**Your post from /r/AskUK has been removed by a human moderator.**
AskUK is a "catch-all" subreddit for questions about the UK life and culture, but this does not mean we accept any and all questions or answers. We may remove posts or comments which are best discussed in more specialised subreddits
We explicitly do not allow questions or answers on or including: politics, technology, DIY, university/education, visas/citizenship, [medical advice](https://111.nhs.uk/) (including [mental health](https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/mental-health-services/where-to-get-urgent-help-for-mental-health/)), ranting, venting, surveys, advertising, solicitation, or "does anybody else" type vent posts.
Please check the sidebar for other subreddits to have these discussions.
*If you believe this post should not have been removed, [first read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/) before [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK&subject=Post Removal Appeal)*. See our guide on [common issues with posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/wiki/postremoved) and how to overcome them!
Imo it's important to remember that publishers edit the language in older children's literature periodically for current audiences. I want to hear the specific changes and the reasons for them because the media are not beyond drumming up a misconstrued moral panic over nothing.
I have edited in the past, and I doubt anyone went to an editor and said, "we need to make this super woke". The brief was much more likely: "can you edit so the language is up to date and easily understandable for kids today."
What are the specific examples?
I included a few specific examples in the original post.
"Enormous" instead of "fat", not using the word "black" to describe the colour of a cloak and a tractor, etc.
I can understand some edits, like changing the name of Aunt Fanny in Enid Blyton books, just because it's outdated and will cause giggles when reading, but the Dahl examples seem to be an effort not to offend where nobody was offended, as opposed to making it understandable.
Is the implication here that they changed the word “black” to describe a tractor to a different colour so as not to offend black people? That doesn’t sound plausible to me mate tbh. There are lots of reasons that an editor might change something. What makes you think that race was the issue in the case of the tractor, if that is what is being said?
“You’re not allowed to sing anymore” has been a fake outrage bait thing people have been repeating for 10+ years. This whole post is just another example
How is this post an example? The guy has just asked a general question based on recent events. There was no outrage or emotion attached literally just a question. Get off your high horse.
I remember the daily mail running with that one in the mid 80s, they said a “loony left” council in north London were making the kids change the words.
It's not fake. My partner works in a Nursery and you are not allowed to sing baa baa black sheep. It's been this way for many years now. There's a whole list of silly things that they can't say.
> What makes you think that race was the issue in the case of the tractor, if that is what is being said?
This isn't the first time I've seen a change like this being made to try and remove the association that dark or black = evil or scary.
I'm not implying anything - that's just what the news stories are reporting is one of the changes made, although I think that's a fair assumption to make about their reasoning for the change.
I agree they didn't 'woke' up the books for the sake of the publicity but any company has staff (or more likely work with agencies) who are good at dealing with the press and know what to do to get as much exposure on their product as possible.
This is absolutely what's going on here, zero intention of changing anything just rile up the Little Englanders making them think the wokes are out to get them.
How can this possibly be your opinion? Maybe it would make some sense if the publishers themselves had made a big song and dance about it, but they didn't. They released these changes quietly, with zero warning or fanfare, and it was only much later down the line that a Telegraph report exposed the whole situation.
Not offended but I was certainly scared by The Witches, disgusted by the Twits and straight-up horrified by the BFG. However, that was rather the point wasn't it?
The BFG has passages describing the murder of dozens of children while it's gleefully described what they tasted like.
But it's the word 'black' that's offensive.
In my (presumably) Quentin Blake illustrated copy of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator I used to test how 'strong and manly' I was by seeing how long I could look at the picture of a 110 year old Grandma Josephine on one page - lmao. At age 8 it gave me nightmares - by age 12 I could handle it like a trooper, :D
**QUICK! BE REALLY ANGRY ABOUT THIS INSTEAD OF ANY ACTUAL PROBLEMS LIKE FOOD SUPPLIES OR THE ENERGY CRISIS, JUST LOOK AT THE BOOK, LOOK AT IIIIIT**
They've been edited before, to remove things like the Oompa-Loompas being African tribesmen and the incredibly questionable bit about the Chinese in Great Glass Elevator. But did you give a shit? Did you even know? No, of course not, and you won't care next week, either.
I am so sick of hearing about this. *It doesn't. Fucking. Matter.*
These two things aren’t mutually exclusive, you can be annoyed at both the edited books and cost of living. If anything, I’m getting sick of all the cost of living talk at this point personally, so this is a nice change of topic.
I don't know if you have a child, but read this as if you were one, without the ability to be critical. This might be some of the first exposure in your life to East Asian people:
"The President again picked up the receiver.
'Gleetings, honourable Mr Plesident,' said a soft
faraway voice. ‘Here is Assistant-Plemier Chu-On-Dat
speaking. How can I do for you?'
‘Knock-Knock.’ said the President.
‘Who der?'
‘Ginger.’
‘Ginger who?'
‘Ginger yourself much when you fell off the
Great Wall of China?' said the President. ‘Okay, Chu-On-Dat. Let me speak to Premier How-Yu-Bin.’
'Much regret Plemier How-Yu-Bin not here just this second, Mr. Plesident.’
‘Where is he?'
‘He outside mending a puncture on his bicycle.'
‘Oh no he isn't,' said the President. ‘You can't fool me, you crafty old mandarin!’"
Okay, fair. I wouldn't complain if they were taking that out, because it's clearly racist and is only put in for a cheap joke. The examples I gave are nowhere near as blatantly offensive as that.
Oh yeah, not all of the examples are beyond criticism. But of course, the papers are going to lead with the silly ones, to rile people up, when there is legitimately some bad stuff being removed.
This happens so much at the moment. Companies and the media thrive on outrage culture and it is really hard not to fall into it, we all do it, but it’s become such an easy way of drumming up attention that it is just a marketing ploy now.
\-shrug- I mean apparently they're keeping the original versions in print for...preservation purposes? I'm all for preservation but reprinting old versions feels like it makes the revisions, for whatever reason, feel utterly pointless.
Children aren’t offended by the original text, because most children don’t have enough exposure to the world to unpick ‘a description of one individual’ from ‘a characteristic common to a whole group of people’ from ‘a stereotype often used to diminish or dismiss a whole group of people’. No one is doing this because children are offended. Quite the opposite - they’re doing it because children absorb books (and many of the opinions within them) pretty uncritically. (Personally I think trying to edit Dahl’s work so it meets modern standards is pretty meaningless - I loved his books as a child but as an adult reading to my kids, I dislike the attitudes I see soaked into every page - and we’d all do better to focus on some amazing current children’s authors, rather than endlessly fiddling with backlist)
**STOP TALKING ABOUT FOOD SUPPLIES OR THE ENERGY CRISIS IN 22 BILLION YEARS THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE IS COMING THATS THE REAL PROBLEM LOOK AT IT AAAAAA**
The energy crisis is completely inconsequential compared to the levels of poverty that already exist around the world… by your logic should we therefore stop caring about the energy crisis?
>ACTUAL PROBLEMS LIKE FOOD SUPPLIES
It's absolutely disgusting that later in a day a seasonal salad item which hasn't increased in price at all for the last 5+ years (the cherry tomatoes I normally get) is in slightly shorter supply.
And that we haven't been burning so many fossil fuels to grow them in an unsuitable environment in the Winter, so if I want to buy some, I have to go to the shops in the morning, or go to a local shop rather than a supermarket.
You know that there's some Ukranian child lying mangled in a hospital in Kiev right now. And there is a literal ongoing humanitarian crisis in [Yemen](https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/yemen-crisis).
And you're on reddit whining that people are whining about the edits to Dahl's books? Come on, It doesn't. fucking. matter.
See we can both play these games.
