Critics reject changes to Roald Dahl books as censorship

[onthedarkside]

 

Critics are accusing the British publisher of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s books of censorship after it removed colorful language from works such as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “Matilda” to make them more acceptable to modern readers.

 

A review of new editions of Dahl’s books now available in bookstores shows that some passages relating to weight, mental health, gender and race were altered.

 

The changes made by Puffin Books, a division of Penguin Random House, first were reported by Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322799

 

[JonnyF]

More book burning by the Wokies? 

[Bkk Brian]

42 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

gender and race were altered.

Perhaps they'll be ok now as reading material in Florida school libraries.....lol. DeSantis will be pleased

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

More book burning by the Wokies? 

More hyperbole from the constantly offended.

[KhunLA]

Good movies fiction to reality:

Fahrenheit 461

Equilibrium ... it's only a matter of time, feelings will be illegal ????

[billd766]

If readers don't want to read a book as the author has written it, then read another book by a different author.

 

There are literally millions of books available worldwide, and there will always be some books that some readers will like and other readers will not like.

 

You can get them free from public libraries, buy them new or second hand, even read some of them for free on the internet.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, billd766 said:

If readers don't want to read a book as the author has written it, then read another book by a different author.

 

There are literally millions of books available worldwide, and there will always be some books that some readers will like and other readers will not like.

 

You can get them free from public libraries, buy them new or second hand, even read some of them for free on the internet.

It’s ‘the publisher’ that’s made these minor edits.

 

I’ll hazard a guess they want people to keep reading and particularly buying, these books.

 

No sales, no profit.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[BritManToo]

On 2/20/2023 at 10:12 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

More hyperbole from the constantly offended.

I thought that was you? (the constantly offended)

[thaibeachlovers]

This nonsense by the woke is getting tiresome. Hopefully no one will buy the mutilated versions.

[SunnyinBangrak]

I thought the idea of the far left banning books containing offensive words like "woman" and "fat" was a conspiracy theory by the far right? 

 Another conspiracy morphing into confirmed fact. Oh dear!

[JonnyF]

On 2/20/2023 at 10:12 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

More hyperbole from the constantly offended.

More gaslighting to deny what's clear for all to see.

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

More gaslighting to deny what's clear for all to see.

Show me the evidence of these edits to Dahl’s books being ‘Book Burning’.

 

On 2/20/2023 at 9:35 AM, JonnyF said:

More book burning by the Wokies? 

Wriggle away.

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I thought the idea of the far left banning books containing offensive words like "woman" and "fat" was a conspiracy theory by the far right? 

 Another conspiracy morphing into confirmed fact. Oh dear!

More nonsense.

 

These edits are being undertaken by the owners of the copyright, not ‘the far left’ and there is no evidence of them being linked to ‘book burning’.

 

Oh dear, you’re wrong again. 

[JonnyF]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show me the evidence of these edits to Dahl’s books being ‘Book Burning’.

It was an analogy. I didn't mean they literally set them on fire. Jeez ????.

 

Now, shouldn't you get back to cancelling everything you personally disagree with?

[Credo]

Well, I see the right-wingers got their knickers in a knot again.  The changes are being made by the owner of the copyright.  It's well within their right to do so.  A periodic update will probably give the books greater longevity.   

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It was an analogy. I didn't mean they literally set them on fire. Jeez ????.

 

Now, shouldn't you get back to cancelling everything you personally disagree with?

Odd how fluid you become on the use of language when you are in a corner. [that’s a figurative corner’ Johnny]

 

Feel free to provide examples of me cancelling anything I disagree with.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Well, I see the right-wingers got their knickers in a knot again.  The changes are being made by the owner of the copyright.  It's well within their right to do so.  A periodic update will probably give the books greater longevity.   

Would Dahl agree to his stories being mutilated by PC warriors?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Would Dahl agree to his stories being mutilated by PC warriors?

By his publishers.

 

Who almost certainly did edit the original books.

[pedro01]

5 hours ago, Credo said:

Well, I see the right-wingers got their knickers in a knot again.  The changes are being made by the owner of the copyright.  It's well within their right to do so.  A periodic update will probably give the books greater longevity.   

They are changing history - the book is by one of the greatest authors ever. It should be left well alone. not watered down by leftists.

 

What next - shakespeare?

[Bluespunk]

47 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

They are changing history - the book is by one of the greatest authors ever. It should be left well alone. not watered down by leftists.

 

What next - shakespeare?

It’s the roald Dahl company, run by his estate, making the changes. 

[kotsak]

On 2/20/2023 at 10:15 AM, KhunLA said:

Good movies fiction to reality:

Fahrenheit 461

Equilibrium ... it's only a matter of time, feelings will be illegal ????

