Censorship or rewriting ?

Allsorts, the references to racism during this discussion link tonDhal’s anti semitism and racism. It’s an integral part of discussing whether the5 proposed changes are necessary or as most people seem to agree, unnecessary.

Sorry about the typo in the middle but you get the gist as my knuckles were going white with frustration, no offence intended to anyone.

How has this once more become about racism? This country is losing the plot, pandering to a load of empty headed people that want no freedom of speech or diversity, it's bullying. Calling someone enormous instead of fat,,what jobsworth dreamt that up. How would you describe someone who robbed a bank, who was like a wafer or about 30 stone, you can't say man or woman now? Leave our language alone. Let us have true descriptions. Personally I couldn't stand Roald Dahl and his crude language, but my granddaughter did. Leave our language alone, if it offends don't read it. What I find really difficicult is that you ant refer to a man,who talks, looks and was birn make as a man.Tgeyvwerecon tge otter day aboutcAgatga Christy, her descriptions offensive, saying someone had a horsey grin, well some people do. Why can't you say someone is black, or gives a dark look it's not offensive, nor is white with anger, I'm not offended at that but I am at white board when it's black, it's nonsense. Someone born a biological male, walks, talks, looks male unadorned, decides he doesn't want to be addressed as he.what do you address them as ,it's bonkers, like the woman, who was born a man, now wants to identify as a baby. Soon we will not be able to say Sir, Madam.
I can't keep upwith it. As I said its bullying.

There is truth in what you say, Elegran, but I would not have wanted my children to read books with the illustration Wyllow posted earlier, particularly at school, where I wasn't there to mediate. They did read the more modern versions, which are being altered now, and the 'enormously fat' boy, or 'murderous black-looking' tractors didn't stop me in my tracks (if I read them - I don't remember now), but I do understand why people want them toned down. The 'black-looking' comment in particular is pretty awful, isn't it?

It is often said that a nation that forgets its history is condemned to repeat it. If the history of discrimination is airbrushed out of existence by whitewashing what authors wrote in books which pictured the zeitgeist of the time, using the language of the time, in a hundred years it will only be those learned researchers who consult rare original copies of those writings and follow the progression from outcast to inclusion who will recognise it if (when) their own time is treating some groups similarly.

And they WILL be treating some groups badly. It will be different groups - perhaps meat-eaters will be ostracised as weird throwbacks? or perhaps vegans? Perhaps one or other will be cited as a valid reason to take our children into care? Maybe not carrying a gun will be considered dangerously irresponsible and reckless of our own safety, and cause the non-carrier to be taken into protective custody? or maybe carrying one will be an automatic reason for arrest and jail? We don't know in advance what future societies will discriminate against.

Yes, Elegran, the Bible is a whole new can of worms, but more generally I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is not 'Big Brother', or some sort of 'Woke' conspiracy driving this - it is a marketing decision made to stop the books from dating to the point where they become irrelevant and lose money for the publishers.

Since Christianity first gained a hold through its acceptance of despised minorities who were discriminated against, it would be ironic if their censors removed all internal evidence from their Good Book of how those minorities were considered and treated. I would imagine they are fully aware of that, though, and have enough sense to keep the accounts exactly as they were written (and, of course, as they were later translated from the original languages into other tongues - gaining and losing prejudice in about equal amounts in proportion to the attitudes of the prevailing societies of the time)

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?

I wonder what they are going to do about the Bible which is read everywhere in the country rather frequently! And what about its publishing or selling.....?

No ……25Avalon…..we won’t go back to Janet and John …what with Janet helping mum with washing up and John playing football with dad in the garden ….that certainly reflected my childhood . No thank you!!

Well, I suppose if we’re teaching our children not to call others, ‘fat’, ‘ugly’ etc, then skipping off to read books where that sort of derogatory language is used, then I guess the publishers a have a point.

At the same time it seems that, on line, children have access to the most extreme violent pornography and teenagers, in some cases under the age of consent, are acting it out themselves, thinking that it is normal.

suelld

My first words on reading the article were OMG. - I think most of you have said what I feel, but having followed US politics ever since the egregious Trump was elected and all that followed, I’m now horrified watching Ron DeSantis banning books all over Florida - I pray this so called ‘wokeness’ is not going to creep into the UK …. Statue breaking and now ‘sensitivity’ editing etc etc, are ridiculous - each were ‘of their time’ and we should be teaching the young the history and to discuss WHY certain things now derided were then lauded, and what their opinions are - not just alter things, break things and pretend they never existed! No wonder no one learns from History!

I pray this so called ‘wokeness’ is not going to creep into the UK

The books that DeSantis wants to ban are those that would be more likely to appeal to "woke" individuals. This is not 'wokeness' - it is out and out censorship. Groups like "Moms for Liberty" are not trying to change attitudes towards racism, sexism, etc... they are endorsing them!

The French publishers of Dahl's books aren't changing anything.

Ridiculous - i don't agree with censorship.

My first words on reading the article were OMG. - I think most of you have said what I feel, but having followed US politics ever since the egregious Trump was elected and all that followed, I’m now horrified watching Ron DeSantis banning books all over Florida - I pray this so called ‘wokeness’ is not going to creep into the UK …. Statue breaking and now ‘sensitivity’ editing etc etc, are ridiculous - each were ‘of their time’ and we should be teaching the young the history and to discuss WHY certain things now derided were then lauded, and what their opinions are - not just alter things, break things and pretend they never existed! No wonder no one learns from History!

As doodledog said earlier, Shizam, Augustus is not described as ‘enormous’ instead of fat, but is described as 'enormous' instead of enormously fat.

Better to put a disclaimer on books, as they do on films and radio shows, etc, that the language used was from a different era. They could do a post-script to detail how differently we view some of these ‘offensive’ terms and ask them to discuss them with parents/teachers/friends.
The changes they’ve suggested are fairly mad. Enormous instead of fat?

The Dahl Foundation no longer own the copyright to Dahl's work - Netflix does. Enough said.

I’ve been a bit bothered by the use of ‘woke’ as a derogatory term in this thread, so I’ve asked dictionaries and wikepedia.
A dictionary definition of woke is alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination
The phrase stay woke emerged in the 1930’s often referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Alabama, Black Lives Matter used the phrase seeking to raise awareness about police shooting African Americans.
The term spread after it increasingly was used by white people, often to signal support for BLM
by 2020 many right wing activists and commentators in western countries were using woke in an ironic way, as an insult for perceived leftist ideologies. So in turn woke became perceived as an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race

Proud to be woke.

Language evolves and the English Language is a thing of great beauty.

Some youngsters call anything great/good bad I assume literature will not be altered to accommodate this.

Yes I know it’s ridiculous, but so is altering an authors words/work.

Yes. I thought that ‘slut’ was archaic

It used to mean someone who didn't scrub her doorstep with a donkey stone.

You know, her along the road

Like so many words, its meaning has changed over the years.

Yes. I thought that ‘slut’ was archaic.
So I changed it to ‘slag’
(Oh, what have I said!)

Fanny
You changed the word slut shame on you 😥 it’s one of my favourites. I often use it to friends and family. Not in the sense it’s usually used in. 😄

Any form of re-writing or censorship of any author's work - whether you like that work or not - is nothing less than what the Nazis were doing, so therefore a kind of fascism. What next, book burning?