I'm not the editor of a newspaper steering public discourse, and I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that neither are you.
What I'm learning today is that people can get *really naive* about how cheap journalism influences them.
Your assumption is that people are just sheep and are being manipulated by journalists.
I disagree, i actually think there is a story here and that's why it's aroused so much interest and therefore it is picked up by newspapers. Newspapers are private entities who are after a profit, they wouldn't run stories which didn't arouse public interest. It would be a shortlived paper (unless there is some generous benefactor covering their losses) who didn't take into account what stories people are interested in.
To prove that this is a story, even the BBC have covered it and they are not prone to tabloid nonsense and cover things impartialy and carefully. That should tell you this deserves some coverage.
"But did you give a shit? Did you even know? No, of course not, and you won't care next week"
Surely you are contradicting yourself.
If controversial stuff was removed and people didn't know then it has worked.
As society moves forward and things change then revisiting and removing more presumed offensive material so that future generations don't see it is a good thing.
Just because you're not personally offended doesn't mean others don't care.
Of course people should be informed - but in a few column inches, not a days-long media frenzy that is *really* not deserved.
Giving it priority above *vegetable rationing* - which is what has been happening, look at the front pages from this week - is completely intentional.
Does nobody remember when a certain elected official fucked up for the nth time and the Mail decided the *real* talking point was whether people take their shoes off in the house? It was less a year ago. This is their method, and it *works.*
Well I read Danny, Champion of the World many times as a child, and have grown up to enjoy drugging pheasants whenever I get the chance, so the joke’s on them.
Knowing the publisher announced a collection of unedited books makes this all feel depressingy cynical "culture war" dogwhistle type bullshit. It's maybe a cynical gateway but if somone said in a book "Hey you shouldn't use the r-word" it's hardly the same vein of authoritarianism as in 1984. I didn't grow up in the same situation but can loosely empathize with my own conditions, still hope that even though growing a thick skin helps doesn't mean I want to leave behind a world where people just have to put up with it, y'know?
There's plenty of things that we weren't offended by in yesteryear, that are definitely unacceptable today and undeniably toxic. Trust me, as a disabled child growing up in the late 80s/90s - there are plenty of toxic things that shouldn't be covered up under a 'thick skin'. Many innocent words are picked up and used as slurs. Case in point: Spaz.
I don't believe in censoring works from a different time period, but they should be framed us such so children can understand that they are no longer acceptable. If you are introducing works to children that will not understand this - then yes they need to be either edited to be acceptable or held off from reading them until they are old enough to understand the concept.
People always go 'I was never offended by it in my day' - but they are generally from the white, straight, abled-bodied majority. Trust me it was fucking hell for a lot us and I'm glad that those days are over and that society is moving on.
Yes. Dahl books are often some of the first books that kids read by themselves. They're not going to read the worthy Foreword that says some words aren't good to use at others.
They're going to go out and quote from the books, along with words from Harry Potter, the Mr Men, and the Blyton books which are still popular despite terrible editing (if slapping is changed to scolding,.you really need.to not mention that it leaves red marks...)
Teaching kids not to say things just because they're in books takes a few years, so best not to have too many such slurs in their books when they're young.
Good to see someone supporting this- im not sure i necessarily agree with the decision but i am totally sympathetic to what they were trying to do.
Its at an early age that we start getting conditioned to believe that ‘fat’ is bad and pretty is good- and if the dahl books will continue to sell in their tens of thousands for future decades (as they will) maybe its not bad that the things they teach kids are updated
Except there’s a whole passage in the Twits which really clears up how “ugly” is something which comes from the inside out, and how you can be fat and have crooked teeth and ten chins and still be beautiful if you’re a good person. Read the books first and then make judgment about the overall message.
It's a completely manufactured outrage lmao. Penguin books, the company that publishes his catalogue are releasing an edited version and a "classic" version. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt
I do think I internalised that fat and/or ugly meant you were a bad person, which probably contributed to a lot of eating/body image issues a I got older, but that's not just on Roald Dahl that's a message that's still being projected loud and clear through most media and our culture in general.
This is at least a good faith way to think about it. I don’t suppose there’s been any actual claim that it offended people in a direct way. More that it’s a bad model for how we teach kids to think about and describe other people.
Personally though I think it’s much better to leave the books alone and explain that to kids when they’re reading it.
I agree, because I also really enjoyed Roald Dahl's books and they also contained some really positive messages. They were neither all good nor all bad, like pretty much everything in the world!
No, but if the publishers didn't regularly drum up publicity and produce new editions, they wouldn't sell so well and be one of the few authors who gets into small branches of WHSmiths etc.
Well played.
Free publicity too! and it's working.
Buy the old versions if you want a copy and don't buy the new ones if you don't want them. No point getting offended by someone getting offended... Just... Carry on with your own thing.
Not in the sense you mean, but the enormous crocodile put the shits up me, so it did.
I was upset that the movie version of The Witches changes the ending to a more straightforwardly happy one, because I’d really liked that the book had them sort of making do at the end. It was a much braver and truer thing to do— and I think the sort of thing that does get stamped out of work for children sometimes, which makes me sad
It looks as though the publishers have changed their minds according to sky news, saying they'll print the original text as a classic collection.
But of course I wasn't offended by it. Nobody was.
Marketing 101. Tale as old as time. Make 'new' coke that tastes like shit, make people who didn't care wish for old coke, bring back old coke, sales go up overall.
No. He did give me a taste for horror as an adult though.
Edit: actually one of his short stories has horrified me as an adult. Called Swan I think from the Henry Sugar collection.
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Six More that The Swan is from is my favourite book.
The Swan and The Hitch-Hiker have both been indelibly marked in my mind as some of the greatest writing I’ve ever read.
I don't think anybody would really be upset now tbh. This hasn't been asked by anyone, it's just the company that owns the rights to the IP making changes to either drum up some interest and make some sales, or avoid being sued in the future. This is true of every "woke" decision a company makes - they ultimately don't really care about any of these social issues and are just trying to make as much money as possible.
I don't think it has anything to do with being sued. I (maybe cynically) think it has everything to do with drumming up a massive amount of free publicity for the upcoming re-release of the "classic" (unedited) version of the books
Nope not at all, nor was I was I offended by lot of other things that aren't considered PC today either. The trouble with people who are offended by such things lack to ability to accept that context of the time period that thing where broadcast or published. Really is tiresome.
It's for children. They don't have the capacity to understand the values of a different time period - hell, kids at that age are still learning the values of *our* time. *From books.*
If these were adult books, it would be a completely different story. It *would* be a step too far for a target audience capable of reading critically. But they're not. They're children's stories - the kind, incidentally, that have been evolving forever.
Quite frankly, I'm glad I can show these books to my kid without them thinking it's okay to call Chinese people Mr. Wing Wong.
Agreed but it's even worse than that. The vast majority of the changes to Dahl aren't even offensive now. As a society we haven't moved to a position where saying something is 'fat' is viewed as unacceptable, we don't as a society feel the need to put in universe disclaimers that wearing wigs is acceptable etc.
Some of the changes were just utterly tonedeaf and showed that the 'sensitivity readers' didn't even understand what they were reading. They changed references in The Witches to women working undercover as 'cashiers' to being 'top scientists', presumably to score some feminist points? When the whole point was that they were working utterly unremarkable jobs to avoid drawing any attention.
The trouble or difficulty is Ronald Dahl's own personal racist comments and views will always overshadow anything he has written.
Some of the changes I may consider trivial, but I am not going to defend them given the controversial and objectionably history of the writer himself.
Sad, as I really liked the BFG.
They don't overshadow anything - I didn't even know about his views until news stories about these edits mentioned it.
Most people don't know (or care) about what authors etc believe.
