nterestingly, Dahl himself okayed the change of Oompa Loompas – which were originally African pygmies purchased for chocolate beans – into the orange whatever they are now. So the old man himself was happy to roll with one instance of changing mores.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s the same. If the original author wants to change their work, that’s up to them. If George Lucas wants to ruin his original Star Wars movies with shitty CGI nonsense, it sucks, but that’s his prerogative. This is a company changing the author’s published works well after he has died.
So is it all about the Shillings for the publisher and the want to continue sales without being removed from shelves? One would think that for historical purposes the original works are archived. I would also think that the lawyers were involved and the publishing contract signed by Dahl allowed for edits in subsequent editions.
I’m sure it’s all legal. The Dahl estate is apparently involved. That’s not really the question.
Yes, it’s all about money. They want to keep selling the books. The don’t want to go through the difficulty of finding and developing and marketing new authors. They don’t want to run afoul of the small but vocal minority of people who are horrendously offended by completely innocuous language.
Personally, I never liked this author so I don’t give a rat’s ass what they do with these books.
Do you feel like the artistic merit of the works are compromised by changing the words to reach a wider audience? What if the estate loves certain themes and wants to ensure today’s generation of fat kids can appreciate the themes without the distraction of certain words? Do you think the words are more important than themes?
Or the idea of CHANGE bugs you? Are you generally opposed to the evolution of language?
Or are you opposed to the idea that ideas can be expressed in a variety of words? Mark Twain famously said, “use the right word, not its second cousin.†Are you more precise than that? Do you object to the use of a word’s first cousin?
what’s odd about the edits is they haven’t eliminated fat from the picture altogether. Some characters are still fat and have rolls of same but are no longer “monstrously” fat.
they’ve taken out one line about an older woman who is “dry as bone” – which was nasty but not wholly inaccurate
also one reference to an “idiot” has gone
as a writer I’d like some assurance that my published works do not get finagled by invisible people with a) an agenda b) a clumsy way about it. Why? It’s my name on the book.
so i think i’m coming around to leave the work alone, and let people buy it, or borrow it, as they wish, or not if they feel it’s offensive.
When I was a kid my mother was in the “Rag trade” and so, often ordered product. There was a standard colour called “n***er brown”.
Nobody thought of it as racist. But in todays world it’s neither acceptable or sensible as it should be.
This is not censorship, it’s common sense. Something that is in short supply.
Someone with common sense is updating these books.
Whoop de doo.
When I was a kid my mother was in the “Rag trade” and so, often ordered product. There was a standard colour called “n***er brown”.
Nobody thought of it as racist. But in todays world it’s neither acceptable or sensible as it should be.
This is not censorship, it’s common sense. Something that is in short supply.
Someone with common sense is updating these books.
Whoop de doo.
Yeah, absolutely not the same thing as what’s happening here.
There are probably legally-enforceable ways for a creator to prevent their estate from making changes, or limiting the scope of changes. But, Dahl died in 1990 — well before the current phase — and may not have considered the issue.
When I was a kid my mother was in the “Rag trade” and so, often ordered product. There was a standard colour called “n***er brown”.
I might remember “Indian Red” too
Which reminds me - when it’s unseasonably warm in the Autumn, can we still say “Indian Summer” or is that gone now?
I’ve read not kosher, even though it never had a negative connotation but comes out of a number of myths various native groups had about the phenomenon.
When I was a kid my mother was in the “Rag trade” and so, often ordered product. There was a standard colour called “n***er brown”.
I might remember “Indian Red” too
Which reminds me - when it’s unseasonably warm in the Autumn, can we still say “Indian Summer” or is that gone now?
I’ve read not kosher, even though it never had a negative connotation but comes out of a number of myths various native groups had about the phenomenon.
I’m sorry, but you’ve just exhibited your obviously extreme anti-semitism by using the word “kosher” in this context. You are hereby cancelled.
Note: For any questions regarding your cancellation, you may address your concerns to our Department of Civility and Coddling, who will promptly dismiss your concerns forthwith. Good day.
“This seems insane to me. Apparently we can’t describe Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as being ‘fat.†Apparently we can’t use the color black when describing the terrible tractors from Fantastic Mr. Fox.â€
I think it’s reasonable to change some language in story telling, if it’s done to a reasonable degree and to a reasonable end. Good luck with finding consensus on those points, though.
Replacing “N****r Jim†in Tom Sawyer, for example, is reasonable, though I think a footnote should be included with an explanation of how it was originally written and to provide context for the original language.
As for describing a person as being fat, this is the gray area for me. If it’s used as an understood term of derision and she’s mocked or viewed unfavorably in the narrative for it, I can see why there’d be enough push to eliminate that language used in that context. It’s unnecessary cruelty. If the author is simply painting a picture of what a character looks like in a non-visual medium like a novel, then describing a portly or rotund person as such shouldn’t bother anyone. They are what they are.
Where it slips into second or third order effects is where I’m not comfortable getting involved. People want to disassociate the color black with anything to do with sinister or evil or bad. I get it, but darkness and mystery and fear are visually linked to our perception of the world pretty much at the brain stem level of human evolution and perception (how many people are scared the light versus being immersed in darkness?). It just is what it is, and it’s unfortunate that people link that to higher percentages of melanin in skin, but it’s just a consequence of life as a human being. So do we need to purge every literary work of badness to blackness to try to shift a perception that will never, ever change? It’s too much, and it’s pointless. It won’t work.
So TL:DR, sometimes it’s beneficial, sometimes it’s understandable if not helpful, and sometimes just leave it the fuck alone already.
When I was a kid my mother was in the “Rag trade” and so, often ordered product. There was a standard colour called “n***er brown”.
