Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[DNSB]

Realizing that we have collectively wasted a lot more words than the original item I read a while back and vaguely remember as being about 3 short paragraphs.

Anyone remember the name of story in which the main character made a purchase at the "Annual White Sale"?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

??

The post I quoted and replied to had you saying, and I paraphrase what I got out of it is this: most old books stay as they been published, maybe minor fixes related to misspelling or changed spelling over time, but some of the variety that get bad press from overreach are few. I am not a mind reader, so you can have meant that the bad press is justified, or that describing it as overreach is wrong.

From this thread alone:

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

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

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I really disliked Lucas' tinkering with the Star Wars movies and do dislike the bowdlerizing of the Dahl books.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

...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.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Authors should write what they want to write...

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Honestly, most old books that remain in print are not edited. Which is why it makes headlines when greedy rightsholders don't fully understand what they have and decide to edit them.

And, from my response to you in the other thread:

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Not to mention that the rewriting (which, to be clear, I do disagree with) is being done by the rights holders...

You don't need to be Miss Cleo to see what I am saying.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You don't need to be Miss Cleo to see what I am saying.

You are the one that vehemently tried to argue against my belief that altering a classic text is the same evil as banning an unaltered text. Both effectively take the original out of circulation. And you justified it, because the rightsholder has the right to do so? And yet, you personally object?

[hildea]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You are the one that vehemently tried to argue against my belief that altering a classic text is the same evil as banning an unaltered text. Both effectively take the original out of circulation. And you justified it, because the rightsholder has the right to do so? And yet, you personally object?

Huh? ZodWallop's stance is very clear.

I think stealing is wrong. I think killing is wrong. If someone says that stealing is the same as killing, I'll disagree strongly. That doesn't mean I think stealing is fine.

[JSWolf]

It's one thing for the author to make changes. It's another for others to make changes.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

Huh? ZodWallop's stance is very clear.

I think stealing is wrong. I think killing is wrong. If someone says that stealing is the same as killing, I'll disagree strongly. That doesn't mean I think stealing is fine.

Classifying one as stealing (Dahl) compared to murder (library ban) is the offense. The only difference here is that one has the legal right built in to take action directly, the other doesn't and needs to follow procedures to ask.

Take tax evasion as an example. If a cooperation does it, it is merely abusing legal loopholes versus an individual that is criminalized for it.

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

...
Take tax evasion as an example. If a cooperation does it, it is merely abusing legal loopholes versus an individual that is criminalized for it.

Slightly drifting off topic here but in the UK abusing legal loopholes but still staying within the law is tax avoidance and perfectly legal for both people and companies. Tax evasion is doing things outside of the law and is illegal for both.

Andrew

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You are the one that vehemently tried to argue against my belief that altering a classic text is the same evil as banning an unaltered text. Both effectively take the original out of circulation. And you justified it, because the rightsholder has the right to do so? And yet, you personally object?

Actually, yeah. I will do it again right now. Because you are conflating two very different things.

If a book is in copyright (as Roald Dahl's books are) then the copyright holder is within their rights to edit it to their heart's content. Do I think it sucks to monkey with already published works, especially classics such as the Dahl children's books? Yes I do. But are they within their rights to do so? Yes they are.

Should Tolkien have been prevented from altering The Hobbit in 1951 to bring it more in line with The Lord of the Rings?

Should And Then There Were None only be allowed to be published under its original title: Ten Little N--s?

Should Stephen King have not been allowed to update The Stand on its first paperback publication and then release a revised and expanded version twelve years later?

Should the Oompa-Loompas have remained African pygmies, shipped over when Wonka needed them?

While the book is in copyright, the rightsholders have the right to make whatever changes they see fit. The rightsholder would be the author, their heirs or whoever the author assigned the rights to. I don't have to like or agree with changes made to sell more copies. That doesn't enter in to it.

And once copyright expires, the original unedited version will fall in to the public domain and be available again.

Now book banning, that is a third party with absolutely no business stepping in between what the library thinks it should carry and what I should be allowed to borrow.

Book banning is a wholly different thing than some copyright holder making stupid decisions with work they likely didn't produce but were lucky enough to gain the rights to.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's one thing for the author to make changes. It's another for others to make changes.

But only if it is their choice and not being coerced ('we will drop you if you don't'...). I hate changes that are made just to satisfy the edit crowd.

I have purchased a number of books from authors after the rights reverted, and they put back or redid stuff that had been changed for the released print version.
(And some, just got their writing wind and, realize their early stuff was pretty weak. )

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by theducks

But only if it is their choice and not being coerced ('we will drop you if you don't'...).

I dunno man. That is called editing. There's too much involved to just bluntly say that.

The movie Clerks originally ended with the clerk, Dante, being shot. Smith removed the original ending after early complaints from critics. Smith called that a decision that saved his career.

I hate changes that are made just to satisfy the PC crowd.

At least in books, I don't think that happens much. The Dahl changes have been pretty roundly criticied from all sides. I haven't seen any serious defense of the changes.

I have purchased a number of books from authors after the rights reverted, and they put back or redid stuff that had been changed for the released print version.
(And some, just got their writing wind and, realize their early stuff was pretty weak. )

Yeah, I have a fantasy series called Stone Dance of the Chameleon where the authr took his old, OOP trilogy and rewrote it as seven slimmer books

David Wingrove did that with his Chung Kuo books as well.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Should Tolkien have been prevented from altering The Hobbit in 1951 to bring it more in line with The Lord of the Rings?

Should And Then There Were None only be allowed to be published under its original title: Ten Little N--s?

Should Stephen King have not been allowed to update The Stand on its first paperback publication and then release a revised and expanded version twelve years later?

Those changes were made by the authors or by their authorization. You can't make changes in the works of dead people and make them look like the originals.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Now book banning, that is a third party with absolutely no business stepping in between what the library thinks it should carry and what I should be allowed to borrow.

The libraries exist on the people's allowance, and the people should decide what kind of books they should carry. A school library, in addition, should be devoid of ideology of any kind.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Those changes were made by the authors or by their authorization. You can't make changes in the works of dead people and make them look like the originals.

Indeed you can. Check out the article linked to in post #1 for evidence.

Now, you might mean that you shouldn't make changes in the works of dead authors, and I would agree with you.

However, once the authors die, they can release their books to the public domain or allow their heirs or whatever group they gave their rights to to continue to make decisions after the author's death.

Again, I do not like it. But them's the breaks.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

The libraries exist on the people's allowance, and the people should decide what kind of books they should carry. A school library, in addition, should be devoid of ideology of any kind.

Sure. It just comes down to how many people are deciding for how many people? Should one complaint from a person who has not read any of the books be enough to remove 20+ books from a library? That is what is happening.

But for further book banning fun, you should probably go to the P&R section.

[issybird]

Sigh. Once "woke" was verboten, it didn't mean use a synonym. Please eschew all loaded political terms outside P&R.