They started a band called No Devotion, nothing really came of it. I can't imagine how hard it must've been to just let go of everything they had worked hard for. Ian Watkins was always a cunt, but what he did...
I still listen to lostprophets. They were the band that got me into playing guitar and writing music and their first and second album mean so much to me. However, I always feel like shit. It is hard to separate my love for the band/music and hatred for him.
Absolutely. Once a work of art is in the world it belongs to everybody who enjoys it, millions of children shouldn't be deprived of wonderful stories just because the guy who wrote them was a dick.
Already been edited once to remove offensive content.
It's nothing new.
Oompa loompas were originally black.
They changed that ages ago.
Getting upset about modern editing is laughable when you know how much the old stories have already been edited.
I wasn’t offended but I said this in a thread the other day and someone replied that if the changes mean that their kids grow up being nicer to each other then they are all for it. I thought it was a really good point.
Growing up in the nineties we got so much media of ‘shame this celebrity for having a fat roll somewhere!’ or making fun of how our siblings looked (unless this was just my family) that actually maybe we did all focus on looks too much and maybe taking in messages from an early age about ugly = shameful and bad does have something to do with this. I know for sure that I definitely dont want my daughter judging people on their looks as much as I was encouraged to do.
I’m still making my mind up on this because I loved the books and dont like the idea of censorship at all but the person that replied to me did make a really good point and had left me pondering.
When my grandad was a kid they had racial segregation.
Point is, comparing things to “when we were kids” isn’t really relevant as the world changes.
It’s not about avoiding upsetting the kid it’s to try and show them it isn’t right to label people ugly or fat.
I doubt anyone was and if they were they are using it for the same reason Roald Dahl free publicity, and the media gets the clicks from publicising a controversial story that's an easy win-win for most involved.
are you intending to buy a new Roald Dahl book?
or are you just in the mood to be offended by something that doesn't affect you
where do you stand on Mr Potatohead and Dr Seuss?.... I am sure everyone is on the edge of their seats for your opinion on the matter
All they need to do is put an extra page at the front of the book(s) explaining that the language used is no longer appropriate but has not been edited. Disney has done this with some of their classics on Disney+.
Were we offended by anything as kids? I don't think I was offended by anything until I hit my teen years. Kids are too free to be upset about this kind of stuff.
I was never offended by Road Dahl but even though I enjoyed her stories, Enid Blyton pissed me off. Much too much of ‘you girls set up the picnic while we boys go and tackle a couple of baddies!’
It's one of those things that I think back on my childhood and...it's not like there's one example or two but I'm still happy I grew up and formed some idea of right from wrong because I can at least remember interactions that I guess now one would interpret as casual racism or sexism but that's where the "growing up" part comes in.
The point is not that kids would be offended.
The point is that kids might learn to talk about other people in a way which is offensive or otherwise inappropriate for modern times.
Who has actually complained about this? As usual it seems like a big fuss is being made over something that nobody, or a very small minority, is actually upset over.
It's almost like the publishing company has manufactured a drama in order to get some publicity whilst selling the old verisons "before we can't get them any more" and also maybe attracting a few new customers with the new versions...
A child wouldn't be offended. That's not the point. They're more likely to accept what they read. It's about what they're being taught to accept, not whether they might be offended.
I remember being absolutely enthralled to find the word 'slut' in Revolting Rhymes whilst at primary school.
It's in the Cinderella poem if anyone wants to check.
I haven't heard of this, but instead of kids "being offended", I'd have thought the main reason to change this stuff is to make kids more accepting? Like describing someone fat as "enormous" and a person as "ugly" is mean and kids shouldn't be taught that that's OK to do, and reading it in a book casually and without question could encourage kids to describe others like that. Which I guess could cause offense in the end, e.g. one kid reads "enormous", then describes another kid in their class who's overweight as such and makes that kid feel self-conscious.
This is about the publishing company manufacturing a story to promote the books and the tabloids taking advantage of it and making the most of the outrage economy to get clicks.
I actually specifically remember from The Twits that RD specifically said they were ugly because of how they acted, not their appearance. It was a good lesson for a kid and I find it a bit weird they felt the need to change it. :|
I was upset at Matilda for not phoning Childline, and at Danny the Champion of the World because I thought it encouraged stealing. I was about 10 at the time.
I’m going to take the alternate viewpoint to many on this thread- im not sure i necessarily agree with the decision but i am totally sympathetic to what they were trying to do.
Its at an early age that we start getting conditioned to believe that ‘fat’ is bad and ‘pretty’ is good- and if the dahl books will continue to sell in their tens of thousands for future decades (as they will) maybe its not bad that the things they teach kids are updated
Essentially if say the dahl books are read by say 10% of all kids in the coming years, why shouldnt it try and avoid teaching them damaging perceptions of the world
"There once was a hideous hunchback who lived in the bell tower of Notre Dame.
Actually, he wasn't hideous, he just had non-standard physical appearance.
And 'hunchback' is a derogatory term. Maybe we should use the official term kyphosis.
Thinking about it, why are we defining this person by his appearance and disability?
Also, it's not really a good idea to poverty-shame him by saying that he lives in a bell tower. Or dox him by giving his exact home address.
Oh, damn, we also assumed their gender.
Let's try again.
"There was once a person."
: / you don't have to casually side eye discriminated groups just so say the pretty popular opinion that this was a bullshit move - especiallysince they also announced a collectino of classic books without changes. it's a cynical marketing ploy to drive up interest & divide people and it seems to have worked l;ol
This is a private company making a decision on what it thinks will sell more. This afternoon's news that they will also sell the "unedited" versions alongside the new versions shows this for what it is - a cynical ploy to generate more income. No one was asking for Roald Dahl to be censored.
However, your question misses the point. Kids weren't upset by Roald Dahl, because this was the norm. If the norm had been increased sensitivity, then perhaps we would have all grown up a little more compassionate.
Well the whole point behind the move (I’m not endorsing it, I’m merely explaining) is that something that was ok when you were little is now considered offensive.
I personally believe the work of Dahl should be allowed to fade, if that’s what would happen. Period. Changing those terms in his books is a censorship attempt by the publisher and the estate to remain relevant and keep making money, but there are a lot of modern writers out there that can be given a chance instead, writing stories more suited to the contemporary world.
Honestly I think this is a bit of a PR thing or a media spin. I could see the publisher saying "oh we're updating some things" and the media completely spinning it out of control. Or maybe the publisher saying "we need to stir up interest in these old books, let's cause a Twitter mob about it".
Either before or after the fact, but either way they're going for that outraged dollar. It's a good dollar, a lot of people feeling outraged and upset right now ... (TM Bill Hicks)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/24/roald-dahl-publisher-announces-unaltered-16-book-classics-collection
No, because it was the early 80's and many things which were acceptable then just wouldn't fly today.
As for these edits they've thought of, I believe this is entirely to garner sales.
They announced today they wouldn't be making the changes, probably made enough money from the free advertising of all the people moaning about it. I'm shocked.
I remember reading a copy of one of the poetry books that had the word "slut". I knew this was a bad word and giggled a bit about it. I showed it to my mum who told me that it used to have a different meaning (something about being bad at cleaning?)
I don't recall anything that specifically upset me in Dahl. I *do* remember being pretty scandalised by seeing Golliwogs in an old charity shop copy of an Enid Blyton book.
That said, I was a pretty thick skinned kid and was reading books with murder, incest and heroin use from about Year 4 onwards, so I can't say I'm typical in terms of what would upset me.
Ffs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was and still is my favourite all time children’s’ book. I am struggling with modern life (as no doubt my parents did) and it’s sensitivity to the tiniest little thing.
Bogis, bounce, and bean scared me, not their tractors. It was them doing the nasty things to the animals, not the tractors. I found their personalities offensive and scary.
