Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[Quoth]

Yes, legal but stupid.
Though if it wasn't for big Corporations getting copyright extended anyone could do it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes, legal but stupid.
Though if it wasn't for big Corporations getting copyright extended anyone could do it.

It was only one corporation that cause the copyright extensions. That is Disney. They want to keep control of the mouse. We'll see what happens next year (January 2024) when the mouse's time is up.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Copyright IS transferable

Copyright and author's right are different things. You have an exclusive rights for publishing and creation of derivative works, but you cannot change its attribution or modify it arbitrarily.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Copyright and author's right are different things. You have an exclusive rights for publishing and creation of derivative works, but you cannot change its attribution or modify it arbitrarily.

Sure. But which one is legally binding?

Nothing is being arbitrarily modified in this case. It might be being stupidly modified, but no laws are being broken and no legally binding "author's rights" are being trampled.

Be indignant about it all you want, but there's no use pretending that anything legally untoward is happening here.

[andyh2000]

Another viewpoint from someone on reddit - this is entirely cynically generated outrage for the purposes of making more money. Netflix or their publicity agents lit the blue touch paper and stood back.

Andrew

[theducks]

I grew up with reading many early versions of books that have now been banned or mutilated in the name of PC.

I have no issue with a publisher putting a disclaimer at the front.
"The views and language expressed herein are representative of the time this work was originally created and do not necessarily represent the current times"

Learn... Don't hide / obscure. I grew up, visiting the segregate South. Being from the North, I was a bit confused about all this. BTW I had already devoured most of the Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn books.

[haertig]

One of the reported changes in "Matilda" was:

Original wording: "eight nutty little idiots"
Revised wording: "eight nutty little boys"

Now, I certainly recognize the quality of this material for jokes, "it's a well known and accepted synonym" and all that, but ignoring this use for comedic entertainment - How can even the wokest of the woke justify a change like this? It sure seems to break the "equal and inclusive" claim, doesn't it? (But it's still funny - could be turned into a great joke by a skilled comedian, provided they hadn't previously been canceled by the mob.)

[JSWolf]

European publishers refuse to change Roald Dahl’s books

[JSWolf]

Even some of the illustrations do not survive being castrated.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Even some of the illustrations do not survive being castrated.

I guess that's one way to make then genderless...

[pickyaxe]

Originally Posted by haertig

One of the reported changes in "Matilda" was:

Original wording: "eight nutty little idiots"
Revised wording: "eight nutty little boys"

Now, I certainly recognize the quality of this material for jokes, "it's a well known and accepted synonym" and all that, but ignoring this use for comedic entertainment - How can even the wokest of the woke justify a change like this? It sure seems to break the "equal and inclusive" claim, doesn't it? (But it's still funny - could be turned into a great joke by a skilled comedian, provided they hadn't previously been canceled by the mob.)

Does that really surprise you? The wokest of the woke don't like men.

[issybird]

Moderator Notice
It was bound to happen. No more woke comments; they will be deleted.

[meeera]

My reaction pretty much boils down to "not my circus, not my monkeys". The rights-holders have probably decided they'd sell more books when they put out the edited editiions - probably some more books to (for example) some schools who may have decided they prefer the updated editions, and some more to the people who are so outraged that they'll go buy a whole set of the old ones just to say they did. (If you don't already have the set, were you really that big a fan?)

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by meeera

My reaction pretty much boils down to "not my circus, not my monkeys". The rights-holders have probably decided they'd sell more books when they put out the edited editiions - probably some more books to (for example) some schools who may have decided they prefer the updated editions, and some more to the people who are so outraged that they'll go buy a whole set of the old ones just to say they did. (If you don't already have the set, were you really that big a fan?)

When is the right time to object to this kind of insidious change to literature? I don't need to be a fan of a particular author to find it outrageous that his work is being altered in so ham-handed a fashion.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Catlady

When is the right time to object to this kind of insidious change to literature? I don't need to be a fan of a particular author to find it outrageous that his work is being altered in so ham-handed a fashion.

Books are edited all the time. We've just found out about this one because it hits some particular things that some people have decided are culture-war hot buttons. And/or because the rights-holders have decided it will stir up a bit of interest. Or both.

I've got no objection to you objecting; I just don't share the outrage myself. Rights holders own the rights under the current system. And when they go out of copyright, anyone can edit them however they like. There certainly will be no shortage of the older versions for a long time IMO, given how many copies are out there. I'd say we've got nearly a full set here at home, and we're just regular readers not superfans.

Meanwhile, if you haven't read Danny the Champion of the World, highly recommend.