Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

From the article:

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.

Thanks, I should have paid closer attention.

Since a publisher holds rights, I am still curious how far those extend, in theory and practice. (i'm guessing they are more careful about overstepping for prominent or litigious authors.)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

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

Here is a relevant paragraph from the Telegraph story that is already in a Wayback Machine page I'm not sure I should link to (since the original Telegraph article is behind a paywall):

The Dahl estate owned the rights to the books until 2021, when Netflix bought them outright for a reported $686 million, building on an earlier rights deal. The American streaming service now has overall control over the book publishing, as well as various adaptation projects that are in the works. These are the first new editions since the deal, but the review began before the sale.

So, when the family owned most rights, someone did a review. I can do a review too. Review all you want -- I am only concerned about actions taken.

The way I read the original Telegraph story, there might have been a rare and isolated extremely-ugly-word change before Netflix took over, but all, or almost all, of the changes were not in the published books until after Netflix owned all the rights.

EDIT: But I guess the above is trivia. It shouldn't matter, for sake of this discussion, whether the bowdlerizer is genetically related to the deceased author. An exception might be where the surviving rights-owning relative was a spouse who acted as almost a co-author, but there is nothing like that here.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

So, when the family owned most rights, someone did a review. I can do a review too. Review all you want -- I am only concerned about actions taken.

The way I read the original Telegraph story, there might have been a rare and isolated extremely-ugly-word change before Netflix took over, but all, or almost all, of the changes were not in the published books until after Netflix owned all the rights.

You and I are reading it differently. The changes under discussion were being put together by the rights holders before Netflix got involved.

This was being looked at in 2020 and the Roald Dahl people were just waiting for the next print run.

A spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said: “When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout.

[JSWolf]

When I was a kid and reading, such wording as originally used would not have been a problem for me. This is nothing but BS and telling the wold that kids these days are too weak to read these books as they were written.

[arjaybe]

I'm curious. Will there still be happy little orange slaves?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I'm curious. Will there still be happy little orange slaves?

Yes however they will now be neutral gender since they are now "small people" instead of "small men".

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You and I are reading it differently. The changes under discussion were being put together by the rights holders before Netflix got involved

Maybe. As I said, that’s not important to me. It’s wrong if a big company does it, and wrong if a little one run by relatives does it.

Netflix started buying rights in 2018. Here’s something from the New York Times story on that:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/a...oald-dahl.html

Dahl himself frequently warned of the mind-damaging effects of television. To make that point, the Oompa Loompas in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” at one point sing: “The most important thing we’ve learned / So far as children are concerned / Is never, NEVER, NEVER let / Them near your television set — Or better still, just don’t install / The idiotic thing at all.”

[kyrilson]

Not a fan at all of this kind of thing. I think books should remain a part of the time they were written.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Karellen]

Another rehashed article on the issue...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-...tics/101997882

[Quoth]

A backlash starts:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nguage-altered

“Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship,’’ Salman Rushdie wrote
PEN America, a community of 7,500 writers that advocates for freedom of expression, said it was “alarmed” by reports of the changes to Dahl’s books.

“If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society,” tweeted Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of PEN America.

Laura Hackett, a childhood Dahl fan who is now deputy literary editor of London’s Sunday Times newspaper, had a more personal reaction to the news.

“The editors at Puffin should be ashamed of the botched surgery they’ve carried out on some of the finest children’s literature in Britain,” she wrote. “As for me, I’ll be carefully stowing away my old, original copies of Dahl’s stories, so that one day my children can enjoy them in their full, nasty, colourful glory.”

[andyh2000]

Phillip Pullman had an interesting take on it on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning. His view seemed to be let the market decide - leave the original wording and if people don't like it they won't buy the books, and they (the books) will go out of print and fade into deserved obscurity letting more modern, relevant authors come to the fore.

Of course people who want to continue to make money from the Dahl books aren't likely to see it that way.

Andrew

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

fade into deserved obscurity
Andrew

I'm not a huge fan of Dahl, but that snide crap confirmed that I'm REALLY not a fan of Pullman.

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

I'm not a huge fan of Dahl, but that snide crap confirmed that I'm REALLY not a fan of Pullman.

He does come across as a grumpy old man sometimes. But at least he listed a whole bunch of modern authors other than himself.

Andrew

[Ned]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

I'm not a huge fan of Dahl, but that snide crap confirmed that I'm REALLY not a fan of Pullman.

Goodness me! That really was unnecessary of him. Especially given the poor quality of his own later offerings.

On the Dahl Bowdlerisation, seems to be another absurdity.

Current thinking ignores the fact that people actually choose to be offended - it is not a natural state - and if they choose to be offended by something Dahl or anybody else says, that's their problem. Say what you like and I won't be offended.

Why should it be necessary to avoid saying what offends them today (but didn't offend anyone years ago?) They could choose simply not to be offended.
And of course if they get their way with this, tomorrow they will be offended by something else and off we go again.

[EowynCarter]

The real problem I see there

- How do we as customers know what version we buy ?

- Availability of the original text for those still wishing to read it.

And then as Pullman said, let's see that the customers actually prefer.