Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[SomeSteve]

Originally Posted by gmw

I keep wondering if you have a different sort of apple pie than we do ... or maybe it's the cheese. I know McDonald's have something they call an apple pie that I would not have recognised as such, but I can't quite imagine cheddar cheese on that either.

A restaurant famous for its pies used to have printed on its napkins (and perhaps does to this day, if it still exists):

"Apple pie without cheese is like a kiss without a squeeze."

In our house, though, when I was growing up, we never ate cheese of any variety with pie of any variety. We'd never heard of such a thing. Vanilla ice cream, yes; cheese, no. And lo, these many years later, I have yet to so much as see a piece of cheese hobnobbing with a slice of pie.

And now if I may be so bold as to return to the subject of this thread:

My policy is, if it says Author XYZ on the outside, I want and expect Author XYZ on the inside. I want to know what Author XYZ wrote, pure and unfalsified, unfiltered and unchanged and uncut, and not what some officious committee or sensitivity reader, years after the fact, without the author's knowledge or consent, deems correct and proper and inoffensive to modern sensibilities. If an author or one of the author's characters perceived things in a certain way, or described things in a certain way, be it offensive to some or not, that's what I want to read. I find it presumptuous for someone who is, after all, just another person, to appoint themselves a kind of guardian of public morals or chief of language police who decides what's acceptable for everyone else, or what people nowadays can endure or ought to be exposed to. After all, if people don't like what an author writes, or how an author writes, they can lay the book aside and read one by somebody else. There seem to be enough out there.

It's such meddling that has made the term "do-gooder" not one of praise but of opprobrium.

Truth in advertising should dictate that any "sanitized" editions be clearly and prominently labelled as such, not just on the copyright page, but on the front and back covers and the title page. And you would think it goes without saying that sanitized editions should not automatically be substituted for the originals.

[Luffy]

Maybe I should start a thread about nonveg food. That would most certainly lead to a nice discussion about Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SomeSteve

I want to know what Author XYZ wrote, pure and unfalsified, unfiltered and unchanged and uncut

I'm pretty sure you mean "what Author XYZ published..." They are called rough drafts for a reason.

and not what some officious committee or sensitivity reader, years after the fact, without the author's knowledge or consent, deems correct and proper and inoffensive to modern sensibilities. If an author or one of the author's characters perceived things in a certain way, or described things in a certain way, be it offensive to some or not, that's what I want to read. I find it presumptuous for someone who is, after all, just another person, to appoint themselves a kind of guardian of public morals or chief of language police who decides what's acceptable for everyone else, or what people nowadays can endure or ought to be exposed to. After all, if people don't like what an author writes, or how an author writes, they can lay the book aside and read one by somebody else. There seem to be enough out there.

It's such meddling that has made the term "do-gooder" not one of praise but of opprobrium.

And again, it is the author's representatives/agents/rightholders that are making these changes. Not "some officious committee or sensitivity reader" or "do-gooder" (unless such committtee/sensitivity reader was hired by the rightsholders). This is about money, not pressure from wome woke mob.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And again, it is the author's representatives/agents/rightholders that are making these changes. Not "some officious committee or sensitivity reader" or "do-gooder" (unless such committtee/sensitivity reader was hired by the rightsholders). This is about money, not pressure from wome some woke mob.

Keep telling yourself that. It is all the woke mob's fault. Without it there wouldn't be any need to alter and nicefy history. An author changed and got assimilated into the woke mob? Fine, that is their choice, then they can start writing books differently. Now changing old books for a quick buck by brownnosing? The need to apologize that you were not always nice? That mob got ypu thinking that you should be guilty for the past, the past you cannot normally change. Get over it, start writing nice.

[Hollow Man]

I'm re-reading Of Mice and Men right now, and the fact is if they're changing Christie, changing things like Steinbeck aren't far behind. And that will destroy the book.

[Luffy]

Changing books is not useful. My instinct does say that banning some flags and bringing down some statues is correct. But books shouldn't even be rewritten by their authors, unless your name is Tolkien.

There are countless of instances of misogyny throughout Victorian novels. If these haven't been changed in PD (AFAIK), then I think the censoring publishers are at fault and have the wrong idea.

EDIT : Sorry for mentioning political stuff.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

I'm re-reading Of Mice and Men right now, and the fact is if they're changing Christie, changing things like Steinbeck aren't far behind. And that will destroy the book.

Steinbeck did a far doubtful thing than whatever in Of Mice and Men. Travels With Charley is a memoir that he seemed to have pulled out of thin air from his home, according to his own son.

[issybird]

Moderator Notice
Let's not use "woke mob" or "woke", even ironically, anywhere outside P&R. Thanks.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

I'm re-reading Of Mice and Men right now, and the fact is if they're changing Christie, changing things like Steinbeck aren't far behind. And that will destroy the book.

Steinbeck is not going to be changed until his books fall into the public domain.

Some posters here like to look down their noses at literary fiction. But man, you won't see bowdlerized versions of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, etc.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Keep telling yourself that. It is all the EDIT mob's fault. Without it there wouldn't be any need to alter and nicefy history.

All I can say is that there are many, many, MANY other old, problematic books, still available, still under copyright, that are not being rewritten. Gone With the Wind as an obvious example, is still available and untouched.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

All I can say is that there are many, many, MANY other old, problematic books, still available, still under copyright, that are not being rewritten. Gone With the Wind as an obvious example, is still available and untouched.

That book can never satisfy to the modernized standards without completely rewriting it, so any attempt is a lost cause. The language is the least problem, if you want to call it a problem. You cannot change the main reason (slavery) for the Civil War depicted in the book without losing the whole book.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That book can never satisfy to the modernized standards without completely rewriting it, so any attempt is a lost cause. The language is the least problem, if you want to call it a problem. You cannot change the main reason (slavery) for the Civil War depicted in the book without losing the whole book.

And the other books that remain unedited?

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.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And the other books that remain unedited?

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.

So we are both in agreement that changing books is not such a splendid idea? I thought you were all for it. Will it be necessary to teach how to read old books? Yes. That is nothing new. Take Shakespeare's plays. You cannot translate them. To understand their meaning at all you need more than read them. They need to be studied and analyzed to fully understand. I am hoping that eventually the same will happen with newer books.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by gmw

I keep wondering if you have a different sort of apple pie than we do ... or maybe it's the cheese. I know McDonald's have something they call an apple pie that I would not have recognised as such, but I can't quite imagine cheddar cheese on that either. It may be relevant that I'm not a big fan of cheddar cheese unless it's well matured.

It's the way my mother always served it so perhaps it's a Canadian thing. Or a Québécois thing?

Ummm... Nope, it traces back to England and is evidently quite popular in the New England area of the US.

Why Cheddar Cheese and Apple Pie Go Together So Well

A nice medium cheddar works best. The old/mature cheddars tend to overpower the apple pie itself.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That book can never satisfy to the modernized standards without completely rewriting it, so any attempt is a lost cause. The language is the least problem, if you want to call it a problem. You cannot change the main reason (slavery) for the Civil War depicted in the book without losing the whole book.

I ran into one item that caused me a bit of a laugh. There was a group trying to raise money for a remake of Gone With The Wind but they ran into the issue that they would not be allowed to have even a small majority of the slaves played by persons of African descent. Much like The Bridgertons where one friend of mine from England commented on the lack of historical accuracy in the racial mix in the ballrooms.