Roald Dahl Books Rewritten to Remove Language Deemed Offensive

Should this have been done?

  • No. The loonatics still have control of the asylum.

    Votes: 180 79.3%

  • Yes. I love my blue hair and will be having vegan pasta for dinner.

    Votes: 6 2.6%

  • Oompa Loompa, do-ba-dee-doo

    Votes: 41 18.1%
  • Total voters
    227
Tams

Tams

Member
www.theguardian.com

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
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Clown world is still going strong despite their wizarding set back caused by Hogwarts Legacy.

Can't even call a fictional character 'fat' or 'ugly' any more.

Edit:
I prefer not to post pay wall evasion, but here's the original The Telegraph article with the lists:

12ft

12ft.io

Full changes here. Credit to u/cbsteven

 
Last edited:
A

ANDS

Banned
Big ol' shrug for me. Your can almost surely get the original text which is now a collectors item. And if a person REALLY cares that much, just wait until the book is in the public domain.

. . . also isn't a "left-right" issue. Censorship comes in many wonderful (tie) colors.
 
Daneel Elijah

Daneel Elijah

Member
Sport Fuck Them GIF by UFC
 
GymWolf

GymWolf

Gold Member
Tams said:
www.theguardian.com

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
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Clown world is still going strong despite their wizarding set back caused by Hogwarts Legacy.

Can't even call a fictional character 'fat' or 'ugly' any more.
Click to expand...
Did they really changed the words fat and ugly?

What are they using now? Stunning and brave?
 
Last edited:
Tams

Tams

Member
GymWolf said:
Did they really changed the words fat and ugly?

What they are using now? Stunning and brave?
Click to expand...
'Enormous' has replaced 'fat'. And 'ugly' has just gone.

Well, I say has, but the new books haven't veen published yet. But they'll have certainly been rewritten by now, so it's all in a bit of limbo. I don't see them backing down though.

ANDS said:
Big ol' shrug for me. Your can almost surely get the original text which is now a collectors item. And if a person REALLY cares that much, just wait until the book is in the public domain.

. . . also isn't a "left-right" issue. Censorship comes in many wonderful (tie) colors.
Click to expand...
Not at least mocking and complaining about shit like this is how we ended up here.
 
Lord Panda

Lord Panda

The Sea is Always Right
I grew up reading Dahl books so this is really disappointing — I can't believe they have the nerve to 'correct' Dahl's vision like that.

Why stop there? Let's update Lord of the Rings for 'modern audiences' and bring it in line with the diversity and girl power of Rings of Power.

Let's take the pen to The Hobbit as well, because the goblins and Gollum are pretty problematic too and should be made more sympathetic and definitely not ugly.
 
Last edited:
JonSnowball

JonSnowball

Member
They'll edit classic published titles to replace language deemed offensive, but I still get called fucktard whenever I take my bicycle and dog, Captain Rover, to the automatic car wash. The World is not indifferent - it is unjust.
 
RJMacready73

RJMacready73

Simps for Amouranth
I just said to my kids (12 & 10) about this and they think it's stupid, wife went off the handle lol this is getting rediculous, there are plenty of modern day classics for the perpetually offended inclusive safe space loving cunts why the need to rewrite the classics, pandering to the 1% again ffs, thankfully I've all classics in their original form I read to my kids and will pass onto theirs, I'll be doing my bit to raise my kids to be fucking normal
 
Tams

Tams

Member
RJMacready73 said:
I just said to my kids (12 & 10) about this and they think it's stupid, wife went off the handle lol this is getting rediculous, there are plenty of modern day classics for the perpetually offended inclusive safe space loving cunts why the need to rewrite the classics, pandering to the 1% again ffs, thankfully I've all classics in their original form I read to my kids and will pass onto theirs, I'll be doing my bit to raise my kids to be fucking normal
Click to expand...

They can even get real tranny drag queens in to read those safe-space inclusive books.

I don't see why the rest of us have to put up with that shite though.

I actually like drag queens, but honestly, prefer it when they are played by real men who haven't tried to lop off/remove their genitals. And before anyone gets offended, the pantos they are in invariably have a woman play the hero.
 
-BLITZ-

-BLITZ-

Member
While young teen & adult books are allowed without objections, to express anything, more than that, anybody becomes a writer today and publish mediocre grammar and language stories in X volumes. :messenger_expressionless:

Funny thing the irony is, right? No, is not.

Next step will be to change the way the classics, Stephen King, Asimov, Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Herbert, Philip K Dick, Sven Hassel, Erich Maria Remarque, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, etc are, to satisfy "these people" that know what is best of the rest. :pie_eyeroll:

A book is a book. If you are sensitive by the words written on it, you are allowed for opinion, but you are definitely forbidden to change it. Leave it as a history the way it is. :messenger_unamused:
 
Last edited:
BigDeadFreak

BigDeadFreak

Member
CGNoire said:
Excerpt from article.....

(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.”)


