Gransnet forums

Books/book club

Roald Dahl

(14 Posts)
NanKate Tue 21-Feb-23 08:31:13

My DS grew up loving all the Roald Dahl books which have been altered by the ā€˜sensitiveā€™ editors at Penguin/Puffin.

Now the author Philip Pullman has suggested the books be allowed to go out of print šŸ™ how dare he !

How sad our much loved literature is being sanitised.

Billy Goat Gruff better watch out.

Mollygo Tue 21-Feb-23 08:42:14

I heard something last night, the effect that these words e.g. fat, might be used to bully children in the playground. I think they proposed to replace fat with enormous. How naive. Children who would use words like fat to bully, will simply move onto using enormous. It might improve their vocabulary, exchanging a three letter word for an eight letter word.
I do hate it when authors slate each other. Hilary Mantel did the same with J. K. Rowlingā€™s books.
Strangely, I like neither Hilary Mantelā€˜s books, nor Philip Pullmanā€™s books, so perhaps they should go out of print.
Fortunately the publishers have more sense.

Sago Tue 21-Feb-23 08:55:01

Oh the joy Roald Dahl has given to so many.
I sat with our 8 year old granddaughter and laughed through the film Matilda on Friday afternoon.
The first books she read were by Dahl, they have fed her imagination and helped develop her wonderful sense of humour.
His books should be honoured and protected.

FannyCornforth Tue 21-Feb-23 08:55:17

Five page thread about this yesterday
www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1321418-Censorship-or-rewriting

J52 Tue 21-Feb-23 09:43:16

Itā€™s ridiculous, we teach Shakespeare from primary through to the end of secondary, loads more bullying words and phrases there.
ā€˜Would thou wert clean enough to spit onā€™
ā€˜Thou art as fat as butterā€™
To name two. So I bite my thumb at those who suggest it.

GagaJo Tue 21-Feb-23 09:45:02

TWO other threads currently running about this.

J52 Tue 21-Feb-23 09:48:07

Oh well, just going down the topics, this one comes up first. Maybe GN could combine them. Or censor the unnecessary ones!

NanKate Tue 21-Feb-23 09:48:58

Thanks Gagajo just discovered one šŸ‘

Mollygo Tue 21-Feb-23 10:09:14

J52

Oh well, just going down the topics, this one comes up first. Maybe GN could combine them. Or censor the unnecessary ones!

Yep! Censor the ones you donā€™t like.
Thatā€™s the way to do it!
thumbs.gfycat.com/AssuredRichGreatargus-size_restricted.gif

J52 Tue 21-Feb-23 10:28:54

Mollygo

J52

Oh well, just going down the topics, this one comes up first. Maybe GN could combine them. Or censor the unnecessary ones!

Yep! Censor the ones you donā€™t like.
Thatā€™s the way to do it!
thumbs.gfycat.com/AssuredRichGreatargus-size_restricted.gif

Mollygo I was not suggesting censorship, it was a tongue in cheek response to the previous shouting comment that there were already two threads about the topic.
Some of us just pop into the forum and respond to threads as we chronologically come across them! We donā€™t necessarily know that there are already two or more threads started and are made to feel that rules have been broken, by shouty words.

Mollygo Tue 21-Feb-23 11:09:10

J52 mine was also tongue in cheek, so please donā€™t be offended. I didnā€™t realise there were so many other threads, so I commented on this one.

dogsmother Tue 21-Feb-23 12:22:16

Iā€™m offended by the sanitisation of any literature.
Itā€™s a pity I wasnā€™t more articulate and able to write a good defence but Iā€™m not. I do know that it is wrong and should not be changed to suit others. So what if it hurts feelings the truth does very often hurt. But then we can use it to educate canā€™t we.

J52 Tue 21-Feb-23 12:26:10

Mollygo

J52 mine was also tongue in cheek, so please donā€™t be offended. I didnā€™t realise there were so many other threads, so I commented on this one.

šŸ‘

Lovetopaint037 Tue 21-Feb-23 14:13:03

Itā€™s a pathetic strategy which results in the undermining of a great author)s work. It is also ridiculous. Would you sooner be fat or enormous!!!! Many people are fat but enormous provokes a much worse image. Meddling for the sake of meddling.