On Roald Dahl

[Ban]

Than I am the exception and I think that there are plenty of others who are also exceptional in this regard, especially as it pertains to those of us engaged in the literary craft. My introduction to this topic is the opinion piece linked below, which although presenting the argument with more zeal, is similarly focused on the elements of this case that are relevant to authors. I'm not interested in "woke" or not "woke", that's why I specified in the original post that I strictly wanted to stick to the topic at hand without veering into political or societal commentary. The rights and duties of editors are interesting subjects to discuss for authors and so far, nearly everyone in this thread has stuck to that specific aspect (the relevant one for us as authors) in their discussion, as requested.

As for the internet being exhausting, I'd hope that after seven years of interacting with me on a rather regular basis you'd give me the benefit of the doubt when in doubt. I'm not someone who has ever been beholden to orthodoxy and I certainly don't care for something as dull as the fickle developments in "culture wars".

- Defacing Dahl

 

[Devor]

As for the internet being exhausting, I'd hope that after seven years of interacting with me on a rather regular basis you'd give me the benefit of the doubt when in doubt.

I apologize if I took out my frustrations on you a bit at the end of the one post there. That wasn't my intention.

The rights and duties of editors are interesting subjects to discuss for authors and so far, nearly everyone in this thread has stuck to that specific aspect (the relevant one for us as authors) in their discussion, as requested.

I have been staying on topic here. You asked if I would care whether someone changed my work, and I said that I'm more concerned about the changes that happen while I'm alive. You asked why not worry about both, and I answered: Over the course of a career, you come to accept that other people have their hands on your work. You asked why I was being sardonic, and I answered: Because it's part of a unending argument over wokeness.

The idea that the changes are woke however is at the heart of the discussion. As pmmg points out above, for many people these tiny changes would represent or imply a change in values (in this case, towards woke values). And that's true, to a point. A change of values represents a much bigger issue than fixing an old typo.

I mean, it's hardly a change of topic.

I personally don't feel that the changes represent a change in values. We all know why they would want to change "boys and girls" to "children," but Roald Dahl could have as easily used the word children himself. It would be different if they changed it to "boys, girls and non-binary children." That would, I think, cross a more serious line in being a direct change in values.

 

[Ban]

Apology accepted, but honestly I don't agree that the value aspect is all that important. Certainly, it's what brings attention to the issue from non-literary sources, but the core of the issue for us is not there. If some editor acquired the exclusive right to Call of the Wild and chose to change Buck's name to Brandy and subsequently presented that as the definitive version, that would be a much more benign, a lot more fun but equally worrying change.

If on the other hand someone rewrote Call of the Wild, clearly indicated that it's their own version and turned Buck into a feline strutting the savannas of Kenya, that would be a bit of a headscratcher, but an entirely fine thing to do.

As for coming to terms with people having their hands on one's work, I do think it's very important that there's blood coursing through your own hand on the work whilst they have theirs on it. To agree with changes is something different than to have changes imposed.

 

[Mad Swede]

I personally don't feel that the changes represent a change in values. We all know why they would want to change "boys and girls" to "children," but Roald Dahl could have as easily used the word children himself. It would be different if they changed it to "boys, girls and non-binary children." That would, I think, cross a more serious line in being a direct change in values.

I'm not sure I agree with you. The thing about Roald Dahl's childrens books is that the bad guys get their comeuppances. Any child reading the book knows that Augustus Gloop is a greedy glutton, and that this is why he is fat. In no way is Gloop a sympathetic or even pleasant person. In changing words, and in taking words away, we remove some of that message and some of the pleasure children get in seeing the good guys win.

 

[Devor]

I'm not sure I agree with you. The thing about Roald Dahl's childrens books is that the bad guys get their comeuppances. Any child reading the book knows that Augustus Gloop is a greedy glutton, and that this is why he is fat. In no way is Gloop a sympathetic or even pleasant person. In changing words, and in taking words away, we remove some of that message and some of the pleasure children get in seeing the good guys win.

Maybe?

I may be a little biased as I kind of agree with dropping fat and kind of disagree with the other changes. I also only vaguely remember any of these books.

 

[pmmg]

Everything has overlap with everything else. Just the way it goes.

But...the issue is not these changes, or even Mr. Dahl. Its the pernicious attitude of changing the past to match the present, and that it is just okay to do so with things where the creators are not around to defend them. Its impossible to know if they would have approved or not. But this type of stuff is making it okay. If today its 'boys and girls' to 'children', maybe tomorrow its 'children' to 'non-binaries'. Once one feels its okay to change the meaning of my work, they will get to values. And so they need the pushback now....and everywhere along the way. Today, I might use the word 'Warriroress', and some in the future might say, its 'warrior'--they are wrong. The word I used was 'warrioress'. If I had used a sentence like 'Bob was gay', meaning 'Bob was happy', and the word changed meaning, as it has, and readers were like 'I thought you said the dude was gay?', I could see changing the term. But...if I'm dead. I think, on principle, I have to insist that its not okay.

(And secretly, its kind of belittling to future readers to think they cant grasp that the word cant be read in its context as it is.)

