Now to be edited to remove anything deemed ‘offensive’. I don’t really see what’s wrong with the originals to be honest
Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive
Augustus Gloop now ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, Mrs Twit no longer ‘ugly’ and Oompa Loompas are gender neutralamp.theguardian.com
Many years ago when people were moaning about this type of nonsense just getting out of control , people were told they were bigots and wrong ..
Now I'm just totally numb to it all .. it's all nonsense
Pathetic soft as shit society full of weirdos .. end of story
And it will continue to get worse and worse
Just to be clear, this was a desicion taken by the publishers, an idiotic one right enough, but it's their product they can do as they wish. I think they might regret this.
It's nonsense, in fact it's worse than that, its dangerous.
Even lefty wokey Brian Cox thinks it’s a new form of Macarthyism
I’d love to know if anyone on here supports this shite
I have my money on someone
I’m guessing only the people that will now go out and buy them. It’s just a nonsense.Even lefty wokey Brian Cox thinks it’s a new form of Macarthyism
I’d love to know if anyone on here supports this shite
We've reached a new low in being offended. When children's books written by one of Britain's favourite authors are effectively censored because they "offend" then what's next ?
A publisher voluntarily editing a new edition of a book in co-operation with the author’s estate (and getting roundly, rightly criticised for it) isn’t censorship.We've reached a new low in being offended. When children's books written by one of Britain's favourite authors are effectively censored because they "offend" then what's next ?
A publisher voluntarily editing a new edition of a book in co-operation with the author’s estate (and getting roundly, rightly criticised for it) isn’t censorship.
It is - I just think it’s maybe a bit hysterical to start writing off an entire generation over it.You're right, but it's still nonsense.
A publisher voluntarily editing his books ? Wow. How charitable of them .A publisher voluntarily editing a new edition of a book in co-operation with the author’s estate (and getting roundly, rightly criticised for it) isn’t censorship.
If you’re worried about this being a slippery slope towards a time when Shakespeare plays are routinely edited and updated, then I have some deeply upsetting news for you.Someone needs to go through Shakespeare and a host of other authors to try and find what will be huge chunks in order to remove/ censor/"update"
Victorians expurgated Malory of sex and violence. Think they were also responsible for Chaucer not being Chaucer, too. Authors themselves have edited their texts during their own lifetimes - Dahl himself removed some overly racist content, the Oompa Loompas were originally African pygmies, rescued to this country for their own good and made to work at Wonka's factory. Here's some of the context to that... which was done in the 1970s.It is - I just think it’s maybe a bit hysterical to start writing off an entire generation over it.
Victorians expurgated Malory of sex and violence. Think they were also responsible for Chaucer not being Chaucer, too. Authors themselves have edited their texts during their own lifetimes - Dahl himself removed some overly racist content, the Oompa Loompas were originally African pygmies, rescued to this country for their own good and made to work at Wonka's factory. Here's some of the context to that... which was done in the 1970s.
I find it slightly odd I get the mocking laugh emoji for stating a fact, that editing of texts has always happened for contemporary sensibilities - it has. I make no judgement about whether it should or not in that statement. FWIW my own view is that many of the edits are so inconsequential as to not be worth discussing. Some do change the meaning and are maybe heavy handed - and of course the point of Dahl has always been that he would challenge, write childrens books but not for children, allow the introduction of critical thinking rather than a safe, saccharine version of life... and that's why he was popular, so to remove that takes away some of that very essence - it ties into a debate about childrens' literature that's been going on not just for years, but centuries - what's appropriate for children to read.
But, it has always happened! Grimm fairy tales over the years have waxed and waned in their depiction of violence and misogyny after all!
Doesn't serve much purpose, but also not really worth discussing as it's so inconsequential as to be irrelevant. If you want to complain about some of the changes in the Witches however, and I'm with you all the way brother.Modern copies of Of Mice and Men still contain racist language, as do those of To Kill A Mockingbird. Both to reflect the contexts in which they were written.
Calling Augustus Gloop enormous instead of fat doesn’t serve much purpose.
I'm not worried at all, but we live in times when a hyper sensitive minority seem to dictate what I can or can't have access to read in Roald Dahl books.If you’re worried about this being a slippery slope towards a time when Shakespeare plays are routinely edited and updated, then I have some deeply upsetting news for you.
It's utterly ridiculous.Modern copies of Of Mice and Men still contain racist language, as do those of To Kill A Mockingbird. Both to reflect the contexts in which they were written.
Calling Augustus Gloop enormous instead of fat doesn’t serve much purpose.
I don’t think they’re running around burning old editions of Matilda, you’ll be perfectly able to read the version you want.I'm not worried at all, but we live in times when a hyper sensitive minority seem to dictate what I can or can't have access to read in Roald Dahl books.
I don't read Shakespeare because I find the language difficult, but I don't demand it to be rewritten in modern language to accommodate my lack of understanding. I accept it for what it is even though certain aspects of it may "offend"
..However, this may be a slippery slope to rewriting anything that refers to any gender, race etc.
The term " boy" or " girl" may offend someone on the planet so should it be removed from all aspects of our language ? No. It's not a perfect world. Live with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?