The Off Topic Topic

[celedhring]

Netflix has acquired the company which has the rights to the Roald Dahl oeuvre :

https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-acquires-iconic-roald-dahl-story-company

They are planning to "bring these timeless tales to more audiences in new formats" 

The stories need to become anodyne as the "new formats" will introduce Dahl's world to various people who find it very easy to take offence.

Seems odd that they would request the source material to be altered, when it's widely accepted that you can make such changes when adapting the work for the screen.

[Josquius]

What I find most bizarre about it is the screeching loons trying to compare this to saying the Mona Lisa can't smile anymore. Its like they've no idea how the publishing industry works and the concept of an 'editor' as a job.

Some of the changes are daft, some make sense, some are necessary... but overall they are fairly business as usual outside of the current state of the UK.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Herodotus is pretty bad, in Book I he makes light of the abduction of women, I think he needs an "editor".

[HVC]

How does that work with copyright? Do both versions have separate copyright protection? Is it the same? Do you lose the original version for "abandonment" (for lack of a better term) since you're not using it anymore?

[HVC]

Herodotus is pretty bad, in Book I he makes light of the abduction of women, I think he needs an "editor".

If you really want to pain Josquius you should have recommended changing all train references in books to cars

[The Larch]

Found a couple of articles (from the Guardian, so no suspicion of knee jerking anti woke reactionarism can be expected, I assume) that can help to provide more context and material for the Dahl debate, as well as some examples of the rewrites.

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 neutral

Roald Dahl's children's books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author's text to make sure the books "can continue to be enjoyed by all today", resulting in extensive changes across Dahl's work.

Edits have been made to descriptions of characters' physical appearances. The word "fat" has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word "ugly" has also been culled, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as "enormous". In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer "ugly and beastly" but just "beastly".

Hundreds of changes were made to the original text – and some passages not written by Dahl have been added. But the Roald Dahl Story Company said "it's not unusual to review the language" during a new print run and any changes were "small and carefully considered".

In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."

In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: "Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that," and, "Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier."

Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: "Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit," and, "Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame."

References to "female" characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a "most formidable female", is now a "most formidable woman".

Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's Oompa Loompas were "small men", they are now "small people". The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.

Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company made the changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which its spokesperson describes as "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children's literature".

Alexandra Strick, a co-founder of Inclusive Minds, said they "aim to ensure authentic representation, by working closely with the book world and with those who have lived experience of any facet of diversity".

A notice from the publisher sits at the bottom of the copyright page of the latest editions of Dahl's books: "The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today."

A spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said: "When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it's not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book's cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered."

Roald Dahl rewrites: edited language in books criticised as 'absurd censorship'
Author Salman Rushdie among those angry after some passages relating to weight, gender, mental health and race were rewritten

Critics are accusing the British publisher of Roald Dahl's classic children's books of censorship after it removed colourful language from works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda to make them more acceptable to modern readers.

A review of new editions of Dahl's books now available in bookstores shows that some passages relating to weight, mental health, gender and race were altered. The changes made by Puffin Books, a division of Penguin Random House, first were reported by Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

Augustus Gloop, Charlie's gluttonous antagonist in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which originally was published in 1964, is no longer "enormously fat," just "enormous". In the new edition of Witches, a supernatural female posing as an ordinary woman may be working as a "top scientist or running a business" instead of as a "cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman".

The word "black" was removed from the description of the terrible tractors in 1970s The Fabulous Mr Fox. The machines are now simply "murderous, brutal-looking monsters".

Booker prize-winning author Salman Rushdie was among those who reacted angrily to the rewriting of Dahl's words. Rushdie lived in hiding for years after Iran's Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a fatwa calling for his death because of the alleged blasphemy in his novel The Satanic Verses. He was attacked and seriously injured last year at an event in New York state.

"Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship,'' Rushdie wrote on Twitter. "Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.''

The changes to Dahl's books mark the latest skirmish in a debate over cultural sensitivity as campaigners seek to protect young people from cultural, ethnic and gender stereotypes in literature and other media. Critics complain revisions to suit 21st century sensibilities risk undermining the genius of great artists and preventing readers from confronting the world as it is.

The Roald Dahl Story Company, which controls the rights to the books, said it worked with Puffin to review the texts because it wanted to ensure that "Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today".

The language was reviewed in partnership with Inclusive Minds, a collective working to make children's literature more inclusive and accessible. Any changes were "small and carefully considered", the company said.

It said the analysis started in 2020, before Netflix bought the Roald Dahl Story Company and embarked on plans to produce a new generation of films based on the author's books.

"When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it's not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details, including a book's cover and page layout,'' the company said. "Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text."

Puffin didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Dahl died in 1990 at the age of 74. His books, which have sold more than 300m copies, have been translated into 68 languages and continue to be read by children around the world.

But he is also a controversial figure because of antisemitic comments made throughout his life.

The Dahl family apologised in 2020, saying it recognised the "lasting and understandable hurt caused by Roald Dahl's antisemitic statements".

Regardless of his personal failings, fans of Dahl's books celebrate his use of sometimes dark language that taps into the fears of children, as well as their sense of fun.

PEN America, a community of 7,500 writers that advocates for freedom of expression, said it was "alarmed" by reports of the changes to Dahl's books.

"If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society," tweeted Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of PEN America.

Laura Hackett, a childhood Dahl fan who is now deputy literary editor of London's Sunday Times newspaper, had a more personal reaction to the news.

"The editors at Puffin should be ashamed of the botched surgery they've carried out on some of the finest children's literature in Britain," she wrote. "As for me, I'll be carefully stowing away my old, original copies of Dahl's stories, so that one day my children can enjoy them in their full, nasty, colourful glory."