I do not think it should be presumed that if its not mentioned in the will, it means permission granted. There are just too many things to account for to get it all in one will (though I think legally, it would be permissible).

I am unaware if Mr. Dahls attitudes with Jewish people (as it is said he did not favor) show up in his works, but if they did, I suspect he would not want them removed. Its his right to have them remain. Its my choice to read them or not.

 

[Devor]

I do not think it should be presumed that if its not mentioned in the will, it means permission granted. There are just too many things to account for to get it all in one will (though I think legally, it would be permissible).

It does seem likely that authors would never have thought their works would be changed this way, and that we'll start to see legal clauses about this in the future.

 

[Devor]

If some editor acquired the exclusive right to Call of the Wild and chose to change Buck's name to Brandy and subsequently presented that as the definitive version, that would be a much more benign, a lot more fun but equally worrying change.

Just because other changes may have other reasons to be alarming - in this case, the change would be gratuitous - it doesn't mean that the values differences don't matter.

 

[Devor]

If today its 'boys and girls' to 'children', maybe tomorrow its 'children' to 'non-binaries'. Once one feels its okay to change the meaning of my work, they will get to values. And so they need the pushback now....and everywhere along the way.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I have always felt that this attitude about holding back against a slippery slope is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think that if people would give a little, for the sake of drawing clear lines and precedents, you could take some of the heat out of the air and find the ground much more stable than slippery.

 

[Mad Swede]

Maybe I'm wrong. But I have always felt that this attitude about holding back against a slippery slope is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think that if people would give a little, for the sake of drawing clear lines and precedents, you could take some of the heat out of the air and find the ground much more stable than slippery.

I don't think it is. The problem is that some people feel the need to protect others by not using certain relatively harmless words and expressions. All well and good, but that can lead to the sort of hypocritical attitudes and behaviours seen in Victorian times. Thos worda, and the way they're used, don't go away just because we stop children reading them. No, they just go underground. One of the most valuable things to come out of the 1960s changes in attitudes was the freedom to talk about things like LGBTQ issues, because up until then it had been hidden. But if we'd had the sort of attitudes seen in the case of the changes to Roald Dahl's books we might still not have LGBTQ characters in childrens literature for fear of corrupting the children. Children are not stupid, and they know very well when some character deserves to be called something like fat or evil or crazy.

 

[Queshire]

I don't think it is. The problem is that some people feel the need to protect others by not using certain relatively harmless words and expressions. All well and good, but that can lead to the sort of hypocritical attitudes and behaviours seen in Victorian times. Thos worda, and the way they're used, don't go away just because we stop children reading them. No, they just go underground. One of the most valuable things to come out of the 1960s changes in attitudes was the freedom to talk about things like LGBTQ issues, because up until then it had been hidden. But if we'd had the sort of attitudes seen in the case of the changes to Roald Dahl's books we might still not have LGBTQ characters in childrens literature for fear of corrupting the children. Children are not stupid, and they know very well when some character deserves to be called something like fat or evil or crazy.

These things are not comparable. =_=

 

[Devor]

But if we'd had the sort of attitudes seen in the case of the changes to Roald Dahl's books we might still not have LGBTQ characters in childrens literature for fear of corrupting the children.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

This discussion isn't about LGBT in new modern works. It's about how far, if at all, to go in changing older works to allow for LGBT and other more modern viewpoints. It's also important to remember that while the general trend is in one direction, you also have to consider if it were the opposite direction. Imagine that Mike Pence somehow came to own the rights to all the LGBT children's books out there and wanted to change them. What are the legal and ethical limits to how much you can change the intentions and values of the original author?

(Note: Please don't actually respond to the hypothetical, I didn't mean to make it political.)

 

[Queshire]

Mmm... I think it's worth noting that the focus of the conversation is on an ethical standpoint. If we're talking about things from a legal standpoint then I presume their attorney would have stopped them already if there was any problems there.

 

[pmmg]

Maybe I'm wrong. But I have always felt that this attitude about holding back against a slippery slope is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think that if people would give a little, for the sake of drawing clear lines and precedents, you could take some of the heat out of the air and find the ground much more stable than slippery.

That may be. It would be in the category of unknown, since we dont get to see the example where it happened a different way. When encountered we only have the issue in front of us, and for many it is rejection, not give a little and hope they stop.

That things go underground is not necessarily a bad thing either. Sometimes the underground nature is the compromise. And sometimes its what makes it worth doing in the first place.

 

[Devor]

When encountered we only have the issue in front of us, and for many it is rejection, not give a little and hope they stop.

I don't know if you meant it this way or not, but I didn't mean to suggest give a little and hope they stop, which I would think would just be appeasement. I meant to actively find firm clear lines. In this case, for example, to say, It's ethically okay to change the text in this way (boys+girls=Children) if you must, but never that way (boys+girls+non-binaries), because the second would clearly suggest Roald Dahl supported this idea, when there's no clear indication of his thoughts on the matter. Even though I might personally disagree with the first change, let's agree that this is the line.

((edit)) I just want to be clear, my intention is to clarify what I meant, because I didn't think it matched with the way you described it. I'm not trying to pressure you.