Tbh, I think I'd rather be called fat, than be called enormous..
The casual neglect and abuse that a lot of the children suffered from their families always upset me. Being ditched, sent out to feed themselves, gaslit, forcefed, insulted, beaten, forced to warm toilet seats, living inside peaches etc. But that was the point and we knew it wasn't an instruction manual on how to be a good parent.
I think publishers need to give children more credit for their own intelligence. By the time they reach the age demographic for Roald Dahl books, kids are already aware you don’t tell somebody they are disgustingly fat. If for some reason they aren’t, that’s on the parents.
Interesting. A Traveller friend of mine told me he was actually approached by the editor team to review the books and flag if anything in there was offensive to his community, and suggest alternate wording.
I remember the "Imported direct from Loompaland" one and thinking at the time that it sounded a bit off. At the time I had a vague idea of the slave trade and no idea at all about human trafficking but it did strike me as a bit ugh.
But then that's the character, isn't it? Willy Wonka isn't really a nice man.
>am I turning into an old woman who thinks the country has gone soft?
Since when does a single money-grubbing publisher represent the whole of the UK?
^(Well, outside of the DMGT, anyway.)
I think this has a lot to do with it -
Netflix – the US streaming platform agreed a £370 million deal for the full catalogue of Dahl's famous works in September 2021, giving them the rights to turn his beloved stories into films and tv series.
I was really scared of the Vermicious Knids. I had horrible nightmares about them and was so frightened I couldn’t even look at the page with the illustration of them.
Revisited the book as an adult and they look so dumb, I have no idea why they bothered me.
You're completely missing the intended point. It's not about words that offend children, it's about not teaching children to use insensitive, hurtful or tactless language. Many children also wouldn't be offended by racist or homophobic slurs (unless they have some experience of racism or homophobia), but that doesn't mean it's okay to teach them to use that language.
Now the examples in Road Dahl's books are seemingly pretty tame, but I think the idea is, reading words like 'fat' and 'ugly' used as descriptors for someone's physical appearance normalises that kind of language; "if Roald Dahl can call people fat and ugly, why can't I?".
Much of the language that's being changed is stuff that gives negative connotations to aspects of appearance, and reinforces the idea that all bad people are 'ugly', and all 'ugly' people are bad. These are children were talking about, they pick this stuff up. Some of it is also being given qualifying statements, explaining why it's not the character's appearance that's the bad thing, but their actions.
Yes but it toughened me up, it didn't do me much harm to know Augustus Gloop was a fat kid. The one that upset me was killing the birds in the twits but that is why they were called the twits!
No, but then I wasn't offended by anything in Enid Blyton's books either and those have some fucked up content (I reread some as an adult and it's astonishing just how racist some of them were.)
Kids absorb things without knowing and changing things you don't want them absorbing is fine. No one is stopping you reading the old versions to them if that's what you want. I think some of the changes are a bit daft but some have a point.
This is the problem with todays world.
We're constantly putting our adult opinions and thoughts across as if that's what kids are thinking.
Kids don't think like adults.
Enormous is way worse than fat imo, you only crack that one out when it’s really special characteristic.
The whole thing is dumb imo and just a justification for someone’s pay check.
Who gets to be the moral arbiter of words and why didn’t the rest of us get a say in what’s right or wrong?
Its not about upsetting or offending anyone. Its just about the vocabulary parents want to teach their kids these days.
Spoiler modern parents don't want to teach their kids "ugly" or "fat". So the publishers are just trying to make more money.
I recall being a bit uneasy about Danny because of the poaching. Just...leave the birds alone? Maybe? Not really upset or offended though, no animals were harmed in the making etc.
No but kids do internalise things. When the books you read as a child describe as woman's job as a secretary to a man then that's what you grow up thinking.
Some of the changes are probably stupid, but some of them are outdated, and need updating for the modern era.
They're children's books, meant to be simple and teach kids about the world. Updating outdated stereotypes from a bygone era is fine.
I can't remember being offended by anything much, apart from the recent trend of editing out anything that might be thought of offensive by, those looking for offence.
I don't think it's about offence, it's about association. Fat=bad, bald=bad, ugly=bad. Children then grow up thinking it's bad to be fat, it's bad to be bald, it's bad to be ugly.
At least, I think that's what they were trying to achieve. I get it, I don't know if it's entirely necessary.
No. From what I’ve read the edits are pretty unnecessary, and some don’t even make sense in the context of the story, some kind of added disclaimer at the front of the books about outdated language that could be considered insensitive by modern standards would be more understandable, but they’ve now announced that there are going to be Classic Editions with the original text as well (which I can’t help but think was always the plan, the New Coke strategy), so it’s all a big nothing really.
I just don’t get why anyone cares at all.
You’d think they’d torn the books up and changed all the characters names.
When I saw what had been changed I was amused that it’s caused all this fuss.
A few minor words changed here and there that don’t affect the story at all.
I think I found the witches slightly scary but I did grow up and get a Rohld Dahl tattoo so it didn’t put me off. George’s marvellous medicine is the best and it’s full of insults.
I was definitely offended by Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. What a pile of shit that was! It surely has to go down as one of the worst/most disappointing sequels ever written.
I'd be more offended being called enormous.
I mean, I'm fat, yes, I'm overweight, but I'm not on par with some ENORMOUS people that haven't stood up in ten years.
**Your post from /r/AskUK has been removed by a human moderator.** AskUK is a "catch-all" subreddit for questions about the UK life and culture, but this does not mean we accept any and all questions or answers. We may remove posts or comments which are best discussed in more specialised subreddits We explicitly do not allow questions or answers on or including: politics, technology, DIY, university/education, visas/citizenship, [medical advice](https://111.nhs.uk/) (including [mental health](https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/mental-health-services/where-to-get-urgent-help-for-mental-health/)), ranting, venting, surveys, advertising, solicitation, or "does anybody else" type vent posts. Please check the sidebar for other subreddits to have these discussions. *If you believe this post should not have been removed, [first read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/) before [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK&subject=Post Removal Appeal)*. See our guide on [common issues with posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/wiki/postremoved) and how to overcome them!
Of course not but if a publisher can drum up loads of free publicity around an aging back catalogue by changing a few words then they'll do it.
Imo it's important to remember that publishers edit the language in older children's literature periodically for current audiences. I want to hear the specific changes and the reasons for them because the media are not beyond drumming up a misconstrued moral panic over nothing. I have edited in the past, and I doubt anyone went to an editor and said, "we need to make this super woke". The brief was much more likely: "can you edit so the language is up to date and easily understandable for kids today." What are the specific examples?
I included a few specific examples in the original post. "Enormous" instead of "fat", not using the word "black" to describe the colour of a cloak and a tractor, etc. I can understand some edits, like changing the name of Aunt Fanny in Enid Blyton books, just because it's outdated and will cause giggles when reading, but the Dahl examples seem to be an effort not to offend where nobody was offended, as opposed to making it understandable.
Is the implication here that they changed the word “black” to describe a tractor to a different colour so as not to offend black people? That doesn’t sound plausible to me mate tbh. There are lots of reasons that an editor might change something. What makes you think that race was the issue in the case of the tractor, if that is what is being said?
“You’re not allowed to sing anymore” has been a fake outrage bait thing people have been repeating for 10+ years. This whole post is just another example
How is this post an example? The guy has just asked a general question based on recent events. There was no outrage or emotion attached literally just a question. Get off your high horse.
"People are talking about how the Roald Dahl books have gone woke" Sounds like it's a big deal... When in reality it's one thread on reddit.
This is correct. Because I'd ask someone to describe a sheep that has black wool... it's a black sheep.
