Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There are many uncorroborated claims of this happening, but to my knowledge, it has not actually happened since the highly publicized "1984" fiasco.

There was one other instance where a person had all their Amazon books removed from their devices but that was due to a disagreement between the user and Amazon which resulted in their account being suspended/deleted if I am remembering correctly.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DNSB

There was one other instance where a person had all their Amazon books removed from their devices but that was due to a disagreement between the user and Amazon which resulted in their account being suspended/deleted if I am remembering correctly.

They moved and Amazon deleted the books on the device.
Amazon DOES block Library access if for example you are deemed to have made too many physical returns or in some other way annoyed Amazon so the entire account, including KDP upload and Kindle downloads is locked out. There is no appeal procedure.

Always downloand and backup digital purchases.

If using KDP, be careful about returns or other issues, consider a separate name, email, address, payment card etc for purchases.

KDP, Kindle purchases and other Amazon purchases shouldn't be all treated as one account by Amazon, but they are! You can't easily setup separate accounts. KDP needs real address, real bank account (I forget, maybe Paypal?) and local version of Tax/Social services number because the USA Government requires proof that you are not in the USA and not a US citizen if it's a USA company.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

There is no appeal procedure.

This is not entirely true. While there may be no "Appeal Decision" button that one can click, squeaky--and persistent--wheels have certainly gotten "our decision is final" decisions overturned in the past. In fact, the user in question who was cutoff from their library eventually regained access to it.

[hildea]

How do people feel about the rewrite Dahl did in 1973, when the Oompa Loompas where changed from a tribe of Black pygmies from Africa into light skinned people, after threats of boycott from NAACP?

I think that's a good change. The parallel to historic chattel slavery in the original is not great, to put it mildly.

I find it troubling that the Norwegian translations have kept the original version, where Wonka literally says that he has imported them from Africa! (The newest version I found online is from 2000, so it's possible it has been updated since then. That version has illustrations showing them as white, but text describing them as black, so that's probably a bit confusing for readers.)

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by olderTechnology

Nope. It's the fiery response which caused them to backtrack.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course. This Mobileread thread-full of righteous indignation single-handedly saved the classic versions for UK readers everywhere.

I'm pretty sure olderTechnology was not limiting the "fiery response" to posters at Mobileread.

[Pjama]

It’s great when companies can actually admit their mistakes - it happens so rarely.

[Pjama]

Originally Posted by hildea

How do people feel about the rewrite Dahl did in 1973, when the Oompa Loompas where changed from a tribe of Black pygmies from Africa into light skinned people, after threats of boycott from NAACP?

I think that's a good change. The parallel to historic chattel slavery in the original is not great, to put it mildly.

I find it troubling that the Norwegian translations have kept the original version, where Wonka literally says that he has imported them from Africa! (The newest version I found online is from 2000, so it's possible it has been updated since then. That version has illustrations showing them as white, but text describing them as black, so that's probably a bit confusing for readers.)

I also think that was a (very) necessary change. The author made this change - back in the late sixties or early seventies I believe. Not checking. I’ve had enough Roald Dahl for now! ah I see it was in your post! It’s hard to check before posting when I’m using my phone. Anyway - I agree it was a necessary change.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This is not entirely true. While there may be no "Appeal Decision" button that one can click, squeaky--and persistent--wheels have certainly gotten "our decision is final" decisions overturned in the past. In fact, the user in question who was cutoff from their library eventually regained access to it.

I meant no obvious appeal system. They are sensitive to media publicity. There have been many articles in the main UK newspapers of people being "cut off" without warning. The trigger for too many physical returns is opaque and it's possible to have a high rate due to junk. Amazon doesn't clearly differentiate the reason for a return in their decisions. In many countries they are legally obliged to repair, replace or refund for a year and for some products it's longer, if the product is not as advertised, not fit for purpose or manufacturer's defect.

the user in question who was cutoff from their library eventually regained access to it

Yes, a good ending, but was it an appeals procedure or media outrage? I don't remember.

It's not specifically Amazon. Online sellers seem to think local law doesn't apply. Digital River (an office in Ireland) even refused to accept that they were the retailer.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Pjama

I also think that was a (very) necessary change. The author made this change - back in the late sixties or early seventies I believe. Not checking. I’ve had enough Roald Dahl for now! ah I see it was in your post! It’s hard to check before posting when I’m using my phone. Anyway - I agree it was a necessary change.

I think the original book was 1963. But the author made the change before 1971, perhaps late 1960s. The first film was 1971 and it was the announcement of the film that prompted NAACP to object. Dahl agreed and changed them to white hippy-like people and deleted the African origin, though the film made them orange and small.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by hildea

How do people feel about the rewrite Dahl did in 1973, when the Oompa Loompas where changed from a tribe of Black pygmies from Africa into light skinned people, after threats of boycott from NAACP?

I have to be a little tentative, not having read the book to see if there are alternate interpretations of the original, other than the obvious -- but this sounds like a good change. And I have nothing against the author creating a second edition.

I do see some reason to respect the original author and, assuming they worked well together, the original editor. Dahl had enough of an imagination that if he had wanted rights-holders to modernize his books over time, he could have put that in his will. But he was so anti-television that I'm sure he would be against Netflix making changes.

Re today's Netflix/PRH capitulation, it will be interesting to see which version most libraries and book stores acquire in whatever markets there are both available. Look for another thread on this when those stats come out!

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course. This Mobileread thread-full of righteous indignation single-handedly saved the classic versions for UK readers everywhere.

Nobody said it was MobileRead but you.

PM Rishi Sunak, Salman Rushdie and Philip Pullman also argued against the changes.

[Karellen]

Seems the publishers have done a partial backflip on this issue...

Penguin to publish 'classic' Roald Dahl books alongside new editions after 'censorship' backlash

Publisher Penguin Random House has announced it will publish "classic" unaltered versions of Roald Dahl's children's novels after it received criticism for cuts and rewrites that were intended to make the books suitable for modern readers.

=Edit=
Oops, I see pjama already posted that info

[Pulpmeister]

Mmmm. I wonder how well Thomas Bowlder's versions of Shakespeare are selling today?

[Quoth]

So we know what Roald Dahl would have thought of Random-Penguin-Puffin:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nged-his-words

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Quoth

So we know what Roald Dahl would have thought of Random-Penguin-Puffin:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nged-his-words

Thanks for that link. I'm guessing the Enormous Crocodile is now roaming Penguin's halls.