Your title temperature was exceeded by 10 degress Fahrenheit ????

 

Back to the issue, this is worse than censorship, it's pure revisionism which is more dangerous. Those bar stuards are paving the way to a messed up world.

 

[puchooay]

36 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s the roald Dahl company, run by his estate, making the changes. 

The emphasis of the disagreements is not so much on who is performing the edits but why they are doing them and who they are trying to please.

 

Reading between the lines and looking at the words that are being edited, it is quite obvious what is going on. 

 

I hope they end up putting people off the books by this insanity and the whole thing backfires.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by puchooay

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, puchooay said:

The emphasis of the disagreements is not so much on who is performing the edits but why they are doing them and who they are trying to please.

 

Reading between the lines and looking at the words that are being edited, it is quite obvious what is going on. 

 

I hope they end up putting people off the books by this insanity and the whole thing backfires.

 

 

Nonetheless it is not some imaginary woke pc cancel culture (itself a right wing mythical bogeyman) attempt to change the wording of frankly dated literature but a commercial decision taken by those who profit from dahl’s writings. 

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, kotsak said:

Back to the issue, this is worse than censorship, it's pure revisionism which is more dangerous. Those bar stuards are paving the way to a messed up world.

Too late. Damage done already, and it's just a matter of time IMO, before our "civilisation" joins the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians etc in history books.

[puchooay]

40 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonetheless it is not some imaginary woke pc cancel culture (itself a right wing mythical bogeyman) attempt to change the wording of frankly dated literature but a commercial decision taken by those who profit from dahl’s writings. 

OK. If that is true, please explain why the words edited were chosen. Two examples to start with; "fat" and "ugly".

 

It is quite clear they have been edited as to not offend certain groups. What groups of people tend to get most offended? The woke community. Simple.

 

My children are too old now for such stories. Should I, in the future, have grandchildren I will be reading them the original versions. I will use them as teaching aids with regards to certain words and how they should and shouldn't be used. Calling someone "fat" or "ugly" in anger or in order to get a reaction is totally different to an author using they to correctly describe someone in a book and should be kept that way. 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by puchooay

[kotsak]

3 minutes ago, puchooay said:

OK. If that is true, please explain why the words edited were chosen. Two examples to start with; "fat" and "ugly".

 

It is quite clear they have been edited as to not offend certain groups. What groups of people tend to get most offended? The woke community. Simple.

 

My children are too old now for such stories. Should I, in the future, have grandchildren I will be reading them the original versions. I will use them as teaching aids with regards to certain words and how they should and shouldn't be used. Calling someone "fat" or "ugly" in anger or in order to get a reaction is totally different to an author using they to correctly describe someone in a book and should be kept that way. 

 

 

Even I am not a fan of Piers, here is his take on this:

 

 

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, puchooay said:

OK. If that is true, please explain why the words edited were chosen. Two examples to start with; "fat" and "ugly".

 

It is quite clear they have been edited as to not offend certain groups. What groups of people tend to get most offended? The woke community. Simple.

 

My children are too old now for such stories. Should I, in the future, have grandchildren I will be reading them the original versions. I will use them as teaching aids with regards to certain words and how they should and shouldn't be used. Calling someone "fat" or "ugly" in anger or in order to get a reaction is totally different to an author using they to correctly describe someone in a book and should be kept that way. 

 

 

I don’t have to explain anything as I am not responsible for any changes being made. The changes made are those decided upon by the roald Dahl company not me. 
 

They are the ones who profit from dahl’s writing and I am sure any such changes are motivated by commercial reasons rather than any imaginary culture war bogeyman.  They no doubt see a need to compete against more current childrens authors/genres. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Bluespunk

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

I don’t have to explain anything as I am not responsible for any changes being made. The changes made are those decided upon by the roald Dahl company not me. 
 

They are the ones who profit from dahl’s writing and I am sure any such changes are motivated by commercial reasons rather than any imaginary culture war bogeyman.  They no doubt see a need to compete against more current childrens authors/genres. 

Thanks for confirming you agree with me. Your lack of desire to explain speaks volumes. Thanks again.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, puchooay said:

Thanks for confirming you agree with me. Your lack of desire to explain speaks volumes. Thanks again.

No idea why or what you think I’m agreeing with, but given your posting history I seriously doubt I do. 
 

What exactly do you think I should explain?
 

My posts have just pointed out who is behind these changes-the company that profits from dahl’s writing to be clear, not some right wing mythical culture war agenda - really don’t see how that can be explained any further. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Bluespunk

[lungbing]

What amused me was that the censors replaced the word 'fat' with 'enormous' which to my mind is far worse.