dahl hadn't been so creative and well received his racist attitudes would likely have "cancelled" him out of any polite company, so to speak.

I struggle with that concept - that he was talented and "beloved" so we can overlook this one negative aspect of his. In a way it may seem like a fair balance, especially if Jewish groups can accept it. If it was just some guy on the street without the talent and following he wouldn't be given so much leeway, undoubtedly.

There is one antisemitic comment of his, quoted in the article, that is so egregious I can't even post it here.

But if spokespeople for Jewish groups can be so generous as to accept the family's apology and to see his work continue on I can't argue against it.

Maybe it's a good example that absolute cancellation may do nothing to educate or bring healing.

Dahl is fortunate to receive so much grace that he continues to be appreciated for his popular works. The apologies of his family members and the generosity of a community his words have hurt allow him to live on through his books and the popular characters he created.

I don't think anyone lives on through their work. Like reproducing it isn't passing oneself on. Art isn't some kind of inanimate appendage of the artist.

Dahl offered the world his efforts. Read his Uncle Oswald. I did recently.

Editing and revising are cultural appropriations of an artist's work and they in turn were inspired by many things and people who never saw a dime of royalties. Interesting word for residual income from creative work.

The world may have moved beyond Dahl or Dali.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2023 03:08PM by Elder Berry.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think anyone lives on through their work.
> Like reproducing it isn't passing oneself on. Art
> isn't some kind of inanimate appendage of the
> artist.

I think it is in that we remember the person who created a work that survives them. Would anybody be talking about Leonardo if not for Mona Lisa? How many know that he conceptualized parachutes and helicopters compared to the vast numbers of admirers of his art? Because of one (small) painting we know so much more about a man who lived in Italy in the 1400s.

Kind of amazing.

I haven't procreated or created so I expect to be the invisible woman once my sibs join me in the great hereafter and there's nobody left on terra firma to remember an ordinary female who once lived on the west coast of North America, just like multitudes before and after her.

No one remembers him. There might be written accounts of some kind of interaction. In Dahl's case there might be video and pictures as well if he rises to the level of some remembered hundreds of years after their last breath.

And that is what people are interested in. The person unedited and real.

Hacking off statuary penises at the vacation and replacing then with fig leafs.

It's not "modernization", it's political revision. You may not like what Dahl writes and he may even be wrong in some cases, but they are his work. Changing the past to fit the present is a form of abuse.

Soneone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not "modernization", it's political revision.
> You may not like what Dahl writes and he may even
> be wrong in some cases, but they are his work.

To be clear, it's the article's writer who uses the terms 'modern' and 'update', a fate apparently awaiting more works than Dahl's alone.

I think this final statement in the article says it all:

"Attempting to squeeze old work into new molds is a messy solution that seems doomed to fail. If Dahl is destined for obscurity, allow him to fade into it."

Retrofitting language and interpretation seems Orwellian to me. Obscuring origins of history and literature is an untravelled road we will surely regret taking. Unless humans end up not knowing any better because they've been engineered towards a certain end.

Maybe they'll end up having to re-create our previous world all over again. Hopefully they'll get it right the second time around.

But. Don't hold your breath. We do seem prone to repeating errors over and over. Like an old computer badly in need of an overhaul.

> Changing the past to fit the present is a form of
> abuse.

Yes. Scary.

Because it's not true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2023 01:06PM by Nightingale.

Nothing new under the sun. Let Willy Wonka be reborn in another story.

And really, changing someone's work posthumously is akin to making them Mormon after the fact. It is in poor taste in the least and Orwellian in the worst.

So, removing “white and delightsome” was a mistake?

Excellent!

Exactly.

I want all the excess commas back, and the weird verb formations like "the Lord's a-gonna be pissed," or "Joe's a-runnin' away with them gold plates. Git him!"

So much is lost when mortal men take it upon themselves to alter the words on the divine teletype machine.

The Divine teletype machine! hahahaha

You may think this is at least tangentially off-topic but please bear me out.

Louis Braille invented braille, the raised system of dots used by the blind, back in the 1830s. His braille alphabet didn't, however, include a w, because the French don't use that letter. This is why the braille letter w does not follow the pattern of all the other braille letters--it was created by the English after Louis Braille's death.

Braille has undergone several changes over the years regarding its part- and whole-word contractions and some of its math symbols. I was raised on standard English braille, modified in the late 1950s for literary braille, and Nemeth code, last updated in 1972, for arithmetic. In the early 2000s, some major changes were made to standard English braille, and those changes took effect in the U.S. in 2016. These changes, known as Unified English Braille (UEB), were made in part to account for: things people were doing with print (such as using bold and italics); for computer braille software creators who were having a hard time with some of the contractions and their rules; and to make the literary braille used in the U.S. the same as the literary braille used in England.

As mentioned, I was trained in standard English braille and that is what I still use for writing personal things. However, today's U.S. blind children and newly blinded adults are learning the UEB braille code and would probably have some difficulty in reading the updated standard English code that I learned when I was young (the whole-word contractions for to and by were removed from the UEB, for example).

What children learn from the newly edited children's books of today will be how they will remember these books when they get older. Unless they are in to studying the history of literature, they are not going to seek out the originals of children's books for comparison--they will just think that what they read were the originals (as I did with the Brothers Grimm stories when I was growing up).

So while I'm not a fan of censorship, I very much get LW's point about how the original Brothers Grimm stories would create a scandal if we released them today. I think then that the only real requirement for rewriting children's books to comply with current social norms should be that the current copyright holders agree with the changes. Any other support or opposition for these changes is otherwise mute; it's great for debate but will have no effect on the outcome.

>> I think then that the only real requirement for rewriting children's books to comply with current social norms should be that the current copyright holders agree with the changes.

I think that's fair. I also feel that there should be an introductory note stating that the text as been adapted in certain instances to suit modern times.

Agreed on both scores.

So do we rewrite Shakespeare and the Icelandic Sagas to make them fit our modern view of the world?

Dahl was a product of his background and upbringing, Norwegian parentage, raised in South Africa; he is a historic artifact.

He also was no saint, and some of his sexual exploits have been covered up already to make him suitable as a a children's author.

He had a very interesting history as a fighter pilot from the SARAF and later RAF in world war II fighting many combat missions in the conflict in and around Greece. His books and stories about this era are very interesting . He also served as a spy for the British government assigned to Washington, DC, to figure out what the US leadership were really up to. He was extremely intelligent and also had lots of faults. I don't think we should turn him into some bland modern person suitable for corporate sponsorship to sell books to instagram mommies.

The thing is, teachers and schools do need to adhere to certain norms and standards. So the choice becomes, do you make small adjustments to the source text (with the copyright holder's permission, and a note that you've done just that,) or do you give up on the book altogether, and discard it? When I've evaluated books for my classroom library, I haven't worried about some things (i.e. an archaic view of women,) but I've rejected other books for racism.

A number of Roald Dahl's books are considered classics of children's literature, and it would be a shame if teachers felt that they could no longer include them in instruction or classroom libraries.

Parents, of course, can do as they please, but your average public school simply can't have racist material at hand.

Let the parents give them the racist stuff even if it means children's books.

It is in my opinion not about what societies change in texts but about what that means for the society. I think it diminishes the power of understanding and like Socrates not liking the written word, puts text above people.

The value is destroyed.

"Because of this, Camus strongly believes that separating the artist from their work destroys any chance for finding value in art."
https://www.thecollector.com/albert-camus-absurd-creation/


And The Book of Mormon is a hard place to find value.