[Josquius]

Herodotus is pretty bad, in Book I he makes light of the abduction of women, I think he needs an "editor".

Fundamental plot points != word tweaks.

The way I look at it, its like a foreign language version of the book.
Are the Famous Five having a nice day at the beach rather than a gay day? Fine.
Do they receive a treasure map in the post rather than being given one by a weird old sailor?... no.

(Incidentally I do wonder what has changed in recent republishings of Blytons books. Some really weird language in the originals)

[Richard Hakluyt]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

[The Brain]

Inclusive Minds seem to be much like the Holy Roman Empire.

[celedhring]

Herodotus is pretty bad, in Book I he makes light of the abduction of women, I think he needs an "editor".

Fundamental plot points != word tweaks.

The way I look at it, its like a foreign language version of the book.
Are the Famous Five having a nice day at the beach rather than a gay day? Fine.
Do they receive a treasure map in the post rather than being given one by a weird old sailor?... no.

(Incidentally I do wonder what has changed in recent republishings of Blytons books. Some really weird language in the originals)

Translated works are considered different works and translators are legally co-authors (even if they aren't promoted as such). Changing words is a big deal, it's *literature*.

Over here, even "modernized" versions of classics to make them more readable to a modern audience are co-authored (and still remain midly controversial). You just can't pretend you aren't changing the work in a fundamental way.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Though it is important to note that a good translator will try their very best to convey the meaning and feel of the original.

[Sheilbh]

The changes are being done without the consent of the author, I find this unacceptable.

FWIW seeing the Rushdie and Pullman response, I imagine authors are speaking to their lawyers on what, if anything, they can do.

I don't have an issue with this for removing racism, say. I'm sure that's been done to Dahl or Blyton. I've also no issue with trigger warnings (although you suspect the problem here is that trigger warnings for Dahl would probably make kids more inclined to read him ). But I have a real problem with editing works from the past for taste.

It's not the only example but I think we're in quite a Victorian/19th century moment culturally.

Some of the changes are daft, some make sense, some are necessary... but overall they are fairly business as usual outside of the current state of the UK.

Out of interest - which ones do you think are necessary?

And from the CEO of PEN America - which is outside the current state of the UK:

Suzanne Nossel
@SuzanneNossel
At @PENamerica we are alarmed at news of "hundreds of changes" to venerated works by @roald_dahl in a purported effort to scrub the books of that which might offend someone. 1/13
Amidst fierce battles against book bans and strictures on what can be taught and read, selective editing to make works of literature conform to particular sensibilities could represent a dangerous new weapon. 2/13
Those who might cheer specific edits to Dahl's work should consider how the power to rewrite books might be used in the hands of those who do not share their values and sensibilities. 3/13
We understand the impulse to want to ensure that great works of children's literature do not alienate kids or foster stereotypes. 4/13
In some cases, including Dr. Seuss books, beloved works have been withdrawn entirely out of concern for causing offense, a regrettable outcome that is rarely, if ever, justified. 5/13
The problem with taking license to re-edit classic works is that there is no limiting principle.  You start out wanting to replace a word here and a word there, and end up inserting entirely new ideas (as has been done to Dahl's work). 6/13
Literature is meant to be surprising and provocative.  That's part of its potency.  By setting out to remove any reference that might cause offense you dilute the power of storytelling. 7/13
Better than playing around with these texts is to offer introductory context that prepares people for what they are about to read, and helps them understand the setting in which it was written. 8/13
If an editor, publisher or estate believes they must go beyond that, readers should be put on notice about what changes have been made and those wishing to read the work in its original form should have that opportunity. 9/13
Changes should be kept as surgical as possible with expert input to uphold the integrity and authenticity of the original work. 10/13
So much of literature could be construed as offensive to someone - based on race, gender, religion, age, socio-economic status or myriad other factors.  Such portrayals are vital topics for discussion and debate, leading to new insights. 11/13#
Should Charlie Bucket's elderly grandparents now be depicted not as lying in bed, but rather perhaps golfing or playing pickle ball? 12/13
If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society. 13/13

Especially in the context of the US it doesn't seem implausible for books out of copyright at least that you'll end up with a version edited by the New College in Desantis' Florida competing with a version carefully edited by some liberal college in California - and big fights over which edition gets in school libraries

[Richard Hakluyt]

If they must publish bowdlerised editions then this should be made abundantly clear on the front cover and with an explanatory foreword. Needless to say it is essential that national libraries and archives preserve copies of the actual works involved.

The Satanic Verses corrected so that it doesn't hurt muslims' feelings....that is going to be a cracking good read 

[Josquius]

Out of interest - which ones do you think are necessary?

The ban on the sale of tortoises being recent vs. a long time ago, possibly queer for strange.

Translated works are considered different works and translators are legally co-authors (even if they aren't promoted as such). Changing words is a big deal, it's *literature*.

I agree. I'm far stricter on this than most people even- when I run into people saying they've read Murakami I'm impressed, I wish my Japanese was so good...oh. They read the English translation. So they didn't read his work then.

Though I would draw a bit of a distinction between "Literature" and "stories"- I've read the witcher series in English and see little issue with this as it is just pulp trash. The exact words used aren't particularly important.  Its about the story being told rather than skilful wordplay.

Over here, even "modernized" versions of classics to make them more readable to a modern audience are co-authored (and still remain midly controversial). You just can't pretend you aren't changing the work in a fundamental way.

They aren't pretending. They're being transparent about it.

[The Larch]

I agree. I'm far stricter on this than most people even- when I run into people saying they've read Murakami I'm impressed, I wish my Japanese was so good...oh. They read the English translation. So they didn't read his work then.

Pedantic much?