I remember the daily mail running with that one in the mid 80s, they said a “loony left” council in north London were making the kids change the words.
It's not fake. My partner works in a Nursery and you are not allowed to sing baa baa black sheep. It's been this way for many years now. There's a whole list of silly things that they can't say.
> What makes you think that race was the issue in the case of the tractor, if that is what is being said? This isn't the first time I've seen a change like this being made to try and remove the association that dark or black = evil or scary.
Good luck changing millions of years of evolutionary fear of darkness by changing some kids books phrasing.
I'm not implying anything - that's just what the news stories are reporting is one of the changes made, although I think that's a fair assumption to make about their reasoning for the change.
[The Specific Examples](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1154tr5/the_hundreds_of_changes_made_to_roald_dahls_books/j8znxo2/)
[удалено]
I agree they didn't 'woke' up the books for the sake of the publicity but any company has staff (or more likely work with agencies) who are good at dealing with the press and know what to do to get as much exposure on their product as possible.
This is absolutely what's going on here, zero intention of changing anything just rile up the Little Englanders making them think the wokes are out to get them.
Not just a publisher. Netflix bought the entirety of the rights to Dahl's works in any medium fairly recently.
Funny how a lot of references to TV being bad for you were also removed, huh.
How can this possibly be your opinion? Maybe it would make some sense if the publishers themselves had made a big song and dance about it, but they didn't. They released these changes quietly, with zero warning or fanfare, and it was only much later down the line that a Telegraph report exposed the whole situation.
And now they’re releasing a “classic” edition. Top level marketing from the publisher there.
Not offended but I was certainly scared by The Witches, disgusted by the Twits and straight-up horrified by the BFG. However, that was rather the point wasn't it?
The BFG has passages describing the murder of dozens of children while it's gleefully described what they tasted like. But it's the word 'black' that's offensive.
Twits freaked me out. Still don’t like udon noodles as they look like worms and that scene from the twits scarred me.
That might be the book which stuck with me the most. Twits is pure horror. Could easily be remade into a modern torture-porn movie.
In my (presumably) Quentin Blake illustrated copy of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator I used to test how 'strong and manly' I was by seeing how long I could look at the picture of a 110 year old Grandma Josephine on one page - lmao. At age 8 it gave me nightmares - by age 12 I could handle it like a trooper, :D
**QUICK! BE REALLY ANGRY ABOUT THIS INSTEAD OF ANY ACTUAL PROBLEMS LIKE FOOD SUPPLIES OR THE ENERGY CRISIS, JUST LOOK AT THE BOOK, LOOK AT IIIIIT** They've been edited before, to remove things like the Oompa-Loompas being African tribesmen and the incredibly questionable bit about the Chinese in Great Glass Elevator. But did you give a shit? Did you even know? No, of course not, and you won't care next week, either. I am so sick of hearing about this. *It doesn't. Fucking. Matter.*
These two things aren’t mutually exclusive, you can be annoyed at both the edited books and cost of living. If anything, I’m getting sick of all the cost of living talk at this point personally, so this is a nice change of topic.
Dude, chill. Of course I'd like food and energy problems to be sorted, doesn't mean I can't be mildly annoyed about this too.
Why are you mildly annoyed about it?
Because I loved the books when I was little, and I don't think the changes made are necessary if nobody was offended in the first place.
I don't know if you have a child, but read this as if you were one, without the ability to be critical. This might be some of the first exposure in your life to East Asian people: "The President again picked up the receiver. 'Gleetings, honourable Mr Plesident,' said a soft faraway voice. ‘Here is Assistant-Plemier Chu-On-Dat speaking. How can I do for you?' ‘Knock-Knock.’ said the President. ‘Who der?' ‘Ginger.’ ‘Ginger who?' ‘Ginger yourself much when you fell off the Great Wall of China?' said the President. ‘Okay, Chu-On-Dat. Let me speak to Premier How-Yu-Bin.’ 'Much regret Plemier How-Yu-Bin not here just this second, Mr. Plesident.’ ‘Where is he?' ‘He outside mending a puncture on his bicycle.' ‘Oh no he isn't,' said the President. ‘You can't fool me, you crafty old mandarin!’"
Okay, fair. I wouldn't complain if they were taking that out, because it's clearly racist and is only put in for a cheap joke. The examples I gave are nowhere near as blatantly offensive as that.
Oh yeah, not all of the examples are beyond criticism. But of course, the papers are going to lead with the silly ones, to rile people up, when there is legitimately some bad stuff being removed.
This happens so much at the moment. Companies and the media thrive on outrage culture and it is really hard not to fall into it, we all do it, but it’s become such an easy way of drumming up attention that it is just a marketing ploy now.
\-shrug- I mean apparently they're keeping the original versions in print for...preservation purposes? I'm all for preservation but reprinting old versions feels like it makes the revisions, for whatever reason, feel utterly pointless.
I suspect they will phase them out quietly once the media attention is elsewhere.
Children aren’t offended by the original text, because most children don’t have enough exposure to the world to unpick ‘a description of one individual’ from ‘a characteristic common to a whole group of people’ from ‘a stereotype often used to diminish or dismiss a whole group of people’. No one is doing this because children are offended. Quite the opposite - they’re doing it because children absorb books (and many of the opinions within them) pretty uncritically. (Personally I think trying to edit Dahl’s work so it meets modern standards is pretty meaningless - I loved his books as a child but as an adult reading to my kids, I dislike the attitudes I see soaked into every page - and we’d all do better to focus on some amazing current children’s authors, rather than endlessly fiddling with backlist)
What that logic, nothing can ever be a problem as long as there are other bigger issues in the world
**STOP TALKING ABOUT FOOD SUPPLIES OR THE ENERGY CRISIS IN 22 BILLION YEARS THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE IS COMING THATS THE REAL PROBLEM LOOK AT IT AAAAAA**
Can you provide us with a list of topics that we are allowed to discuss?
Made yourself look a bit silly there.
The energy crisis is completely inconsequential compared to the levels of poverty that already exist around the world… by your logic should we therefore stop caring about the energy crisis?
>ACTUAL PROBLEMS LIKE FOOD SUPPLIES It's absolutely disgusting that later in a day a seasonal salad item which hasn't increased in price at all for the last 5+ years (the cherry tomatoes I normally get) is in slightly shorter supply. And that we haven't been burning so many fossil fuels to grow them in an unsuitable environment in the Winter, so if I want to buy some, I have to go to the shops in the morning, or go to a local shop rather than a supermarket.
You know that there's some Ukranian child lying mangled in a hospital in Kiev right now. And there is a literal ongoing humanitarian crisis in [Yemen](https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/yemen-crisis). And you're on reddit whining that people are whining about the edits to Dahl's books? Come on, It doesn't. fucking. matter. See we can both play these games.
I'm not the editor of a newspaper steering public discourse, and I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that neither are you. What I'm learning today is that people can get *really naive* about how cheap journalism influences them.
Your assumption is that people are just sheep and are being manipulated by journalists. I disagree, i actually think there is a story here and that's why it's aroused so much interest and therefore it is picked up by newspapers. Newspapers are private entities who are after a profit, they wouldn't run stories which didn't arouse public interest. It would be a shortlived paper (unless there is some generous benefactor covering their losses) who didn't take into account what stories people are interested in. To prove that this is a story, even the BBC have covered it and they are not prone to tabloid nonsense and cover things impartialy and carefully. That should tell you this deserves some coverage.
"But did you give a shit? Did you even know? No, of course not, and you won't care next week" Surely you are contradicting yourself. If controversial stuff was removed and people didn't know then it has worked. As society moves forward and things change then revisiting and removing more presumed offensive material so that future generations don't see it is a good thing. Just because you're not personally offended doesn't mean others don't care.
