Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[Quoth]

Another news source rather than the Daily Mail
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nsive-language

Also:
How does an author portray an obnoxious character with totally inoffensive language?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Another news source rather than the Daily Mail
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nsive-language

Also:
How does an author portray an obnoxious character with totally inoffensive language?

Another article from Yahoo

My opinion is if you don't like the language used, don't read. I know there are a lot of books out there that I won't read because of the language used. But I never once wanted any of those sorts of books to be edited.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Another news source rather than the Daily Mail
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...nsive-language

Also:
How does an author portray an obnoxious character with totally inoffensive language?

With mannerisms and actions that can't be attributed to an identifiable minority. eg, sneery smirk, contemptuous snarl, etc.

[ZodWallop]

So I've been wondering: For the people saying Netflix was the one pushing the revisions to Roald Dahl's books, though I have not seen compelling evidence it is so: If Netflix was the driver of this, why would only the British editions be edited? Netflix is an American company. Wouldn't it make sense to start with the editions here?

I still say, these revisions were pushed by the trust or whatever entity The Roald Dahl Story Company is and those changes were pushed on the local, UK editions of the books.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Quoth

How does an author portray an obnoxious character with totally inoffensive language?

Originally Posted by arjaybe

With mannerisms and actions that can't be attributed to an identifiable minority. eg, sneery smirk, contemptuous snarl, etc.

Exactly. Or even better, with their own words and actions. For instance:

Originally Posted by Code Name Verity by Elizabeth Wein

‘Let’s try this,’ the Hauptsturmführer said to me. ‘How could you be bribed?’ And I said I wanted my clothes back.
It seems petty, now. I am sure he was expecting my answer to be something defiant – ‘Give me Freedom’ or ‘Victory’ – or something generous, like ‘Stop toying with that wretched French Resistance laddie and give him a dignified and merciful death.’

Originally Posted by The Heiress Effect by Courtney Milan

The marquess leaned back in his seat. “I want her to know her place. Humiliate her. Hurt her. Teach her her lesson. You know how it’s done; it took you long enough to learn yours.”

Originally Posted by The Magpie Lord by KJ Charles

“The fact is, we all of us have our place in life. Some of us are the nobility, some are the people. The people exist for the nobility. They are—”
“Cattle?”
“Yes. Cattle. The cattle that you farm for rents now, the cattle that you farmed for your trading. The mass of tedious, unimportant little lives, who are there to be of use to those of us who are above the herd. You and I know that is the truth, Lord Crane, I trust you won’t pretend to be sentimental.”

[Tarana]

14 James Bond books by Ian Flemming to be rewritten as well.

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/rew...-is-the-point/

[Hollow Man]

They can go and try to "edit" Huckleberry Finn, and see how that goes over.

We're only a small step away from outright banning this stuff.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

They can go and try to "edit" Huckleberry Finn, and see how that goes over.

We're only a small step away from outright banning this stuff.

AFAIK it has been banned already in some places in the USA.

Also "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Maus. https://www.rte.ie/culture/2022/0208...om-us-schools/

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by hildea

Exactly. Or even better, with their own words and actions. For instance:

I doubt the people at PETA would find the KJ Charles quote to be inoffensive. Seems pretty specist to me.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I doubt the people at PETA would find the KJ Charles quote to be inoffensive. Seems pretty specist to me.

But it is the character being offensive, not a description of the character, which I think is hildea's point.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

But it is the character being offensive, not a description of the character, which I think is hildea's point.

That feels like a distinction without a difference.

Maybe I'm missing something. But to be safe, what I will do is continue to remember that some books were written at different times by people who thought differently than I did and while words will never hurt me, if I am bothered I can always read something else instead of demanding a book be rewritten to meet my impossibly high standards.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

They can go and try to "edit" Huckleberry Finn, and see how that goes over.

We're only a small step away from outright banning this stuff.

Catch the original quick.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76

My youngest son thinks I should download all of Gutenberg in case they catch the madness.

Gutenberg explains how to download lots or mirror all

Contents
How to Get All Ebook Files
How to Get Certain Ebook Files
How to Mirror Project Gutenberg
How to Get Catalog Data

https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/robot_access.html

[hildea]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That feels like a distinction without a difference.

The character who is using "cattle" as a shorthand for beings which exist to be exploited is portrayed as a very bad person, as shown in the quote. So someone who thinks it's immoral to exploit cattle shouldn't have any reason to object to that passage.

The second quote portrays an English nobleman as a very bad person, but there are several English nobles in the book who are not terrible people.

However, I'll concede that the first book might not fit Quoth's criteria. The Hauptsturmführer is portrayed as a bad person not just as an individual but because he is a Nazi, and is working for a Nazi organization. And there are no good Nazis in the book to offset the bad Nazis. So Nazis would have reason to find that description offensive.

I would hope most authors and publishers would be fine with offending Nazis, of course.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by hildea

I would hope most authors and publishers would be fine with offending Nazis, of course.

Though I'd rather be anonymous when offending neo-Nazis in particular or fascists in general. Or some of the gun, bomb, electric drill, baseball bat, and petrol wielding bigots on this Island, on the extremes of both "sides".
I lost a job once through a bigot giving a false reference. Oddly not the Republican-Nationalist-Unaligned-Unionist bigotry, but he convinced himself that I'm Jewish. Not even a remote connection in my family or the wife.

[Ned]

It gets me that people choose to be offended (and it is a choice) then want the world changed to fit in with their newly offended views.
And of course they want history rewritten to pretend that their newly offended views are the only valid ones.

In my day, people including academics had lots of different opinions and felt free to air them all without the threat of losing their job or being attacked by a howling mob.
It was acknowledged that there is no one right version of anything, whereas today absurdities are promulgated and justified as being the only truth by force.
Currently, feeling trumps reason, and feeling is so easy to inflame for those wanting to do it.

PS if this post is deemed offensive, please remove it and I shall not be offended.