Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive

Fine. How about your favorite book or painting or piece of music or philosopher? Ok with those being changed? Be honest, please.

 

why wouldn't you change it?

 

The fact that this version of the book is intended specifically for kids is relevant. We censor content for children all the time.

Is your problem with releasing any version of the book that is censored, or the content that they chose to censor?

 

Yes the owners of the copyright can do that but for honesty purposes they should note that it has been edited / revised or even call it "based on the works of Roal Dahl".

From an artistic standpoint I think there is still value in maintaining some fidelity to the original even if it is unpalatable to current sensibilities. The most famous example is Huckleberry Finn as while the name of one of the main characters is very offensive to current ears that term was in wide use in Twain's time and rather than enforcing racial stereotypes that character was defying them. I think when just making changes like these the original intent of the author should be considered also understanding the time they were created. Huckleberry Finn as such isn't just a work of fiction but also a reflection of the time that it was created. Changing the name of a main character just because people find it offensive now removes it from it's original context.

In this case it doesn't sound like the changes will make much of the change in the overall message and themes and it's possible that Dahl if alive might've redone them. Since he's not alive though so changing them is no longer his original work. We don't know why he chose the words that he used and whether there was specific artistic intent to them. This ends up being more like how people in the 16th C. covered up the genitals of classic sculpture with fig leaves because the Church didnt want art that excited feelings of lust.

 

Criminal really? texts and languages change over time - I don't know or care that much about this particular context, I know Roald Dahl turned into a creepy antisemitic wierdo at some point, but IMO being upset about the alteration of Sacred Texts seems like it's on the "I'm BIG MAD about the black hobbits" continuum of argument.

There's different versions of Huck Finn that remove the N word - I don't mind that they both exist.

 

altering someone else's words is far more evil than banning them

but it's the m.o. of the left. Identify a beloved institution and infest it with your own ideology (i.e. Scooby Doo).

 

The primer.

As for the latter, who does it offend exactly that the Oompa Loompas are male? It's beside the point, but baffling to me.

 

Do you think John Coltrane played any notes with no specific artistic intent to them?

Isn't using words with intention kind of a writer's job? Don't you think if he wanted to write something different, he would have?

 

Do the best laid plans of mice and men "often go awry", or "gang aft agley"?

Because the authors original words are "gang aft agley". If you've ever said "often go awry", you've just altered the author's original words, and if its a hanging offense to alter the words of Roald Dahl, it certainly would be to alter the words of a luminary like Robert Burns.

 

Agree with the first part, but you may want to check up on your friends on the right when it comes to banning books.

 

Misquoting is not the issue at hand in this thread, though.

 

Its not misquoted. It has been intentionally, knowingly altered to make it more contextually comprehensable to people who speak English, but are not living on the Scottish Highlands in the 18th century.

 

I'm trying to find somewhere that confirms this official alteration, but having trouble.

 

My father is a painter and at one point he took some paintings he had done in the 70s and sorta 'remastered' them. Improved them, from his pov. I was pissed because these were his paintings that I'd been looking at every day for years. But his paintings, his ip, and he can decide. Different situation with Dahl because he's dead, but I can understand how it can be upsetting. But this edition is just a money-grab now. To experience Dahl's art, find a first edition.

You know, even the books of the bible got some little revisions when monks transcribed them. Why not Dahl?

 

We are seriously going to remove “female” and change it to “women” all because transgendered women are not female? We are not rewriting basic general terms because scientifically transgendered women are not female? What is wrong with using female when referring to the sex of someone and a broader term like woman to include transexuals?

 

These people today are sensitive
They make Kyrie look like Ivan Drago
@rocketsjudoka

 

Can you imagine if these woke grammar writers had to re write 90s rap songs?

 

Yes I do but writers and musicians do redo and alter their work. Ronald Dahl himself and Theodore Geisel did. Since Dahl is dead though we have no idea if he would’ve or not. I don’t think it’s wrong or evil to revise or edit those works as long as it’s acknowledged that it’s a revision and not the original work.

it would be like playing a John Coltrane piece.we frequently hear musicians play covers of other work and play them differently than the original. We have a whole thread about it Hangout that in many cases covers are better than the original. That’s fine as long as it’s acknowledged it’s a cover and not the original.

 

I don’t know about the Burns piece but I would put that down as more of a translation issue. Because languages aren’t exactly equivalent translation of works is almost always an alteration. It is literally an alteration of the words but also frequently an alteration of meaning as fine points of meaning are difficult to convey from one language to another.