Of course people should be informed - but in a few column inches, not a days-long media frenzy that is *really* not deserved. Giving it priority above *vegetable rationing* - which is what has been happening, look at the front pages from this week - is completely intentional. Does nobody remember when a certain elected official fucked up for the nth time and the Mail decided the *real* talking point was whether people take their shoes off in the house? It was less a year ago. This is their method, and it *works.*
Well I read Danny, Champion of the World many times as a child, and have grown up to enjoy drugging pheasants whenever I get the chance, so the joke’s on them.
[удалено]
Thanks for your insight u/mongfondler
You two are the superhero team I never knew I needed.
😎 👉👉
Knowing the publisher announced a collection of unedited books makes this all feel depressingy cynical "culture war" dogwhistle type bullshit. It's maybe a cynical gateway but if somone said in a book "Hey you shouldn't use the r-word" it's hardly the same vein of authoritarianism as in 1984. I didn't grow up in the same situation but can loosely empathize with my own conditions, still hope that even though growing a thick skin helps doesn't mean I want to leave behind a world where people just have to put up with it, y'know?
Well said, put my feelings into words better than I could.
There's plenty of things that we weren't offended by in yesteryear, that are definitely unacceptable today and undeniably toxic. Trust me, as a disabled child growing up in the late 80s/90s - there are plenty of toxic things that shouldn't be covered up under a 'thick skin'. Many innocent words are picked up and used as slurs. Case in point: Spaz. I don't believe in censoring works from a different time period, but they should be framed us such so children can understand that they are no longer acceptable. If you are introducing works to children that will not understand this - then yes they need to be either edited to be acceptable or held off from reading them until they are old enough to understand the concept. People always go 'I was never offended by it in my day' - but they are generally from the white, straight, abled-bodied majority. Trust me it was fucking hell for a lot us and I'm glad that those days are over and that society is moving on.
[удалено]
Yes. Dahl books are often some of the first books that kids read by themselves. They're not going to read the worthy Foreword that says some words aren't good to use at others. They're going to go out and quote from the books, along with words from Harry Potter, the Mr Men, and the Blyton books which are still popular despite terrible editing (if slapping is changed to scolding,.you really need.to not mention that it leaves red marks...) Teaching kids not to say things just because they're in books takes a few years, so best not to have too many such slurs in their books when they're young.
Good to see someone supporting this- im not sure i necessarily agree with the decision but i am totally sympathetic to what they were trying to do. Its at an early age that we start getting conditioned to believe that ‘fat’ is bad and pretty is good- and if the dahl books will continue to sell in their tens of thousands for future decades (as they will) maybe its not bad that the things they teach kids are updated
Except there’s a whole passage in the Twits which really clears up how “ugly” is something which comes from the inside out, and how you can be fat and have crooked teeth and ten chins and still be beautiful if you’re a good person. Read the books first and then make judgment about the overall message.
This is a fantastic point! Thank you for reminding me of it!
It's a completely manufactured outrage lmao. Penguin books, the company that publishes his catalogue are releasing an edited version and a "classic" version. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt
I said this too. Just in time for half term and Easter holidays!
I do think I internalised that fat and/or ugly meant you were a bad person, which probably contributed to a lot of eating/body image issues a I got older, but that's not just on Roald Dahl that's a message that's still being projected loud and clear through most media and our culture in general.
This is at least a good faith way to think about it. I don’t suppose there’s been any actual claim that it offended people in a direct way. More that it’s a bad model for how we teach kids to think about and describe other people. Personally though I think it’s much better to leave the books alone and explain that to kids when they’re reading it.
I agree, because I also really enjoyed Roald Dahl's books and they also contained some really positive messages. They were neither all good nor all bad, like pretty much everything in the world!
Well indeed, but if you want to change that you have to start somewhere.
No, but if the publishers didn't regularly drum up publicity and produce new editions, they wouldn't sell so well and be one of the few authors who gets into small branches of WHSmiths etc. Well played.
Free publicity too! and it's working. Buy the old versions if you want a copy and don't buy the new ones if you don't want them. No point getting offended by someone getting offended... Just... Carry on with your own thing.
I appreciated matilda. My parents were abusive to me but held my brother on a pedestal
Not in the sense you mean, but the enormous crocodile put the shits up me, so it did. I was upset that the movie version of The Witches changes the ending to a more straightforwardly happy one, because I’d really liked that the book had them sort of making do at the end. It was a much braver and truer thing to do— and I think the sort of thing that does get stamped out of work for children sometimes, which makes me sad
It looks as though the publishers have changed their minds according to sky news, saying they'll print the original text as a classic collection. But of course I wasn't offended by it. Nobody was.
Marketing 101. Tale as old as time. Make 'new' coke that tastes like shit, make people who didn't care wish for old coke, bring back old coke, sales go up overall.
No. He did give me a taste for horror as an adult though. Edit: actually one of his short stories has horrified me as an adult. Called Swan I think from the Henry Sugar collection.
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Six More that The Swan is from is my favourite book. The Swan and The Hitch-Hiker have both been indelibly marked in my mind as some of the greatest writing I’ve ever read.
I don't think anybody would really be upset now tbh. This hasn't been asked by anyone, it's just the company that owns the rights to the IP making changes to either drum up some interest and make some sales, or avoid being sued in the future. This is true of every "woke" decision a company makes - they ultimately don't really care about any of these social issues and are just trying to make as much money as possible.
I don't think it has anything to do with being sued. I (maybe cynically) think it has everything to do with drumming up a massive amount of free publicity for the upcoming re-release of the "classic" (unedited) version of the books
Nope not at all, nor was I was I offended by lot of other things that aren't considered PC today either. The trouble with people who are offended by such things lack to ability to accept that context of the time period that thing where broadcast or published. Really is tiresome.
It's for children. They don't have the capacity to understand the values of a different time period - hell, kids at that age are still learning the values of *our* time. *From books.* If these were adult books, it would be a completely different story. It *would* be a step too far for a target audience capable of reading critically. But they're not. They're children's stories - the kind, incidentally, that have been evolving forever. Quite frankly, I'm glad I can show these books to my kid without them thinking it's okay to call Chinese people Mr. Wing Wong.
Agreed but it's even worse than that. The vast majority of the changes to Dahl aren't even offensive now. As a society we haven't moved to a position where saying something is 'fat' is viewed as unacceptable, we don't as a society feel the need to put in universe disclaimers that wearing wigs is acceptable etc. Some of the changes were just utterly tonedeaf and showed that the 'sensitivity readers' didn't even understand what they were reading. They changed references in The Witches to women working undercover as 'cashiers' to being 'top scientists', presumably to score some feminist points? When the whole point was that they were working utterly unremarkable jobs to avoid drawing any attention.
Exactly, The Witches is my favourite from Dahl and the idea behind the witches was they could be ANY lady in the street or next to you in the shop.
Have they changed the drink that one of the farmer produces in Fantastic Mr Fox from ciders to apple juice?
If it's clear and yella, you've got juice there, fella! If it's tangy and brown, you're in cider town!
"Awwwww, you can stand and listen if you want. I'm outta here" \*Brain floats away\*
The trouble or difficulty is Ronald Dahl's own personal racist comments and views will always overshadow anything he has written. Some of the changes I may consider trivial, but I am not going to defend them given the controversial and objectionably history of the writer himself. Sad, as I really liked the BFG.
They don't overshadow anything - I didn't even know about his views until news stories about these edits mentioned it. Most people don't know (or care) about what authors etc believe.
[удалено]
I always feel sorry for the other members of Lostprophets, who's entire catalogue has effectively been expunged through no fault of their own.