Nobody thought of it as racist. But in todays world it’s neither acceptable or sensible as it should be.
This is not censorship, it’s common sense. Something that is in short supply.
Someone with common sense is updating these books.
Whoop de doo.
Yeah, absolutely not the same thing as what’s happening here.
Note: For any questions regarding your cancellation, you may address your concerns to our Department of Civility and Coddling, who will promptly dismiss your concerns forthwith. Good day.
what’s odd about the edits is they haven’t eliminated fat from the picture altogether. Some characters are still fat and have rolls of same but are no longer “monstrously” fat.
they’ve taken out one line about an older woman who is “dry as bone” – which was nasty but not wholly inaccurate
also one reference to an “idiot” has gone
as a writer I’d like some assurance that my published works do not get finagled by invisible people with a) an agenda b) a clumsy way about it. Why? It’s my name on the book.
so i think i’m coming around to leave the work alone, and let people buy it, or borrow it, as they wish, or not if they feel it’s offensive.
So you would prefer to keep your original language even though the world of words surrounding your book changes? Your book would eventually need footnotes so that readers can understand what you intended to say.
Language evolves. Also, people die and cannot speak from the grave to address every contingency. The world changes in unexpected ways. There is no way to predict all the twists and turns.
I think a writer’s estate should be faithful to an author’s work, to the best of their ability. Obviously there will be differences of opinion for how to best preserve the works. It reminds me of someone with power of attorney for medical decisions. It’s a terrible and difficult task, and there are always people who will second guess the decisions. That’s okay— they have their ideas, I suppose.
So you would prefer to keep your original language even though the world of words surrounding your book changes? Your book would eventually need footnotes so that readers can understand what you intended to say.
.
not like it’s any direct comparison to my crap at all but – Shakespeare needs footnotes
James Joyce needs footnotes
Heart of Darkness is so corrupted in modern thinking it simply wouldn’t get read.
Mark Twain gets asterisked, but the word’s footprint is still there in many editions.
the point is, books exist in the context in which they were written. I totally understand the asterisking but we don’t need to update everything to meet the sensibilities of a 2023 audience.
as a sidebar, my brother yesterday sent me a clip from Little Rascals where Fatty and another rascal were vying for the attention of teacher Miss Crabtree. Should this footage disappear, or should Fatty get CGI’d ?
So you would prefer to keep your original language even though the world of words surrounding your book changes? Your book would eventually need footnotes so that readers can understand what you intended to say.
.
not like it’s any direct comparison to my crap at all but – Shakespeare needs footnotes
James Joyce needs footnotes
Heart of Darkness is so corrupted in modern thinking it simply wouldn’t get read.
Mark Twain gets asterisked, but the word’s footprint is still there in many editions.
the point is, books exist in the context in which they were written. I totally understand the asterisking but we don’t need to update everything to meet the sensibilities of a 2023 audience.
as a sidebar, my brother yesterday sent me a clip from Little Rascals where Fatty and another rascal were vying for the attention of teacher Miss Crabtree. Should this footage disappear, or should Fatty get CGI’d ?
Language and social norms evolve, and modern writers are free to create new works that reflect those changes. Should we be altering paintings that use the color black, because they’re racist? Should we be going back to alter musical notes or chords that fall out of favor? Or should we leave the art as it was created and then encourage new artists to create new works that are reflective of current sensibilities?
I’m sure it’s all legal. The Dahl estate is apparently involved. That’s not really the question.
Yes, it’s all about money. They want to keep selling the books. The don’t want to go through the difficulty of finding and developing and marketing new authors. They don’t want to run afoul of the small but vocal minority of people who are horrendously offended by completely innocuous language.
First, the Dahl estate (whether or not we approve or agree) is effectively now the “author.”
I don’t follow, do you not agree with capitalism? Of course the publisher and estate want to keep selling his books. No, I don’t think they care much about the “small but vocal minority” of people who are offended by Dahl’s language. No, what the estate really cares about are large but even more vocal majority of the potential buyers of the books. And the estate cares about current and future market for Dahl’s books. It is pretty safe to say that they are changing the language as purely a financial decision, to satisfy (their perception of) the modern book market to keep these books in current and future demand. So, assuming that you are a supporter of private property (in this case, IP), what is your problem with their carefully considered business decision to maximize the long-term value of their IP?
I’m sure it’s all legal. The Dahl estate is apparently involved. That’s not really the question.
Yes, it’s all about money. They want to keep selling the books. The don’t want to go through the difficulty of finding and developing and marketing new authors. They don’t want to run afoul of the small but vocal minority of people who are horrendously offended by completely innocuous language.
First, the Dahl estate (whether or not we approve or agree) is effectively now the “author.”
I don’t follow, do you not agree with capitalism? Of course the publisher and estate want to keep selling his books. No, I don’t think they care much about the “small but vocal minority” of people who are offended by Dahl’s language. No, what the estate really cares about are large but even more vocal majority of the potential buyers of the books. And the estate cares about current and future market for Dahl’s books. It is pretty safe to say that they are changing the language as purely a financial decision, to satisfy (their perception of) the modern book market to keep these books in current and future demand. So, assuming that you are a supporter of private property (in this case, IP), what is your problem with their carefully considered business decision to maximize the long-term value of their IP?
The Dahl estate might legally represent the author, but they are in not the author in any artistic way. As I said, the legality isn’t the question. I’m not seeking to legally prevent anyone from making these changes. As such, your tangent about IP isn’t really pertinent.
I favor capitalism as an economic theory. I don’t think capitalism should run amok at the expense of every other consideration. The middle section of your post makes little sense to me. If the issue is their concern for selling books to the modern market, then of course they’re making these changes to appeal to the small minority who would be offended. You can’t really separate those two aspects of this.
