Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Ned

...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.

As a long time supporter of the ACLU, I was proud of the Skokie case, even though what they were defending was abominable. Sadly, I don't think the ACLU would do that today. I still support them, but they aren't the free speech absolutists they used to be.

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

As a long time supporter of the ACLU, I was proud of the Skokie case, even though what they were defending was abominable. Sadly, I don't think the ACLU would do that today. I still support them, but they aren't the free speech absolutists they used to be.

It's all very well being a free speech absolutist but what if that speech is calling for your death? And might turn into action?

Not to mention the old 'yelling fire in a theatre' example.

Andrew

Edit: Oops. This isn't P&R so is probably the wrong place.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

It's all very well being a free speech absolutist but what if that speech is calling for your death? And might turn into action?

Not to mention the old 'yelling fire in a theatre' example.

Yeah, after I wrote that I realized absolutist wasn't the right word for what the ACLU used to be.

Edit: Oops. This isn't P&R so is probably the wrong place.

Yeah, I'll let it lie as well.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by 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.

You're overreacting. Histrionics are unhelpful and often inflame feelings. Of course it goes without saying that I'm not offended and it should be equally clear that I have no intention of being offensive.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

Ned and JSWolf (and probably others): You are writing as if these changes are happening after demands from readers, but that's not what's happening here. I've never heard of any old works being rewritten/edited because of such demands. Dahl, Christie, Flemming, Seuss (and in Nordic countries: Lindgren and Egner) -- it's always the publisher who makes the choice. And they are doing it because they are worried about readers who feel like JSWolf.

Imagine owning the right to Christie's books. You invest in updated, modern cover art and an advertisement campaign, and are ready to introduce a new generation of readers to the Queen of Crime. You want people to enjoy the first book they read and buy another. You do not want them to wince at "oriental" and n-word and "Indian temper" and "disgusting eyes and noses", abandon the book thinking "ugh, that didn't age well", and never buying another.

Like arjaybe wrote a couple of pages back, this is a commercial decision. That doesn't mean it can't be criticized, of course, I'm all for demanding that businesses act ethically even if that would hurt their profits. But don't act as if these changes are caused by grass root pressure.

Originally Posted by Ned

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.

Are you sure about that? I strongly suspect that people with unpopular opinions have been silenced in both academia and elsewhere forever, but we (mostly) don't hear about it because they were silenced. What's changed is that now it's easier to get your story out.

[Ned]

Originally Posted by hildea

You want people to enjoy the first book they read and buy another. You do not want them to wince at "oriental" and n-word and "Indian temper" and "disgusting eyes and noses",

Says it all that we have nowadays to say 'the n word' instead of (no I daren't say it.) Shield everyone from words that they have been conditioned to think are in some way nasty, words to wince at and I dare not say a word which was quite normal fifty years ago. It's all mass conditioning.

Does this mean our current attitude to permitted words is 'right'?
Things change and trying to airbrush history doesn't work.
A tiny but brutal minority has somehow made it unacceptable to use words they have chosen as offensive and the herd goes along with it.

I, and any rational person, can happily read books containing any words you like without wincing. They were at the time used with no malice and to ban them because they upset modern learned sensibilities is barmy.
Have you noticed how these learned sensitivities/sensibilities change with the wind. Some pressure group gets upset at the latest set of words they allow and bans one or two more?

Anyway, I'll say no more.
Please remove this Issy if it's not appropriate here.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Ned

Says it all that we have nowadays to say 'the n word' instead of (no I daren't say it.) Shield everyone from words that they have been conditioned to think are in some way nasty, words to wince at and I dare not say a word which was quite normal fifty years ago. It's all mass conditioning.

Does this mean our current attitude to permitted words is 'right'?
Things change and trying to airbrush history doesn't work.
A tiny but brutal minority has somehow made it unacceptable to use words they have chosen as offensive and the herd goes along with it.

I, and any rational person, can happily read books containing any words you like without wincing. They were at the time used with no malice and to ban them because they upset modern learned sensibilities is barmy.
Have you noticed how these learned sensitivities/sensibilities change with the wind. Some pressure group gets upset at the latest set of words they allow and bans one or two more?

Anyway, I'll say no more.
Please remove this Issy if it's not appropriate here.

You know, you could just try being polite and considerate of the people that word denigrates. Wouldn't be that hard, would it?

[issybird]

Let's move on from discussions of particular words. Thanks.

[SteveEisenberg]

Especially considering it isn't just Dahl, but also Dr. Suess, and Ian Fleming, and now Agatha Christie, I'm wondering if there are copyright implications, or (if I can say this without sounds paranoid) motivations.

In the U.S., books from the era in question are generally subject to a 95 year copyright period. Because of that, in January, one or two Agatha Christie books usually pass into U.S. public domain. Do the changes discussed here reset that clock? And in Life + 70 countries, should the lead on the team which made the book more sensitive to modern ears AKA bowdlerized be a co-author resetting that clock?

I can see there being two versions soon, the free one based on the original and the copyrighted version purchased by schools and sensitive souls.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm wondering if there are copyright implications, or (if I can say this without sounds paranoid) motivations.

Interesting question, but I wouldn't think it so. New editions may be protected by copyright, but there's nothing preventing anyone from making their own versions of a book that's in the public domain, adding or removing modern spelling, racism, zombies, or whatever they prefer.

Some other explanations for why we see more news stories about new editions of novels now:

• This kind of edits is nothing new, what's new is that there's a lot more discussion about them. (Does anyone know if there were much controversy in the 70s, when the Umpa Lumpas were changed from Black people imported from Africa to white people imported from a fantasy land?)
• The publishers are getting more greedy, and prefer to republish old books with a minimum of effort instead of building up new authors whose works need more editing to be publishable.
• As time passes, both the amount of old books and changes in social norms increase. Thus, the amount of old books which can be profitably sold to new readers, but which are out of step with current norms, increase.

[Kindleing]

Originally Posted by hildea

(Does anyone know if there were much controversy in the 70s, when the Umpa Lumpas were changed from Black people imported from Africa to white people imported from a fantasy land?)

I don't know, but probably any discussion was limited to literary magazines, big city Sunday newspaper book sections, book club newsletters or such. Since there was no Internet at that time things didn't go "viral" like they do now.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by hildea

there's nothing preventing anyone from making their own versions of a book that's in the public domain, adding or removing modern spelling, racism, zombies, or whatever they prefer.

But you cannot pass the modified work as the original, as it is in this case, the author's rights prevent it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I can see there being two versions soon, the free one based on the original and the copyrighted version purchased by schools and sensitive souls.

Yes. That is what happens with translated works. The version of War and Peace translated by Constance Garnett in 1904 is public domain. The version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky in 2007 is not.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by hildea

• The publishers are getting more greedy, and prefer to republish old books with a minimum of effort instead of building up new authors whose works need more editing to be publishable.

I like slagging on publishers as much as the next guy, but I don't find the above to be true. Over time, visits to Barnes and Noble show me fewer and fewer works by authors I grew up reading. They are gradually replaced by newer authors I am unfamiliar with.

Ebooks can help keep older things available. But it is untrue that newer authors aren't being published because the big 5 are too focused on the old guard.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Especially considering it isn't just Dahl, but also Dr. Suess, and Ian Fleming, and now Agatha Christie, I'm wondering if there are copyright implications, or (if I can say this without sounds paranoid) motivations.

I don't know that there are copyright motivations, in the paranoid way you were implying. But I do think these bowdlerizations are a curious offshoot of our ludicrously extended copyright terms. There would be no need for these bowdlerized versions if the works had fallen into the public domain like they should have.

There are edited (and completely rewritten) versions of Huckleberry Finn and The Wizard of Oz and so forth and nobody cares. Because the books are in the public domain and are widely and easily available.