Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive

The current books of Biblehas been heavily altered since the original. besides just translating them from Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic we don’t have actual original source material to know for sure what was written by the original authors.

The Old Testament is originally from oral traditions passed down over centuries so there is now way of knowing what was the original sources of those.

 

Salman Rushdie calls revisions to Roald Dahl books ‘absurd censorship’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/02/19/roald-dahl-books-revisions-salman-rushdie/

excerpt:

LONDON — A decision to change hundreds of words in Roald Dahl’s children’s books has drawn condemnation from author Salman Rushdie, who called it “absurd censorship.”

His is the latest prominent voice in the heated debate sparked after a report Friday in Britain’s Telegraph detailed a litany of changes by Dahl’s publisher and the Roald Dahl Story Co., which manages the works’ copyright and trademarks, that were designed to make the famous books more inclusive and accessible for today’s readers.

“Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship,” Rushdie, a Booker Prize-winning author, wrote on Twitter, calling out the children’s imprint of the British publisher Penguin Books. “Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”

Rushdie is one of the most famous authors in the world. His novel “The Satanic Verses” prompted Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 to issue a religious decree calling for Muslims anywhere in the world to assassinate Rushdie and anyone else involved in the publication of the book.

In August, Rushdie was stabbed multiple times by an assailant at an event in Chautauqua, N.Y. He survived, and his latest novel was published this month.
​

more at the link

​

 

I'm not at all mad about Black Hobbits. Changing text is censorship. Authors can spend immense time and effort creating a rhythm and way the words flow. The writers craft should stand the way the writer crafted it. It is an offense to change it.

Good or bad it the writer's creation, not for someone else to put their own writing in it's place.

Movies and streaming series are there own creation. Nothing is changed by having fantasy beings having different skin shades than what was previously imagined.

 

Yeah, dude sure, that's about as good a definition of censorship as Elon Musk defining free speech.

A copyright holder authorizing new edition of work is not remotely the same as a government censoring something, whether that government is a Roman magistrate or Ron DeSantis threatening people with jail time for having a Wilma Rudolph book.

I mean i guess you have a problem with copyright and dead hand control and such, fair enough, but the more freedomy approach is actually even less copyright protection - which makes editing and new editions - what you call" censorship" even more likely

 

I'm not saying the people that have control aren't legally entitled to make changes. I'm saying it is the wrong decision. They can profit or sell the rights for entertainment, but restricting changing the actual text is where the problem exists.

I have no problem adding an introduction explaining the time it was written, or what they "believe" the author's feelings would be on the subject. Or even just what they feel is correct now. But it is wrong to alter another person's craft without their approval or input.

 

My favorite books are the Harry Potter series, which feature a number of changes from their original British text.

A number of my favorite songs have radio edits.

So yes.

 

I don't see a need. They aren't very offensive.

 

I loved reading Dahl books as a kid. The prose was part of the magic. Seeing this is disappointing in terms of my childhood memories. I get part of that relied upon visceral dislike of extremely disfigured people, which might not reflect their true inner nature in real life. You don't really care about details as a kid,

In some sense, the books got Disneyfied, and I would be perfectly fine if they printed both versions much like how one can find the original Grimm material for anyone with access to google.

Copyright expiration for the win.

 

The Censorship Of Roald Dahl Shows The Left’s ‘Book Banning’ Accusations Are Utterly Disingenuous
The same people who say it’s OK to expose young children to sexually explicit material also think kids’ books need to be censored to stop calling people ‘fat’?

https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/21/the-censorship-of-roald-dahl-shows-the-lefts-book-banning-accusations-are-utterly-disingenuous/

excerpt:

This battle has been drawn largely along partisan lines, and by now it’s pretty clear the left is being duplicitous. Let me see if I have this straight. A parent who complains about drawings of underage kids performing oral sex in “Gender Queer” — a graphic novel that liberal politicians and the media have gone to the mat to defend, including in school libraries — is a censorious bigot. But when a corporation such as Netflix, prompted by the publishing industry’s well-compensated legions of “sensitivity readers,” decides to posthumously edit one of the most beloved children’s authors of all time because every right-thinking person knows inchoate minds shouldn’t get the idea to describe people as “fat” — well, that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do to protect kids.
​

more at the link

 

This is less a matter of rights as certainly a copyright holder can do what they want with their IP. It’s an artistic discussion about how much fealty to the original art. I made the argument that I didn’t think just recasting elves and hobbits for racial reasons added anything to Tolkien’s and went against how Tolkien actually wrote about what they looked like. Thst didn’t mean that Amazon couldn’t do it but that is the difference between saying something is “based off of” versus the original source material.

In this case I would say the changes don’t aren’t add much artistically ( although hippie Oompa Loompas sounds like an interesting direction). They can do it but they should then acknowledge that this isn’t Dahl’s original work and is a revised edition.

 

I can’t speak for the Left but I think we should keep Dahl original works and also still have books like “Beloved” with descriptions of sex in school book shelves and reading lists.

Somehow I get the feeling that many on the Right wouldn’t agree to that.

 

If Augustus Gloop Can’t Be ‘Fat,’ What’s The Point Of Roald Dahl’s Kids’ Books?

https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/22/if-augustus-gloop-cant-be-fat-whats-the-point-of-roald-dahls-kids-books/

 

New Coke bad. Get your classic Coke while it's hot!

 

Both sides are full of ****.

 

If I am an executive of some publishing company and my goal is to maximize profits, I'm going to start inserting a couple of censors into some of the books we would own the rights to to increase engagement and therefore increase sales. Worked for Dr. Suess books.

 

Man people better not start changing Mark Twain!!!! Oh wait. They did almost 20 years ago. Go find me a currently printed copy of what Jim was called in the original story. I'll wait.

 

Funny how capitalists are b****ing about capitalism right?