Censorship or rewriting ?

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.

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.

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!!

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.....?

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?

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

It hasnt been the best publicity for them has it?

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.

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.

Crikey I think that makes it even worse if possible.

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

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!)

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.

Oh, I didn’t know that Galaxy
What was the organisation? I’m intrigued!

The free speech union

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.