Roald Dahl Censorship

The Coffee Shop
41

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?

Rights to display Michelangelo’s David are held by the Accademia gallery in Florence. Should 2029 society decide that visible genitalia offend a preponderance of its audience, does the Accademia have a right to slap on a fig leaf, or remove the genitalia altogether?

TL:dr I don’t believe the question can be boiled down entirely to capitalism and market take.

42

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.

But if only a “small minority” would be offended, then why in the heck would the Dahl estate care? They are care about the large majority, the ones who will actually buying their books.

43

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.

But if only a “small minority” would be offended, then why in the heck would the Dahl estate care? They are care about the large majority, the ones who will actually buying their books.

Because that majority won’t notice or care either way, so if they can gain ten percent by appealing to those who do, it makes sense for them.

44

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.

But if only a “small minority” would be offended, then why in the heck would the Dahl estate care? They are care about the large majority, the ones who will actually buying their books.

Because that majority won’t notice or care either way, so if they can gain ten percent by appealing to those who do, it makes sense for them.

As long as the profit from the minority well exceeds their costs to analyze modify the language of the books, sounds like it makes perfect sense for them, no?

Why the outrage?

45

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.

But if only a “small minority” would be offended, then why in the heck would the Dahl estate care? They are care about the large majority, the ones who will actually buying their books.

Because that majority won’t notice or care either way, so if they can gain ten percent by appealing to those who do, it makes sense for them.

As long as the profit from the minority well exceeds their costs to analyze modify the language of the books, sounds like it makes perfect sense for them, no?

Why the outrage?

Yeah, we all already understand the economics. Nobody is arguing that it doesn’t make financial sense for them.

46

I look forward to the updated versions of 1984, Animal Farm, and Atlas shrugged.

I applaud the woke fucks for this play. They bitch moan and whine about censorship when a book is removed from the shelves of a library but revel in orgasmic joy when the fucking books are never even published as they were meant to be.

47

According to Inclusive Minds, it’s not unusual to update language and make changes when publishing older titles.

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. Todays children seemingly can’t process this terrible insensitive language, or, God forbid, read different books if their parents are uncomfortable with Dahl’s.

It sounds like you approve of their prudent business choices then, but you just lament the general shift in society’s language norms?

I am not super familiar with Dahl’s language, as I read the classic chocolate factory book only as a kid, and remember very little of the language. But, in spite of our personal feelings, language evolves and shifts. Sure, ‘fat’ seems somewhat innocuous to lots of people today. But the n-word seemed innocuous to many folks 100 years ago. I can’t predict, but it is very possible that ‘fat’ will be as loaded a word as the n-word is today. And, if that is the way it is going, there ain’t nothing we can do about it, well, unless we like to tilt at windmills …

48

Just because this particular publisher is making changes to the work, doesn’t mean all the other versions go away, or that no one else is allowed to print the original

I have10 editions of* Frankenstein*, maybe half a dozen of* Dracula*, four* The War of the Worlds* and three Moby Dicks

D’Kid has at least three editions of* The Great Gatsby*
.

49

Good gracious. If you can’t make fun of fat people who can you make fun of?

When one of my sons was three years old we were at the grocery store checking out and he was sitting in the cart. The lady behind the register was obese. As she was running the items through, he was staring at her and then looked right at her and said, “You’re fat”. She ignored him like she never heard it and and he again said, “hey, you’re fat”

A few days later we were at a restaurant and a huge obese guy is sitting behind us. My son looks around from his child seat and says to us “look at this guy” pointing the fat guy and laughing. From the mouths of babes.

Perhaps it helped these folks to lose weight and be set on the path to fitness.

And no, we should not change books because some snowflakes can’t handle the langauge in them. If you don’t like them, dont read them or buy them.

50

Good gracious. If you can’t make fun of fat people who can you make fun of?
“If you can’t tell jokes about Guy Fieri, comedy as we know it is dead.” - Anthony Bourdain, 2015

51

Good gracious. If you can’t make fun of fat people who can you make fun of?

When one of my sons was three years old we were at the grocery store checking out and he was sitting in the cart. The lady behind the register was obese. As she was running the items through, he was staring at her and then looked right at her and said, “You’re fat”. She ignored him like she never heard it and and he again said, “hey, you’re fat”

A few days later we were at a restaurant and a huge obese guy is sitting behind us. My son looks around from his child seat and says to us “look at this guy” pointing the fat guy and laughing. From the mouths of babes.

Perhaps it helped these folks to lose weight and be set on the path to fitness.

And no, we should not change books because some snowflakes can’t handle the langauge in them. If you don’t like them, dont read them or buy them.

Wow, you are truly a piece of shit. You don’t know a person’s situation, maybe they are working to lose weight. Allowing your kid to repeat something because you think it’s funny is pretty fucking disgusting.

52

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.

Tim Burton changed them back to tiny brown people

Roald Dahl wrote some of the creepiest shit ever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_(short_story)
https://en.wikipedia.org/...amb_to_the_Slaughter
https://en.wikipedia.org/...Visitor_(short_story)
https://en.wikipedia.org/...l_Jelly_(short_story)

See also: snozzberries

I grew up not far from Dahl’s house in England. My parents were friends with his neighbors. I remember a couple times we were at their house for some function and he was there. The adults would fawn over him but my brother and I both thought he was super creepy.

53

Good gracious. If you can’t make fun of fat people who can you make fun of?

When one of my sons was three years old we were at the grocery store checking out and he was sitting in the cart. The lady behind the register was obese. As she was running the items through, he was staring at her and then looked right at her and said, “You’re fat”. She ignored him like she never heard it and and he again said, “hey, you’re fat”

A few days later we were at a restaurant and a huge obese guy is sitting behind us. My son looks around from his child seat and says to us “look at this guy” pointing the fat guy and laughing. From the mouths of babes.

Perhaps it helped these folks to lose weight and be set on the path to fitness.

And no, we should not change books because some snowflakes can’t handle the langauge in them. If you don’t like them, dont read them or buy them.

Wow, you are truly a piece of shit. You don’t know a person’s situation, maybe they are working to lose weight. Allowing your kid to repeat something because you think it’s funny is pretty fucking disgusting.

Lighten up, it was funny. We didn’t know he was going to spit it out a second time and we were quick to push the cart away so he couldn’t go at it a third time. We did tell him not to tell people they are fat because it’s not nice but got a pretty good laugh out of it. Kids have no filter.

Perhaps it motivated her to lose some weight.

54

I look forward to the updated versions of 1984, Animal Farm, and Atlas shrugged.

I applaud the woke fucks for this play. They bitch moan and whine about censorship when a book is removed from the shelves of a library but revel in orgasmic joy when the fucking books are never even published as they were meant to be.

Except there’s no orgasmic joy about this. I’m woke and I explicitly said I don’t give a rat’s ass.

I can’t imagine how badly calibrated your orgasmo-meter is. You lose in so many terrible ways. :frowning:

55

According to Inclusive Minds, it’s not unusual to update language and make changes when publishing older titles.

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. Todays children seemingly can’t process this terrible insensitive language, or, God forbid, read different books if their parents are uncomfortable with Dahl’s.

It sounds like you approve of their prudent business choices then, but you just lament the general shift in society’s language norms?

I am not super familiar with Dahl’s language, as I read the classic chocolate factory book only as a kid, and remember very little of the language. But, in spite of our personal feelings, language evolves and shifts. Sure, ‘fat’ seems somewhat innocuous to lots of people today. But the n-word seemed innocuous to many folks 100 years ago. I can’t predict, but it is very possible that ‘fat’ will be as loaded a word as the n-word is today. And, if that is the way it is going, there ain’t nothing we can do about it, well, unless we like to tilt at windmills …

I don’t approve or disapprove of their business choice. I simply understand how it might be the choice to make from a purely profit driven mindset.

Again, of course language shifts. That’s why modern authors use different language than those who preceded them might have. It doesn’t mean you change the art that came before. We don’t go to the Louvre and touch up the painting because modern sensibilities about color and composition are different. We view the painting through understanding its place in time and culture.

As to “there ain’t nothing we can do about it,” I think that’s crap. Language doesn’t just spontaneously change on its own. It changes because we allow it to and force it to societally. It’s not out of our control.

56

Again, of course language shifts. That’s why modern authors use different language than those who preceded them might have. It doesn’t mean you change the art that came before. We don’t go to the Louvre and touch up the painting because modern sensibilities about color and composition are different. We view the painting through understanding its place in time and culture.
Interesting view. What then do you think about the edits to reprinted classic books to remove the n-word in multiple places? Should those remain because “we don’t go to the Louvre and touch up the painting because modern sensibilities about color and composition are different”?

As to “there ain’t nothing we can do about it,” I think that’s crap. Language doesn’t just spontaneously change on its own. It changes because we allow it to and force it to societally. It’s not out of our control.
It is totally out of your individual control. Language evolves organically. If a change is not popular or accepted, it won’t stick. So nothing to worry about. And if a change is popular or accepted, then nothing anyone can individually do about it. So also nothing to worry about.

57

Should we be altering paintings that use the color black, …?

Rothko would be fucked
.

58

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 ?

Why does Shakespeare need footnotes?

59

Just because this particular publisher is making changes to the work, doesn’t mean all the other versions go away, or that no one else is allowed to print the original

I have10 editions of* Frankenstein*, maybe half a dozen of* Dracula*, four* The War of the Worlds* and three Moby Dicks

D’Kid has at least three editions of* The Great Gatsby*

The publisher and the estate own the rights, no? I can’t just go and publish an unadulterated version on my own.

60

What then do you think about the edits to reprinted classic books to remove the n-word in multiple places? Should those remain because “we don’t go to the Louvre and touch up the painting because modern sensibilities about color and composition are different”?

Yes, generally speaking, I think we should leave these works as they were. They reflect the values of the author at the time they were written, and changing the words changes the meaning of what the author wrote.

It is totally out of your individual control. Language evolves organically. If a change is not popular or accepted, it won’t stick. So nothing to worry about. And if a change is popular or accepted, then nothing anyone can individually do about it. So also nothing to worry about.

Change becomes popular or not because individual people come together with an opinion. Acceptance of these types of changes happens because of things like individuals speaking up about their discontent or pleasure with the outcome. That said, nobody is arguing that the language shouldn’t evolve, or that any one individual should steer that evolution. The point is that these works were completed prior to some evolution, and absent the artist still being around to consent to the change in language and meaning, it should remain to reflect that earlier stage.