Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[Tarana]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2284965.html

I came across the above article and was surprised. How do Mobileread members feel about children's books being rewritten particularly when the author has no say in it (he died in 1990)?

[Asawi]

I'm not keen on it. The examples given in the article felt somewhat ridicilous to me. If it had been the N-word or things like that being removed I would be fine with it, and that's kind of what I thought it was about. Apparently there are lots of things that are more sensitive than I realized.

[Quoth]

No, it's never fine to revise books unless the author is doing it. If people are offended, or don't like Dahl, they don't have to buy or borrow the books. The House of Random Penguins has lost the plot. What next? A cleaned up version of Mien Kampf (I know not remotely comparable to Dahl's work, but logically that's the sort place revisionism takes you too).

I'd not buy any of Roald Dahl's books, though I admit to enjoying the original version of the movie The Witches. But Puffin (an imprint of the ever expanding House of Random Penguins) is quite free to publish them. But as they really are.

[graycyn]

I'm not keen either. Children can cope with more than you'd think. These sorts of wordings occur in MANY books, and are hardly isolated to one author. Let parents and teachers TALK to their kids about stereotypes and possibly hurtful words.

And what about children who are precocious readers and don't limit themselves to children's books? Are we going to rewrite EVERY title under the sun? And what about the internet, which many children have access to?

I mean, should children be raised to be over-sensitive to practically EVERYTHING? Because it is getting a little ridiculous. Is it really being less derogatory calling someone a "crow" vs. "hag" or am I just old and not with it?

Heaven knows, I was overweight and fat as a child, but I didn't get upset by reading that a character in a book was fat.

[Asawi]

Originally Posted by graycyn

I mean, should children be raised to be over-sensitive to practically EVERYTHING? Because it is getting a little ridiculous. Is it really being less derogatory calling someone a "crow" vs. "hag" or am I just old and not with it?

I was thinking along the exact same lines (including being old and not with it)! The more I think about it, the more it upsets me. I would even go as far to say that it is good for children to come across a little bit of non-PC language now and then. It can be an opening for discussion about history and how norms and values have changed and what words/terminology is preferred today vs yesterday. Kids are not stupid!

[j.p.s]

Do publishing contracts explicity convey the right to make these sorts of changes, or is it considered to be implied, or is it actually illegal?

If it is considered to be implied, I think that notion needs to be changed.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Do publishing contracts explicity convey the right to make these sorts of changes, or is it considered to be implied, or is it actually illegal?

If it is considered to be implied, I think that notion needs to be changed.

Maybe they got the permission of the Estate?

Not everyone gets same contract and the author died about 32 years ago, so what was a normal contract maybe 50 years ago?

[issybird]

Just as a heads up, there’s a thread on this in P&R with a link to an article in the Guardian. Carry on here, but please take contentious opinions to P&R. Thanks.

[issybird]

Aside from the dubious nature of rewriting a classic at all, what struck me was how very poorly it was done. Some of the verses didn’t even scan and the prose was clunky.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Do publishing contracts explicity convey the right to make these sorts of changes, or is it considered to be implied, or is it actually illegal?

If it is considered to be implied, I think that notion needs to be changed.

Originally Posted by Quoth

Maybe they got the permission of the Estate?

Not everyone gets same contract and the author died about 32 years ago, so what was a normal contract maybe 50 years ago?

That does not answer my question, which allowed for all that.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by issybird

Aside from the dubious nature of rewriting a classic at all, what struck me was how very poorly it was done. Some of the verses didn’t even scan and the prose was clunky.

Publishers no longer care about grammar, spelling, or nonlitigable facts, why should they care about artistic or technical quality?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Maybe they got the permission of the Estate?

Probably.

Netflix lands golden ticket by buying Roald Dahl estate (2021)

Netflix will control what happens to them in publishing as well as TV and film - and receive the royalties.

Don't blame me -- I don't watch TV (except that somehow my wife and have been watching Jepoardy the past week).

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Publishers no longer care about grammar, spelling, or nonlitigable facts, why should they care about artistic or technical quality?

There probably is an error somewhere in every book, but I rarely notice lack of care in the PRH books I read.

My not-too-wild guess is that first tier editors politely declined the bowdlerization project, resulting in the issues issybird noticed.

While I am against bowdlerizing, I am more against withdrawing a marketable book from sale due to such issues. Only a tiny percent of what Dahl wrote is being overwritten, in contrast with the Dr. Suess canon, from which, in addition to Seuss Enterprises making changes, at least six titles are no longer sold.

Children are getting almost the same Dahl product from their perspective. When they get older, and learn about bowdlerization, they can find the version Dahl intended in research libraries. Or better yet, by then, maybe, the original will have been brought back.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by Asawi

I was thinking along the exact same lines (including being old and not with it)! The more I think about it, the more it upsets me. I would even go as far to say that it is good for children to come across a little bit of non-PC language now and then. It can be an opening for discussion about history and how norms and values have changed and what words/terminology is preferred today vs yesterday. Kids are not stupid!

Exactly. Kids are not stupid, unless fed non-stop stupidity.

This article has some of the changes in more detail and they really ARE mostly ridiculous and unnecessary, IMHO.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...witches-twits/

Oops, sorry about the above link, went to revisit it and it now appears to be behind a paywall. So if you click and get the actual article, and are interested in the details, save it as PDF before you exit. Too bad, as it was listing the differences in some detail.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Do publishing contracts explicity convey the right to make these sorts of changes, or is it considered to be implied, or is it actually illegal?

Originally Posted by Quoth

Maybe they got the permission of the Estate?

From the article:

The Roald Dahl Story Company confirmed it began a review into the books alongside publishers Puffin in 2020, and that any changes made were “small and carefully considered”.

So it sounds like the estate is the one making the changes.

I don't think bowdlerization is a good thing. These books are classics.

Just saying it sounds like its the rights holders making these changes.