 

[Ban]

I don't know if you meant it this way or not, but I didn't mean to suggest give a little and hope they stop, which I would think would just be appeasement. I meant to actively find firm clear lines. In this case, for example, to say, It's ethically okay to change the text in this way (boys+girls=Children) if you must, but never that way (boys+girls+non-binaries), because the second would clearly suggest Roald Dahl supported this idea, when there's no clear indication of his thoughts on the matter. Even though I might personally disagree with the first change, let's agree that this is the line.

((edit)) I just want to be clear, my intention is to clarify what I meant, because I didn't think it matched with the way you described it. I'm not trying to pressure you.

Saying that the work of an author should not be posthumously changed without their explicit prior consent in a definitive version would be a far more clear and easier to defend line. If you say "well these changes are allowed, but not those" than your primary concern is not the author and their posthumous rights, but a much vaguer notion of the idea of that author and the integrity of what their work represents (instead of the integrity of their personally written words). Why would anyone who disagrees with your specific line in the sand stick to that line? There's clear wiggle room in it, so why not use it?

 

[pmmg]

I don't think it is. The problem is that some people feel the need to protect others by not using certain relatively harmless words and expressions. All well and good, but that can lead to the sort of hypocritical attitudes and behaviours seen in Victorian times. Thos worda, and the way they're used, don't go away just because we stop children reading them. No, they just go underground. One of the most valuable things to come out of the 1960s changes in attitudes was the freedom to talk about things like LGBTQ issues, because up until then it had been hidden. But if we'd had the sort of attitudes seen in the case of the changes to Roald Dahl's books we might still not have LGBTQ characters in childrens literature for fear of corrupting the children. Children are not stupid, and they know very well when some character deserves to be called something like fat or evil or crazy.

I think I know what your trying to say but this got a little jumbled for me.

I think you are saying if we had loosened up on it earlier, it would have alleviated some of the pressure and it would not have become what it is today.

For which I think the answer is the same, I could speculate that, but its unknowable what would have happened, only what did.

 

[Queshire]

Saying that the work of an author should not be posthumously changed without their explicit prior consent in a definitive version would be a far more clear and easier to defend line. If you say "well these changes are allowed, but not those" than your primary concern is not the author and their posthumous rights, but a much vaguer notion of the idea of that author and the integrity of what their work represents (instead of the integrity of their personally written words). Why would anyone who disagrees with your specific line in the sand stick to that line?

It's also not a slippery slope which seemed to be the point of what Devor was saying to me. It's more about having -a- line rather than vague fears of maybes and slippery slopes.

 

[pmmg]

I don't know if you meant it this way or not, but I didn't mean to suggest give a little and hope they stop, which I would think would just be appeasement. I meant to actively find firm clear lines.

If I give some, rather than holding back on the slippery-slope, they would have to stop for it not to be a slippery-slope. When issues arise, we cannot know what will happen if we try A and not B. Experience tells me that it would not happen that the side opposed would not push for more. So, if I am on the side of rejecting, and the is issue present, I cannot take a course that just makes it harder to reject later on. I have to play with the pieces as they are. With no way of knowing, I'll remain averse (or in favor of) until something persuades me otherwise.

 

[Devor]

Saying that the work of an author should not be posthumously changed without their explicit prior consent in a definitive version would be a far more clear and easier to defend line. If you say "well these changes are allowed, but not those" than your primary concern is not the author and their posthumous rights, but a much vaguer notion of the idea of that author and the integrity of what their work represents (instead of the integrity of their personally written words). Why would anyone who disagrees with your specific line in the sand stick to that line? There's clear wiggle room in it, so why not use it?

This'll be my last post in the thread, unless I need to clarify a statement that gets misinterpreted. But I'll take a second to defend the specific line in the sand that I've tried to draw. It's an easy explanation.

Roald Dahl may never have imagined wokism, but he almost certainly did imagine that his work might be:
- Edited for a new edition
- Made into a movie that completely butchers the letter and intent of his work, as movies tend to do.
- Continue to provide for and be managed by his descendants until passing into the public domain

Somebody has the rights to his work, and that means something. He and I and you and everyone else understands that. He may not have imagined the specific kind of changes that are being made. But he did imagine changes.

Which goes back to the question:

I do not think it should be presumed that if its not mentioned in the will, it means permission granted. There are just too many things to account for to get it all in one will (though I think legally, it would be permissible).

The question is how much editing is ethical when no clear guidelines are provided? The answer: As much as a reasonable person might assume necessary. Well, yeah, but what does that mean?

Let's say amazon.com set up guidelines for "children books" and among them stated: You can't call kids fat to be in this category. Would that warrant changes? How many? What if that standard is set de facto in the minds of lots of elementary school librarians making decisions in places like New York City and California?

What I'm trying to say is: The Roald Dahl Story Company gets to make reasonable changes to the work, both to stay relevant and to protect his legacy. Most people understand this. And Roald Dahl most certainly understood it.

So how far is too far? When it starts to promote values that weren't intended by the author. While these specific changes may be motivated by woke values, I don't feel they go so far as to promote them, and hence, are no big deal, regardless of whether or not I agree with the specific changes.