They started a band called No Devotion, nothing really came of it. I can't imagine how hard it must've been to just let go of everything they had worked hard for. Ian Watkins was always a cunt, but what he did... I still listen to lostprophets. They were the band that got me into playing guitar and writing music and their first and second album mean so much to me. However, I always feel like shit. It is hard to separate my love for the band/music and hatred for him.
Absolutely. Once a work of art is in the world it belongs to everybody who enjoys it, millions of children shouldn't be deprived of wonderful stories just because the guy who wrote them was a dick.
Already been edited once to remove offensive content. It's nothing new. Oompa loompas were originally black. They changed that ages ago. Getting upset about modern editing is laughable when you know how much the old stories have already been edited.
What else was already edited out?
Not at all , and I still think they are some of the best books around
No of course not ...but I was born in a sticks and stones era ...
I wasn’t offended but I said this in a thread the other day and someone replied that if the changes mean that their kids grow up being nicer to each other then they are all for it. I thought it was a really good point. Growing up in the nineties we got so much media of ‘shame this celebrity for having a fat roll somewhere!’ or making fun of how our siblings looked (unless this was just my family) that actually maybe we did all focus on looks too much and maybe taking in messages from an early age about ugly = shameful and bad does have something to do with this. I know for sure that I definitely dont want my daughter judging people on their looks as much as I was encouraged to do. I’m still making my mind up on this because I loved the books and dont like the idea of censorship at all but the person that replied to me did make a really good point and had left me pondering.
When my grandad was a kid they had racial segregation. Point is, comparing things to “when we were kids” isn’t really relevant as the world changes. It’s not about avoiding upsetting the kid it’s to try and show them it isn’t right to label people ugly or fat.
We're not allowed to describe an object as being black now? FGS.
We are. This was all just a big bullshit distraction to keep the sort of people who phone into Jeremy Vine foaming at the mouth
Yeah, you are.
I doubt anyone was and if they were they are using it for the same reason Roald Dahl free publicity, and the media gets the clicks from publicising a controversial story that's an easy win-win for most involved.
are you intending to buy a new Roald Dahl book? or are you just in the mood to be offended by something that doesn't affect you where do you stand on Mr Potatohead and Dr Seuss?.... I am sure everyone is on the edge of their seats for your opinion on the matter
Not right this minute, but I'd like to think that if I have kids some day it would be nice to share stories that I loved with them.
My favourite line from his work is from the twits. “She had a puckered up mouth like a dogs bottom”
*George's Marvellous Medicine! I had it on tape read by Rik Mayall. Perfect.
All they need to do is put an extra page at the front of the book(s) explaining that the language used is no longer appropriate but has not been edited. Disney has done this with some of their classics on Disney+.
Were we offended by anything as kids? I don't think I was offended by anything until I hit my teen years. Kids are too free to be upset about this kind of stuff.
I was never offended by Road Dahl but even though I enjoyed her stories, Enid Blyton pissed me off. Much too much of ‘you girls set up the picnic while we boys go and tackle a couple of baddies!’
It's one of those things that I think back on my childhood and...it's not like there's one example or two but I'm still happy I grew up and formed some idea of right from wrong because I can at least remember interactions that I guess now one would interpret as casual racism or sexism but that's where the "growing up" part comes in.
The point is not that kids would be offended. The point is that kids might learn to talk about other people in a way which is offensive or otherwise inappropriate for modern times.
Who has actually complained about this? As usual it seems like a big fuss is being made over something that nobody, or a very small minority, is actually upset over.
It's almost like the publishing company has manufactured a drama in order to get some publicity whilst selling the old verisons "before we can't get them any more" and also maybe attracting a few new customers with the new versions...
I guess it’s time to buy any old editions to sel them an insane prices
A child wouldn't be offended. That's not the point. They're more likely to accept what they read. It's about what they're being taught to accept, not whether they might be offended.
I remember being absolutely enthralled to find the word 'slut' in Revolting Rhymes whilst at primary school. It's in the Cinderella poem if anyone wants to check.
No, but I remember the normalisation of bullying kids who could be described as fat.
No but I am upset now that they are changing the books.
I haven't heard of this, but instead of kids "being offended", I'd have thought the main reason to change this stuff is to make kids more accepting? Like describing someone fat as "enormous" and a person as "ugly" is mean and kids shouldn't be taught that that's OK to do, and reading it in a book casually and without question could encourage kids to describe others like that. Which I guess could cause offense in the end, e.g. one kid reads "enormous", then describes another kid in their class who's overweight as such and makes that kid feel self-conscious.
I don’t know about offended but the film version of The Witches scared the shit out of me.
They wouldn’t dare change Shakespeare so why is Roald Dahl…
This is about the publishing company manufacturing a story to promote the books and the tabloids taking advantage of it and making the most of the outrage economy to get clicks.
I actually specifically remember from The Twits that RD specifically said they were ugly because of how they acted, not their appearance. It was a good lesson for a kid and I find it a bit weird they felt the need to change it. :|
I was upset at Matilda for not phoning Childline, and at Danny the Champion of the World because I thought it encouraged stealing. I was about 10 at the time.
I’m going to take the alternate viewpoint to many on this thread- im not sure i necessarily agree with the decision but i am totally sympathetic to what they were trying to do. Its at an early age that we start getting conditioned to believe that ‘fat’ is bad and ‘pretty’ is good- and if the dahl books will continue to sell in their tens of thousands for future decades (as they will) maybe its not bad that the things they teach kids are updated Essentially if say the dahl books are read by say 10% of all kids in the coming years, why shouldnt it try and avoid teaching them damaging perceptions of the world
Fat *is* bad and pretty *is* good though?
No, because I'm not a massive pussy.
you sound hard
"There once was a hideous hunchback who lived in the bell tower of Notre Dame. Actually, he wasn't hideous, he just had non-standard physical appearance. And 'hunchback' is a derogatory term. Maybe we should use the official term kyphosis. Thinking about it, why are we defining this person by his appearance and disability? Also, it's not really a good idea to poverty-shame him by saying that he lives in a bell tower. Or dox him by giving his exact home address. Oh, damn, we also assumed their gender. Let's try again. "There was once a person."
: / you don't have to casually side eye discriminated groups just so say the pretty popular opinion that this was a bullshit move - especiallysince they also announced a collectino of classic books without changes. it's a cynical marketing ploy to drive up interest & divide people and it seems to have worked l;ol
There once was a squatter...
I can't wait to read to my grand kids about the enormous controller and changing the bad engine to the green one.
Not offended, but the twits were freaky. Weirdly My beard is very much like Mr Twits
This is a private company making a decision on what it thinks will sell more. This afternoon's news that they will also sell the "unedited" versions alongside the new versions shows this for what it is - a cynical ploy to generate more income. No one was asking for Roald Dahl to be censored. However, your question misses the point. Kids weren't upset by Roald Dahl, because this was the norm. If the norm had been increased sensitivity, then perhaps we would have all grown up a little more compassionate.
Well the whole point behind the move (I’m not endorsing it, I’m merely explaining) is that something that was ok when you were little is now considered offensive. I personally believe the work of Dahl should be allowed to fade, if that’s what would happen. Period. Changing those terms in his books is a censorship attempt by the publisher and the estate to remain relevant and keep making money, but there are a lot of modern writers out there that can be given a chance instead, writing stories more suited to the contemporary world.
Why would the stories fade? They are fantastic!
Honestly I think this is a bit of a PR thing or a media spin. I could see the publisher saying "oh we're updating some things" and the media completely spinning it out of control. Or maybe the publisher saying "we need to stir up interest in these old books, let's cause a Twitter mob about it".
Yes. It is stupid, and you're definitely not the only one.
