On Roald Dahl

[Devor]

I don't think it's a big deal to sanitize a few remarks for modern readers (so long as it's stated clearly on the cover). I'd rather have those books be read than have people shy away from them over tiny remarks here and there.

Parents nowadays have gone totally nuts though. Some are letting their kids watch Squid Games or whatever mature thing they want, and others are going off the rails over a reference to periods in Turning Red.

None of the Roald Dahl books are fresh on my mind right now, but from what I remember, I would rather my own kids read the originals. Still, it's what some people want, and it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I oppose changing any work of art. Should we slap briefs on the Adonis? Nope. Slap a bikini on Aphrodite of Knidos? Darken the tint of Girl with a Pearl Earring's skin? Nope. Maybe we should just scratch God and the Creation of Adam right out of the Sistine Chapel? Nope.

It isn't that I don't understand the temptation, Dr. Seuss' portrayal of Asians is well... very WW2 propaganda, yikes... but does that mean you dick with the work? Nope.

This also doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so, if they own the rights, I simply oppose it. Hell, I'm still pissed off at Lucas dicking with his own work in Star Wars... Han drew first! Own it, ya wussy.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Some of the changes reported are just laughable. I never even read the books, not my cuppa. I don't even particularly like the movies. I could certainly see wanting to change certain things over time in kids' books, Dr. Seuss comes to mind as mentioned previously, but much of the Roald stuff just amused me.

I don't think it's a big deal to sanitize a few remarks for modern readers (so long as it's stated clearly on the cover). I'd rather have those books be read than have people shy away from them over tiny remarks here and there.

Parents nowadays have gone totally nuts though. Some are letting their kids watch Squid Games or whatever mature thing they want, and others are going off the rails over a reference to periods in Turning Red.

None of the Roald Dahl books are fresh on my mind right now, but from what I remember, I would rather my own kids read the originals. Still, it's what some people want, and it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[Queshire]

I oppose changing any work of art. Should we slap briefs on the Adonis? Nope. Slap a bikini on Aphrodite of Knidos? Darken the tint of Girl with a Pearl Earring's skin? Nope. Maybe we should just scratch God and the Creation of Adam right out of the Sistine Chapel? Nope.

It isn't that I don't understand the temptation, Dr. Seuss' portrayal of Asians is well... very WW2 propaganda, yikes... but does that mean you dick with the work? Nope.

This also doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so, if they own the rights, I simply oppose it. Hell, I'm still pissed off at Lucas dicking with his own work in Star Wars... Han drew first! Own it, ya wussy.

Adonis in briefs and the Creation of Adam minus God totally sound like works of art in their own right though.

I mean, I'm not saying that people should do that to the actual ones, but making a copy of them like that? Sure.

 

[Finchbearer]

Adonis in briefs and the Creation of Adam minus God totally sound like works of art in their own right though.

I mean, I'm not saying that people should do that to the actual ones, but making a copy of them like that? Sure.

That’s what retellings are for, far enough removed from the original that they become their own thing, satire almost… though putting Adonis in briefs I’m not so sure

 

[skip.knox]

Whole generations of "right-thinkers" put fig leaves over penises on classic statuary, and without any sort of disclaimer or addendum stating that the original had been modified.

I agree that any change to the original text should be modified (though, now I think about it, plenty of books have had their original art removed or replaced with other art). I also agree that if a book is all that out of sync with the time, just let it fade away. If it doesn't fade, then perhaps it was not so egregious as the critics contended. But if you're going to start modifying text, then you're obliged to do *all* books, no matter how obscure. Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

 

[Queshire]

But if you're going to start modifying text, then you're obliged to do *all* books, no matter how obscure. Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

I reject arguments in this form by default.

 

[pmmg]

slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason

A slippery slope is an informal fallacy. While it may be an error of thinking that this will necessarily lead to that, it does not preclude that it might. It is possible to have an informal fallacy and still be right about the outcome.

Kind of like they thought Lady Chatterley's lover would corrupt my youth, and make me interested in sex in a lot of forms....That was a slippery slope argument

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There was a French children's book that looked up an exclamation from French Canada and used it in a book... turned out it's about the equivalent of the F word in Canada... So! There's a change waiting to be made, but I would love to get my hands on the original. Of course my opinion in life is that people should be toughened up, not softened, and talked up to instead of down to. After a while, changing wimpier and wimpier offensive terms becomes offensive in itself, or just ridiculous.

"I call this one: Adonis in a Speedo."

 

[Ban]

That’s what retellings are for, far enough removed from the original that they become their own thing, satire almost… though putting Adonis in briefs I’m not so sure

I agree with this. I am in support of retellings, but I don't like the idea of editors posthumously changing a couple of words. If I imagine myself in Dahl's position, I know I would disapprove of people messing with my words and ascribing them to me. Far better if they make an entirely distinct version of my work.

 

[Devor]

But if you're going to start modifying text, then you're obliged to do *all* books, no matter how obscure. Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

So the Roald Dahl Story Company is supposed to be lazy for changing their own children's books and not all of English literature? That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Yes, the Roald Dahl Story Company was bought by Netflix, which isn't as good a one-liner, but the point still holds.

 

[pmmg]

But if you're going to start modifying text, then you're obliged to do *all* books, no matter how obscure. Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

Probably more appropriate to say, if you start on the path of changing one, you open the door to all the others.

Because of the precedent, more will likely follow.

Its still a question of the violation of the authors work.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Lady Chatterley's Lover is a slippery slope to a nap, heh heh.

 

[Stepgingerly]

More worrying to me is that this is likely in response to the book bans taking off in Florida and elsewhere. If books have nothing objectionable, they will stay on the shelves of schools. Every book will have a modern gray-beige cover and matching text so as not to offend or challenge the thoughts of anyone at all. As Ray Bradbury said, "You don't need to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them."

 

[Righmath]

Someone in these forums, very wisely once said: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words I said in a chatroom 20 years ago will haunt me forever.

No comment

 

[Queshire]

Well, this was a conveniently timed video that popped up in my recommendations.

Spoiler

 

[pmmg]

Well...I am sure that capitalism is behind the decision to alter the book from Mr. Dahls estate. Not much to add to that, other than, regardless of why, it should not be done. And while I appreciate that this guy does not have a problem with it, he is not Mr. Dahl, and not Mr. Twain. Without their input, his opinion is devoid of the artists intent. Just another voice in the wind for which I can find many who do and dont agree with him.

I am sure it never occurred to Mr. Dahl, or Twain that any would come along who would want to change their language. And like all of us, I am sure both Mr. Dahl, and Twain, spent many painstaking hours choosing the right words for the right places in their books. We should respect that. That's how they intended it.

 

[Queshire]

Painstaking hours for... enormously fat? Come on now, we all know how hard it is, but don't overblow it either.

 

[Ban]

Painstaking hours for... enormously fat? Come on now, we all know how hard it is, but don't overblow it either.

Countless hours on the works as a whole, whose total is composed of all the minor word choices that were the authors' prerogative to make. I simply think it is wrong to alter an author's work without their consent regardless of how minor the change is. It is not the editors' place to determine the wording when the author is no longer alive.

 

[Queshire]

Mmm... on the balance of caution I agree with you, but not as if it was breaking some sacred taboo.