Galaxy you’re right, sometimes we end up appearing to support people whose wider life philosophies and beliefs are the opposite of ours
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Censorship or rewriting ?
(263 Posts)Just wondering what grans think of the rewriting of Roald Dahl's stories , apparently to remove words which could be deemed offensive .
This has just been announced
'Today the publisher has announced the release of the Roald Dahl Classic Collection 'to keep the author's classic texts in print' claiming they had 'listened to the debate' following criticism of recent editing of his work to remove words such as 'fat'.
Dahl's 17 books, read and loved by tens of millions, will be available later this year and will include archive material relevant to each of the stories by the much-loved children's author.
But these unedited versions will still sit alongside the newly-released Roald Dahl books, which have been controversially rewritten - sparking outrage in Britain'.
The publisher of Roald Dahl has announced that it will produce uncensored versions of his stories following a backlash over changes to his work.
Common sense prevails?
Puffin UK said it will be releasing "The Roald Dahl Classic Collection", to keep the author’s "classic texts in print “
The publisher said it had "listened to the debate" and understood there were "very real questions around how stories can be kept relevant for new generations “
Oh I might look out for that. I probably am not that surprised.
To be fair he has offered support to people who have been in trouble for gender critical beliefs so that's a good thing. Anyway I am derailing!
Galaxy Toby Young appeared on Celebrity Come Dine With Me (a firm favourite chez Cornforth).
It was quite a revelation.
He was really quiet; a bit of a nervous wreck; and totally dependent on his wife, even though she wasn’t taking part.
You get a sticker and a longer playtime, I get to remind myself to stop repeating myself about Toby Young.
I was right! Do I get a sticker?
Galaxy
The free speech union
Ha!
I’m guessing ‘the muppet’ involved is Toby Young?
It's a pain in the neck because you end up fighting the corner of unpleasant people, I cant stand whatshisface who heads up the free speech union but I ended up cancelling PayPal on his behalf🤦♀️
Yes Galaxy, it’s a difficult balance, I agree. I still think that responding to marketing trends is preferable to dictatorship from politicians though. At least that reflects public opinion up to a point, although of course there is a danger that it will begin to drive it.
No you havent really misunderstood it's the money aspect that makes me uneasy. I don't really think it's big brother and I think it's being used of course by the Tories but I dont like handing over speech to nameless people who for all we know could be racist misogynistic etc.
Galaxy
Crikey I think that makes it even worse if possible.
Sorry, what makes it even worse?
The marketing aspect? If so, I disagree. That just means that they have realised that sales are falling and the reason is that parents don’t like the terminology (I surmise). If a Big Brother type were looming over us all deciding what we can and can’t say, that would be much worse, IMO.
I many have misunderstood your post though - apologies if so.
I think whatshisface who runs the free speech union is frequently a muppet but many people dont like money having an influence on speech. I am not naive enough to think that it doesnt of course.
The free speech union
Oh, I didn’t know that Galaxy
What was the organisation? I’m intrigued!
I think what happens also depends on the momentum behind it, I dont think there is a particular momentum behind this but who knows. If you look at what happened to PayPal when they refused to provide a service to a particular organisation they didnt agree with, large numbers cancelled their PayPal account and they had to reverse the decision. It was easier however in that case to 'know' the target and respond to their behaviour.
Doodledog you are spot on mentioning similes and metaphors.
They are taught their use in Y2, and a commonly used learning objective would be to look at the text and identify and discuss the metaphors used.
(The boy in question, from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, is one Augustus Gloop!)
No Galaxy. I can’t help but think that much of the outrage has come about because many people were previously unaware of the less than savoury nature of elements of his work.
I do think that there may have been a bit of ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ though.
(I’m all over the shop with my metaphors today!)
Changes like this are never, ever popular are they
Crikey I think that makes it even worse if possible.
Agreed Fanny. I mentioned Netflix as a belt and braces measure
. The point is the same though - it is not censors who are making changes but the marketing bods.
The illustration that Wyllow posted upthread was undeniably racist. Yes, it was from the 1970s, but it shows what the story would have meant to children reading it then, and is a good example of why things sometimes need to be changed.
As has been explained, the tractors were not changed from ‘black’, but from ‘murderous black-looking’, which is very different. The word ‘black’ in that context is not neutral, and the change is not simply to change the colour for the sake of it, but to remove the idea that blackness is equated with murderousness, and the idea that even looking black is negative. Also, can something be ‘black-looking’? Or ‘green-looking’, ‘orange-looking’ or similar? If it’s not quite black, it is grey, so why not say that? As it stands, the implication that the tractors look like black people is strong.
Blackboards were replaced with whiteboards because chalk dust is bad for the lungs, and the lie that this was because the word ‘black’ could not be used in case black people were offended was simply that - a lie. Along with the trope that Baa Baa Black Sheep had been ‘banned’ it was an attempt by reactionaries to ridicule what was then called ‘political correctness’. I dare say that some teachers will have heard the rumours and decided, in good faith, not to use the word at all, thus perpetuating the myth.
Again, as has been discussed, the description of the boy (Algernon?) was not changed from ‘fat’ to enormous’, but to ‘enormous’ from ‘enormously fat’, which shifts the emphasis. Being enormous means being very large - a thin giant can be enormous. Being enormously fat is being fat with knobs on - ‘enormously’ modifies ‘fat’. You could probably have an enormously fat fruit fly, or other tiny creature. The emphasis is on the ‘fat’, meaning blubbery, excessively large, instead of just a big child who got stuck in something (I forget what). Using ‘enormous’ removes the judgement.
‘Enormously fat’ is a cruel description that overweight children don’t need adding to the insults they will already suffer.
It hasnt been the best publicity for them has it?
Thank you Iam64
I’m trying to be level headed about this!
I think that it does help a great deal having the films to refer to when teaching a text.
Especially when they are so much in our collective consciousness and popular culture as Dahl’s are.
When parents and grandparents know the stories it’s going to be helpful.
It’s a long hard slog getting through a entire book with young children; you need all the help and different ways of engaging the children (and parents) as you can
FannyC, interesting points and while reading, I could see images from the films of his books. Is that one of the reasons he continues to be widely recognised. The films are watchable and scary
Doodledog
Who is 'they' in this context though?
In the case of RD, it is the publishers (or possibly Netflix) who are adapting the texts, so the motive is keeping up sales figures. Is the Bible likely to lose or gain adherents if 'they' cut out the less inclusionary bits, I wonder?
It’s got nothing to do with Netflix. The poster who suggested that was incorrect.
The editing started prior to the Netflix deal.
My belief is that the publisher and The Dahl Foundation ‘jumped before the were pushed’ ie edited the books rather than risk Dahl being ‘cancelled’.
As GagaJo said up thread, I think it was simply a pragmatic move.
The vast majority of posters on here have considered the books from a parental and grandparental point of view, but I can’t stress how much Dahl’s work is used in Primary Schools.
The National Curriculum is full of his books.
From George’s Marvellous Medicine in Y1 to Danny the Champion of the World (a very dull book imo) in Y6.
In fact, I think that his work is over used. I’m not his greatest fan, and that’s nothing to do with his outdated language and iffy views.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »

