• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

On Roald Dahl

Ban

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
Not so much a matter of sacredness, but I do believe the integrity of an author's work should be preserved beyond their death. People should be allowed to reimagine and transform works after copyright runs out, but from what I gathered the editors of Dahl's works intended to make their edits the "definitive" version of Dahl's work instead of clearly indicating that they are separate from the originals. I reckon they justify that aim by stating that the edits are only minor, but I don't think such edits should fly for an ostensibly definitive version in any event.
 
Last edited:

Lynea

Sage
It's the first I've heard of it, too. Roald Dahl is one of my favorite children's authors who's works are still influential today. I don't see anyone insisting they change Silverstien's words, or Dr. Seuss' for that matter. What sets children's authors apart is that they tend to condense heavy societal topics in their writings while still being gentle. While it's true that Dahl wrote with more comedic 'edginess' than others, his topics are nothing but true and wholesome. Why censor that?
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I don't see anyone insisting they change Silverstien's words, or Dr. Seuss' for that matter.
Five doctor Seuss books were retired maybe a year ago for having offensive art, and many people thought they should just have changed the pictures instead. It got a little bit crazy, if I understood right the books were even banned on eBay.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Heh heh heh... This is one that falls into the laughable category, from Reason...

While the child-killing villains of The Witches were previously identified by their bald heads, the book now contains the disclaimer that 'there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."

Child killers, meh! Bald! Dear God, call out the sensitivity police!
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
Crap....some of my villains are bald.

Golly...some of my villains are without hair.

Disclaimer: there are plenty of other reasons why villains might be 'without hair' besides being villains and there is nothing wrong with that.."
 
Last edited:

Mad Swede

Auror
The trouble is, where do you draw the line? Are we going to stop children having Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice as a set work because it contains and extremel derogatory view of Jews? Are we going to ban Richard III because it protrays physically deformed people in a very negative way? As skip.knox said, if you're going to edit one book in this way then you should be consistent and do it for all books. Otherwise you're just playing to the gallery, trying to be seen to do "right" - and that's just another form of hypocrisy.
 

Lynea

Sage
The trouble is, where do you draw the line? Are we going to stop children having Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice as a set work because it contains and extremel derogatory view of Jews? Are we going to ban Richard III because it protrays physically deformed people in a very negative way? As skip.knox said, if you're going to edit one book in this way then you should be consistent and do it for all books. Otherwise you're just playing to the gallery, trying to be seen to do "right" - and that's just another form of hypocrisy.
Yeah, I don't agree with silencing or censoring art just to live up to fluid standards that may very quickly change in the next decade.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Yeah, I don't agree with silencing or censoring art just to live up to fluid standards that may very quickly change in the next decade.

Then they can change again next decade?

I don't really like the changes I've seen noted in the little bit I've looked at it. But I don't really understand the big deal.
 

Ban

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
Then they can change again next decade?

I don't really like the changes I've seen noted in the little bit I've looked at it. But I don't really understand the big deal.
Would you be fine with someone you don't know editing your writing without your wishes? I think that's where the crux of the issue is. It doesn't much matter what the edited content is (though of course the politically-marketable nature of said content has made it bigger news than it would otherwise be) but the hubris the editors have in presuming they are right to do so in the first place. Dahl's work is not theirs and therefore in my opinion not theirs to edit.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Would you be fine with someone you don't know editing your writing without your wishes? I think that's where the crux of the issue is. It doesn't much matter what the edited content is (though of course the politically-marketable nature of said content has made it bigger news than it would otherwise be) but the hubris the editors have in presuming they are right to do so in the first place. Dahl's work is not theirs and therefore in my opinion not theirs to edit.

I think writers are and oughta be more concerned about the butcheries their work suffers while they're still alive.
 

Ban

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
I think writers are and oughta be more concerned about the butcheries their work suffers while they're still alive.
I don't see how concern for either would cancel out the need for concern regarding the other.
 
Last edited:
I personally think the editors are underestimating the ability of children to separate fiction from reality. I also hold the view that if you don't like a book, don't buy or read it. It's very easy. Just fold both ends towards each other and the words inside will stop bothering you.

Having said that, just to offer a slightly contrarian view, since Shakespeare was brought up. His works have actually been edited over and over again in the past 400 odd years they've been out. If anything, they need to be to make sense to most present-day readers. I'm sure there have been edits for content as well as language. And it has been accepted as perfectly normal to do so. If you now put up a play by Shakespeare, then more likely than not you will be putting up an adaptation. And probably because he's been dead for 400 years, but people are completely fine with that.

Why? Because language changes. It evolves and people's understanding evolves with it.

Of course, none of those adaptations are claiming (or should be claiming at least) to be the original version.

Maybe if I ever become famous enough to worry about what happens to my novels after I die I'll make it so that the moment my estate decides to update my works to modern audiences they'll become public domain, as long as they'll state clearly if it's the original work or an updated version. That way anyone can do what they want with them, and it removes some of the capitalist drive...
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I don't see how concern for either would cancel out the need for concern regarding the other.

Look, if my grandkids some day want to sell the rights to my work, and that means I have to suffer these humiliating edits because a character was bald... well, I promise you, I care more about my descendants than about a touch of indignity.
 

Ban

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
Look, if my grandkids some day want to sell the rights to my work, and that means I have to suffer these humiliating edits because a character was bald... well, I promise you, I care more about my descendants than about a touch of indignity.
That's not a counter-argument, just a personal preference. If you are fine with your work being edited by unknown people in the future and presented as the definitive version of your work, that's your prerogative, but you're not engaging with my question. Both causes can be cared about simultaneously. I also don't see where the descendants come into play? Unless I have missed something about Dahl's case, his descendants are financially fine.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
That's not a counter-argument, just a personal preference. If you are fine with your work being edited by unknown people in the future and presented as the definitive version of your work, that's your prerogative, but you're not engaging with my question. Both causes can be cared about simultaneously.

I'm not sure it's a point that needs a counter argument. But okay.

It's almost impossible to keep control of your work as it grows. You get editors, publishers, cover artists, movie rights, translation rights, and so on. First edition, second edition, third edition. There's the US english version and the British english version. It goes on and on. Writers get forced to change their characters, to cutting scenes, into writing sequels for books they didn't even like. Do you know how many books get changed into Romance novels because Romance sells?

I have four children. I looked it up, and Roald Dahl had five. Legacy is a complicated word, and it means different things to different people, so I won't claim to know that he cared more about his children's pocketbooks than about tweaks to his work, although I find it likely. But I do know that people are talking about these as literature - and not about this man and his career.

When you have a career, when you have a history of writing book after book, of working with dozens of people in the industry to make them successful, of having no way of knowing whether the French or Italian translations do your book justice because you don't speak those languages - well, you kind of get used to it. You learn to pick your battles. Your learn what's important, and what to let go. You learn that other people can contribute. And also that your own writing changes, too.

If my grandchildren want to make more from my work by changing a few things - by translating it for the modern age, to me that's just another translation. That the Roald Dahl books might be translated poorly - well, mistakes happen. Roald Dahl died thirty-three years ago, and in another thirty-seven, they'll enter the public domain. Then what happens? People will change them. They'll get revived. They'll get abridged - and rewritten - and celebrated - and shat on - and they won't do his descendants anymore good then.

And did you know? I could write a book about the man's life, put horribly offensive things in his mouth, and make money off it. It's historical fiction. But God forbid anyone change "fat" to "enormous" because the heavy kids get teased too much as it is, because that's really going to shit on his legacy. Right?
 
Last edited:

Ban

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
I'm not sure it's a point that needs a counter argument. But okay.

It's almost impossible to keep control of your work as it grows. You get editors, publishers, cover artists, movie rights, translation rights, and so on. First edition, second edition, third edition. There's the US english version and the British english version. It goes on and on. Writers get forced to change their characters, to cutting scenes, into writing sequels for books they didn't even like. Do you know how many books get changed into Romance novels because Romance sells?

I have four children. I looked it up, and Roald Dahl had five. Legacy is a complicated word, and it means different things to different people, so I won't claim to know that he cared more about his children's pocketbooks than about tweaks to his work, although I find it likely. But I do know that people are talking about these as literature - and not about this man and his career.

When you have a career, when you have a history of writing book after book, of working with dozens of people in the industry to make them successful, of having no way of knowing whether the French or Italian translations do your book justice because you don't speak those languages - well, you kind of get used to it. You learn to pick your battles. Your learn what's important, and what to let go. And also that your own writing changes, too.

If my grandchildren want to make more from my work by changing a few things - by translating it for the modern age, to me that's just another translation. That the Roald Dahl books might be translated poorly - well, mistakes happen. Roald Dahl died thirty-three years ago, and in another thirty-seven, they'll enter the public domain. Then what happens? People will change them. They'll get revived. They'll get abridged - and rewritten - and celebrated - and shat on - and they won't do his descendants anymore good then.

And did you know? I could write a book about the man's life, put horribly offensive things in his mouth, and make money off it. It's historical fiction. But God forbid anyone change "fat" to "enormous" because the heavy kids get teased too much as it is, because that's really going to shit on his legacy. Right?
I assume you simply haven't read through this thread because you're stating things that have already been addressed as if they are my beliefs. I'll go through your response by paragraph.

Paragraph 2: The problem is that Dahl is not alive to commentate on and guide the edits being made, not that edits are being made. There's a matter of consent there which Dahl and other deceased authors cannot grant. If your stance is that a dead person's consent is not required, that is a stance you can take, but yes it does warrant an argument.

Paragraph 4: These changes are being pushed through in non-English works as well, but for obvious reasons no one assumes that a translated work is perfectly reflective of the original, that's why translated works clearly state that they are in fact translated, as well as who did the translating. There is no false pretense of it being the definitive work in its authoritative, unadulterated form.

Paragraph 5: I have stated this at least three times now, but my issue is not with reinterpretations or revisions, nor is that the issue almost anyone has. The issue is that the edits were to be made to the standard publication, instead of clearly delineating the new work as a separate interpretation.

Paragraph 6: Why are you being sardonic? I don't care about the content of the changes as I've said before, I care about the editors believing that they are in the right to posthumously edit works. The principle matters because it sets precedent, which yes, I think is a fairly important thing to discuss as authors and does not benefit from snark or condescension.
 
Last edited:

pmmg

Myth Weaver
Going to revise and extend my remarks on this a little ;)

If it happens that words change meanings, and someone wants to edit to keep the content making sense, I dont think future me will have much of an issue with that. If 'and' and 'or' suddenly reversed meanings, I suppose it would have to be updated. I care more about the values. The trends in western culture are ones I dont often agree with, and I can see how in the future a different set of values may have superseded mine. I do not wish my values altered. To the degree that they are in my story, I would most likely speak against these trends, and would not like to see them prevail. I may be dead, and I may be unable to care, but if this post should survive and my descendants hold the reigns, I want my values upheld.

So, from what I see in the edits to Mr. Dahls work, I would not want those changes in my own work. These changes are not made to fix words whose definition have changed, but to morph the work into something that matches the sensitivities of people whose sensitivities I would more likely scoff at. If I call my Oompa Lumpas 'no taller than a knee', I dont want it changed to small. If I call a woman 'ugly and beastly' I dont want ugly removed. And I certainly dont want gender neutral terms to replace my gendered ones.

In short, I dont want sensitivity types anywhere near my work. They can read at home and hate it, but they dont get editing privileges. If I dont match tomorrows values, that's okay. We can clash, and you can use me as contrast.

If when I am gone, some future sort decides I did not have enough representation in my works, they can go jump in a lake. While they are free to think so, they have no permission from me to change it.

And yet, on an entirely level, I disagree with even changing a word, even if something like 'And' and 'Or' changed meanings. There is value in preserving the work as is, as a way of showing the world that once was and is no longer. I'd not necessarily hate it, but I would want it noted, and the original to be available somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Paragraph 2: The problem is that Dahl is not alive to commentate on and guide the edits being made, not that edits are being made. There's a matter of consent there which Dahl and other deceased authors cannot grant. If your stance is that a dead person's consent is not required, that is a stance you can take, but yes it does warrant an argument.

Presumably he did give his consent, in his last will and testament, wherein he would've established who owns the rights of his work and could have listed any parameters he may have wanted to place on them.

Paragraph 5: I have stated this at least three times now, but my issue is not with reinterpretations or revisions, nor is that the issue almost anyone has. The issue is that the edits were to be made to the standard publication, instead of clearly delineating the new work as a separate interpretation.

Here's what I said earlier in this thread (emphasis added):

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've seen a number of articles about the Roald Dahl changes over the last few days, and not one of the ones I've seen has even mentioned whether or not it even is labelled on the cover, or in the publishing notes, or in a forward or acknowledgement. Edits are often made between one edition and the next, so It's probably not labelled clearly. Still, few people are talking about that.

We could come up with a code word to put on the cover. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, modern woke edition. That won't stop the eye rolling. If anything, that kind of a label will just give other companies permission to make these kids of changes and publish "modern woke editions" en masse. The H. P. Lovecraft Collection will become almost unrecognizable in this edition, but it'll get published, and fans will be furious.

Perhaps you're an exception, but it's not the missing label that people are upset about. It's that word, like always: woke.

Which is why....

Paragraph 6: Why are you being sardonic?

Because the internet has gotten exhausting, fighting over this word, and I made the mistake of letting myself get involved.

I'm not woke or anti-woke. I empathize a little more with the right, but as a matter of opinion, I've come to find myself firmly in the middle. In every direction some things matter, some things cross lines, and some things just don't. The kids nowadays have to suffer through a clunky line about a witches and wigs. It's hardly World War III.

And even when it clearly does not matter - like this time - people come to it with that same outrage energy. I should keep clear of it. I know I should. But this nonsense is everywhere, and its suck energy is powerful enough to suck in even those with the strongest of resistance.
 
Top