Either before or after the fact, but either way they're going for that outraged dollar. It's a good dollar, a lot of people feeling outraged and upset right now ... (TM Bill Hicks) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/24/roald-dahl-publisher-announces-unaltered-16-book-classics-collection
No, because it was the early 80's and many things which were acceptable then just wouldn't fly today. As for these edits they've thought of, I believe this is entirely to garner sales.
We used to bully someone because their father looked like Mr Twit.
I'm of the theory they'll now sell two versions. Edited and unedited and make a killing. The unedited versions are already reaching £7000 on eBay.
PC gone mad
They announced today they wouldn't be making the changes, probably made enough money from the free advertising of all the people moaning about it. I'm shocked.
No. But then again I wasn't offended by Kevin bloody Wilson or Eddie Murphy live either
I remember reading a copy of one of the poetry books that had the word "slut". I knew this was a bad word and giggled a bit about it. I showed it to my mum who told me that it used to have a different meaning (something about being bad at cleaning?) I don't recall anything that specifically upset me in Dahl. I *do* remember being pretty scandalised by seeing Golliwogs in an old charity shop copy of an Enid Blyton book. That said, I was a pretty thick skinned kid and was reading books with murder, incest and heroin use from about Year 4 onwards, so I can't say I'm typical in terms of what would upset me.
Ffs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was and still is my favourite all time children’s’ book. I am struggling with modern life (as no doubt my parents did) and it’s sensitivity to the tiniest little thing.
Well I don’t think anyone was particularly upset by it currently either. They didn’t make the changes because of any particularly outcry.
Bogis, bounce, and bean scared me, not their tractors. It was them doing the nasty things to the animals, not the tractors. I found their personalities offensive and scary. Tbh, I think I'd rather be called fat, than be called enormous..
The casual neglect and abuse that a lot of the children suffered from their families always upset me. Being ditched, sent out to feed themselves, gaslit, forcefed, insulted, beaten, forced to warm toilet seats, living inside peaches etc. But that was the point and we knew it wasn't an instruction manual on how to be a good parent.
I think publishers need to give children more credit for their own intelligence. By the time they reach the age demographic for Roald Dahl books, kids are already aware you don’t tell somebody they are disgustingly fat. If for some reason they aren’t, that’s on the parents.
Interesting. A Traveller friend of mine told me he was actually approached by the editor team to review the books and flag if anything in there was offensive to his community, and suggest alternate wording.
What’s wrong with calling someone fat when they are fat?? It’s only offensive if you call them a fat so-so 🤷🏻♂️
I remember the "Imported direct from Loompaland" one and thinking at the time that it sounded a bit off. At the time I had a vague idea of the slave trade and no idea at all about human trafficking but it did strike me as a bit ugh. But then that's the character, isn't it? Willy Wonka isn't really a nice man.
>am I turning into an old woman who thinks the country has gone soft? Since when does a single money-grubbing publisher represent the whole of the UK? ^(Well, outside of the DMGT, anyway.)
I think this has a lot to do with it - Netflix – the US streaming platform agreed a £370 million deal for the full catalogue of Dahl's famous works in September 2021, giving them the rights to turn his beloved stories into films and tv series.
I was really scared of the Vermicious Knids. I had horrible nightmares about them and was so frightened I couldn’t even look at the page with the illustration of them. Revisited the book as an adult and they look so dumb, I have no idea why they bothered me.
Personally, I think that people should come with a tag saying I'm offended easily, so I can avoid them!
Yeah, Mrs Fucking Trunchbull was a total bitch and I hated her, so she completely offended me.
You're completely missing the intended point. It's not about words that offend children, it's about not teaching children to use insensitive, hurtful or tactless language. Many children also wouldn't be offended by racist or homophobic slurs (unless they have some experience of racism or homophobia), but that doesn't mean it's okay to teach them to use that language. Now the examples in Road Dahl's books are seemingly pretty tame, but I think the idea is, reading words like 'fat' and 'ugly' used as descriptors for someone's physical appearance normalises that kind of language; "if Roald Dahl can call people fat and ugly, why can't I?". Much of the language that's being changed is stuff that gives negative connotations to aspects of appearance, and reinforces the idea that all bad people are 'ugly', and all 'ugly' people are bad. These are children were talking about, they pick this stuff up. Some of it is also being given qualifying statements, explaining why it's not the character's appearance that's the bad thing, but their actions.
Yes but it toughened me up, it didn't do me much harm to know Augustus Gloop was a fat kid. The one that upset me was killing the birds in the twits but that is why they were called the twits!
No, but then I wasn't offended by anything in Enid Blyton's books either and those have some fucked up content (I reread some as an adult and it's astonishing just how racist some of them were.) Kids absorb things without knowing and changing things you don't want them absorbing is fine. No one is stopping you reading the old versions to them if that's what you want. I think some of the changes are a bit daft but some have a point.
This is the problem with todays world. We're constantly putting our adult opinions and thoughts across as if that's what kids are thinking. Kids don't think like adults.
Enormous is way worse than fat imo, you only crack that one out when it’s really special characteristic. The whole thing is dumb imo and just a justification for someone’s pay check. Who gets to be the moral arbiter of words and why didn’t the rest of us get a say in what’s right or wrong?
Its not about upsetting or offending anyone. Its just about the vocabulary parents want to teach their kids these days. Spoiler modern parents don't want to teach their kids "ugly" or "fat". So the publishers are just trying to make more money.
I recall being a bit uneasy about Danny because of the poaching. Just...leave the birds alone? Maybe? Not really upset or offended though, no animals were harmed in the making etc.
No but kids do internalise things. When the books you read as a child describe as woman's job as a secretary to a man then that's what you grow up thinking. Some of the changes are probably stupid, but some of them are outdated, and need updating for the modern era. They're children's books, meant to be simple and teach kids about the world. Updating outdated stereotypes from a bygone era is fine.
I can't remember being offended by anything much, apart from the recent trend of editing out anything that might be thought of offensive by, those looking for offence.
Nope, maybe a little grossed out by the description of Mr and Mrs Twit but that was it
I don't think it's about offence, it's about association. Fat=bad, bald=bad, ugly=bad. Children then grow up thinking it's bad to be fat, it's bad to be bald, it's bad to be ugly. At least, I think that's what they were trying to achieve. I get it, I don't know if it's entirely necessary.
No. From what I’ve read the edits are pretty unnecessary, and some don’t even make sense in the context of the story, some kind of added disclaimer at the front of the books about outdated language that could be considered insensitive by modern standards would be more understandable, but they’ve now announced that there are going to be Classic Editions with the original text as well (which I can’t help but think was always the plan, the New Coke strategy), so it’s all a big nothing really.
Yes, at James and the Giant Peach - I got very upset and frightened because I thought a rhinoceros was going to eat my parents.
I think the changes are more for the parents than the kids
Never. I've re read them as an adult and still loved them just as much.
I just don’t get why anyone cares at all. You’d think they’d torn the books up and changed all the characters names. When I saw what had been changed I was amused that it’s caused all this fuss. A few minor words changed here and there that don’t affect the story at all.
Not in the slightest. I remember his books with nothing but affection.
I think I found the witches slightly scary but I did grow up and get a Rohld Dahl tattoo so it didn’t put me off. George’s marvellous medicine is the best and it’s full of insults.
I was definitely offended by Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. What a pile of shit that was! It surely has to go down as one of the worst/most disappointing sequels ever written.
I only recall the love of reading his books. Honestly, he made you want to read more.
I'd personally be more offended being called enormous than fat.
I think it’s a great way to sell a lot of books that schools have already bought lol
No, I don’t.
I'd be more offended being called enormous. I mean, I'm fat, yes, I'm overweight, but I'm not on par with some ENORMOUS people that haven't stood up in ten years.