...I....I just cant anymore.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely demented. It's one thing to change words from fat to enormous but to insert new text in there to push an agenda is terrible.

Maybe the Bible and Quran should have disclaimers in them that other religions are perfectly valid and no one faith can have a monopoly on the divine.
 
Last edited:
K

Kraz

Banned
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.”

This change seems more as an addition for anchoring unbiased thinking instead of assumption, and something there may be should be more of in educational children's literature. It was something that was present in other books when I was a kid, detective, but expanding it to books that didn't have it, and maybe as backup in case those books are missed, would be beneficial and may have made those books more enjoyable for me.
 
GymWolf

GymWolf

Gold Member
Tams said:
'Enormous' has replaced 'fat'. And 'ugly' has just gone.

Well, I say has, but the new books haven't veen published yet. But they'll have certainly been rewritten by now, so it's all in a bit of limbo. I don't see them backing down though.


Not at least mocking and complaining about shit like this is how we ended up here.
Click to expand...
Isn't enormous more offensive than fat?
 
BigDeadFreak

BigDeadFreak

Member
Some of the changes are just bizarre. They've replaced the word "female" with "woman". Why is one better than the other? Also, what is wrong with the word "fat"? Aren't we supposed to be promoting fat acceptance?
 
Makoto-Yuki

Makoto-Yuki

Banned
Fuck right off. I hate these books but get this so far to fuck. What a dangerous slippery slope this is.

I always cringe when someone brings up 1984 but here I am doing it. This is some Ministry of Truth shit straight out of Ficdep.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

What's next and where does it stop?

Maiden Voyage said:
I wasn't planning on reading any Dahl books so I'm entirely indifferent. I refuse to engage with outrage culture.
Click to expand...
Neither was I but this won't stop at Dahl. It could be Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc next or whatever your favourite popular books are. I also don't like to give energy to outrage culture but I think we should be outraged at this. It's extremely dangerous. Imagine any book, music, movie, or game you loved could be edited because it upsets or offends someone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Winter John

Winter John

Member
They shouldn't do that. It's the wrong thing to do. Think of the children. Where will it all end? Who will protect Dan Brown? First they came for Twilight. Curse words!! Exclamations!!! Things of that nature.
 
O

OZ9000

Banned
nightmare-slain said:
Fuck right off. I hate these books but get this so far to fuck. What a dangerous slippery slope this is.

I always cringe when someone brings up 1984 but here I am doing it. This is some Ministry of Truth shit straight out of Ficdep.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

What's next and where does it stop?


Neither was I but this won't stop at Dahl. It could be Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc next or whatever your favourite popular books are. I also don't like to give energy to outrage culture but I think we should be outraged at this. It's extremely dangerous. Imagine any book, music, movie, or game you loved could be edited because it upsets or offends someone.
Click to expand...
CTpkdGHWoAAjcDb
 
Tams

Tams

Member
Raistandantulus said:
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.”

This change seems more as an addition for anchoring unbiased thinking instead of assumption, and something there may be should be more of in educational children's literature. It was something that was present in other books when I was a kid, detective, but expanding it to books that didn't have it, and maybe as backup in case those books are missed, would be beneficial and may have made those books more enjoyable for me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but most things, even children's books, should not need to be signposted like that. Kids need to form the ability to judge and critique on their own; not be handheld all the way.
 
Ownage

Ownage

Member
Tams said:
'Enormous' has replaced 'fat'. And 'ugly' has just gone.

Well, I say has, but the new books haven't veen published yet. But they'll have certainly been rewritten by now, so it's all in a bit of limbo. I don't see them backing down though.


Not at least mocking and complaining about shit like this is how we ended up here.
Click to expand...
Enormous seems to be worse than calling someone fat.

"That chick is enormous." vs "That chick is fat."

Stating fat implies one can do something about it, possibly. Stating enormous implies no hope.

Seems like the idiots made things worse with the rewrite.
 
K

Kraz

Banned
Tams said:
Sorry, but most things, even children's books, should not need to be signposted like that. Kids need to form the ability to judge and critique on their own; not be handheld all the way.
Click to expand...
To be able to judge and critique on their own requires education. These books are, if of curriculum, part of that education where they can judge other books outside scholastic against that education. These aren't holy texts. The unchanged version will still be available somewhere for comparison and non-educational purposes.

It's a bit of a band aid until better literature is written and approved to which there may be multiple factors why these books haven't been replaced entirely.
 
Dr.D00p

Dr.D00p

Gold Member
Who arbitrarily decides they have the right to do this?

Doesn't copyright protection have any say in this?
 
Maiden Voyage

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
diffusionx said:
This is not "outrage culture", this is cultural commissars rewriting books, full Ministry of Truth operation. They will never stop as long as they have the power. Eventually it will be a book you like, if you read of course.
Click to expand...

nightmare-slain said:
Fuck right off. I hate these books but get this so far to fuck. What a dangerous slippery slope this is.

I always cringe when someone brings up 1984 but here I am doing it. This is some Ministry of Truth shit straight out of Ficdep.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

What's next and where does it stop?


Neither was I but this won't stop at Dahl. It could be Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc next or whatever your favourite popular books are. I also don't like to give energy to outrage culture but I think we should be outraged at this. It's extremely dangerous. Imagine any book, music, movie, or game you loved could be edited because it upsets or offends someone.
Click to expand...

What is outrage culture about this is the framing as if it is a new phenomenon. Outrage sells.

Censorship in literature exists well before the current era (A Clockwork Orange, for example). Book burnings, book banning, moral crusades are nothing new. If this pisses you off, then you should have been pissed off a long time ago. If nothing else, just be glad that this type of stuff usually backfires and just amplifies the work.

The beauty of the internet is that those original versions are available to you at any time. Once his work goes into the public domain in 2060, anyone can republish as they see fit. That includes the original works. If an author doesn't want their work modified or editorialized in any way, they should note that and put it in a trust.
 
gaming_again

gaming_again

Member
Nothing much to say about this except that it has genuinely upset me. It's an attack on one of the cornerstones of modern British culture. It is such an ugly move.

I ordered 2x copies of every book I want to read to my child in hardback just this afternoon. I hope many other parents did the same.
 
T

Talkin Hawkin

Banned
Maiden Voyage said:
What is outrage culture about this is the framing as if it is a new phenomenon. Outrage sells.

Censorship in literature exists well before the current era (A Clockwork Orange, for example). Book burnings, book banning, moral crusades are nothing new. If this pisses you off, then you should have been pissed off a long time ago. If nothing else, just be glad that this type of stuff usually backfires and just amplifies the work.
Click to expand...
Clockwork orange was banned by the creator. Dahl isn't censoring his own work.
Maiden Voyage said:
The beauty of the internet is that those original versions are available to you at any time. Once his work goes into the public domain in 2060, anyone can republish as they see fit. That includes the original works. If an author doesn't want their work modified or editorialized in any way, they should note that and put it in a trust.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like much of a solution.
 
Fbh

Fbh

Gold Member
its-alll-so-tiresome-tired.gif

OZ9000 said:
"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."

Oh fuck off you soft cunts.
Click to expand...

Lol, imagine getting paid to read stuff and find things to be offended about

CGNoire said:
Excerpt from article.....

(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.”)


...I....I just cant anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh come on this one makes sense.
Wouldn't want Will Smith showing up in my house to slap my children for reading alopeciaphobic book The Witches
 
Tams

Tams

Member
Raistandantulus said:
To be able to judge and critique on their own requires education. These books are, if of curriculum, part of that education where they can judge other books outside scholastic against that education. These aren't holy texts. The unchanged version will still be available somewhere for comparison and non-educational purposes.

It's a bit of a band aid until better literature is written and approved to which there may be multiple factors why these books haven't been replaced entirely.
Click to expand...

Lol. No, they aren't part of the curriculum, and therefore while useful for learning are not specifically learning tools. No kid, and nor really any parent, is going to go and dig out an older book for comparison. What may well happen though, is people refuse to read or give the newer versions to children. That will be become hard to maintain though if institutions start to get the new versions.

And what sort of adults will that create if the resources they give them are all curated so that no one is offended? Pathetic, soft ones who can't accept anything that contradicts their views.

This cultural vandalism, and it's disturbing and ridiculous that you are defending it.
 
Raven117

Raven117

Member
It’s a bit like “thank you for smoking” when they replace the cigarettes with “tasteful modifications” in paintings.

It’s not a good slope to be on. Art, hell, anything, is a product of its time. Just understand the context in which something was created, and move on.

We have a childish culture….
 
Maiden Voyage

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
Talkin Hawkin said:
Clockwork orange was banned by the creator. Dahl isn't censoring his own work.

Doesn't sound like much of a solution.
Click to expand...
Much later, in the 1980s, Burgess claimed that he had been put under pressure to change the structure of the book
Click to expand...
www.anthonyburgess.org

Did Anthony Burgess hate the American ending of A Clockwork Orange? - The International Anthony Burgess Foundation

Clockwork Controversy: Myth: Anthony Burgess disliked the American ending of his novel, which omitted his final chapter. Fact: Burgess was unsure about how to end his novel from the beginning. He liked the American ending and authorised its publication. It was only later in life that he...
www.anthonyburgess.org

Regardless, I'm not here to debate semantics. My point is that you're being told that moral outrage of literary or artistic works is some new thing. This shit has been happening since forever.

My proposals to rectify are a solution and any artist worth their weight knows that their work can and will be modified posthumously. If they don't take the steps to remedy this during the time before public domain, they are complicit in the modifications. The truth is, most artists don't care enough and neither should you. This type of thing doesn't erase history or remove the work entirely. First editions of works are always in demand, and this is one reason.

Stop being outraged because the 'news' tells you to be. If you want to be pissed about censorship, then be pissed at every single generation, not just the current one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom