• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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
Astral Dog said:
I didn't find a thread,it seems James Bond is next :https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...offensive-language-from-james-bond-books/amp/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that.

The issues (though some, of if not many of the Roald Dahl 'issues' were not a problem at all) are quite bit more obvious in the Bond books.

I don't think there's anywhere near the attachment to the Bond books compared to Roald Dahl.

They still shouldn't be changed. They are a product of their time and should stand as a record of it.
 
Tams

Tams

Member
Toons said:
Yeah, this too.

All the "new generation" stuff is some propaganda. The "new generation" has no money, no power and doesn't run any big corporations. This is either 40-50 year olds who grew up with the original, or even older folks making these decisions.

My guess is they were afraid if some imagined backlash that wouldn't have even happened and wanted to solve s problem that didn't exist.

Oldies still don't understand the populace of social media. No one under 30 cares much about Roald Dahl at all, let alone decided how his books should be working.
Click to expand...

It is those people that are making the decisions, but they are partly doing it because they think younger people won't like the originals.

And as for no young people being interested in Roald Dahl, what pish. You clearly don't have much experience with children (in general). They are still popular books and staples in any children's book collection.

What you are describing is people growing out of children's stories, which is nothing new.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Claus

Dr. Claus

Banned
Tams said:
It is people that she making the decisions, but they are partly doing it because they think younger people won't like the originals.

And as for no young people being interested in Roald Dahl, what pish. You clearly don't have much experience with children (in general). They are still popular books and staples in any children's book collection.

What you are describing is people growing out of children's stories, which is nothing new.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And who is it that primarily organize witch hunts and try to get positions as journalists and such? Younger people. Zoomers, etc.
 
gaming_again

gaming_again

Member
Astral Dog said:
I didn't find a thread,it seems James Bond is next :https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...offensive-language-from-james-bond-books/amp/
Click to expand...
Yup :(
Note how nobody cares. The job worked - demoralisation, expectations set, acceptance.

I’ve been buying TinTin, Asterix and Indian in the Cupboard books over the last few days. What else might be in the sights of our puritan overlords?

Original Bond books are hard to find. I have a couple but my collection is on the Kindle, which is of course at risk.
 
Last edited:
Tams

Tams

Member
IDKFA said:
The changes to bond are less slightly less insane, but again they should be leaving these books alone.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, there are definitely some dodgy bits in Bond, especially with what seem to be today's sensibilities. And of course Bond is total womaniser and full-blown alcoholic. And knows how to cook eggs properly.

But they are a product of their time. We shouldn't be catering to idiots who can't check the first page of a book to see when it was first published and understand what that means for the content.
 
Last edited:
BigDeadFreak

BigDeadFreak

Member
Bond spends half his life killing people but when the author uses a racist word it has to go. That's a very strange set of priorities.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
EviLore said:
qDGrAMq.jpg
Click to expand...
Idiocrasy is real.
 
K

Kraz

Banned
Fake said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Roald Dahl books editors were led by 'non-binary, asexual' autist

The editors who neutered the works Roald Dahl were led by someone who describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
LOL This enraged them so much they mentioned this 6 times in 12 short paragraphs, including twice in the heading/subheading.

led by 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

The consultant team was led by a woman who describes herself as a ''non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

The profile continues: 'Jo is an autistic, non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist.
 
Last edited:
BigDeadFreak

BigDeadFreak

Member
Raistandantulus said:
LOL This enraged them so much they mentioned this 6 times in 12 short paragraphs, including twice in the heading/subheading.

led by 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

The consultant team was led by a woman who describes herself as a ''non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

The profile continues: 'Jo is an autistic, non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist.
Click to expand...
I'll bet you anything that the person in question mentions it more regularly than that.
 
K

Kraz

Banned
Just like 1984.
Where the state rules of free commerce allow a book publisher freedom to publish books licensed to it that were free to be edited by a third party by the licensor who has that freedom with their property. Where, after the new editions, citizens, academics, elected officials and heads of state complained and then both were published. 😼📚

I wonder if those Bond editions were in some digital file for years until this happened.
 
OmegaSupreme

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
Raistandantulus said:
LOL This enraged them so much they mentioned this 6 times in 12 short paragraphs, including twice in the heading/subheading.

led by 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

The consultant team was led by a woman who describes herself as a ''non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

The profile continues: 'Jo is an autistic, non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist.
Click to expand...
To be fair it is absurd
 
K

Kraz

Banned
OmegaSupreme said:
To be fair it is absurd
Click to expand...
Contributing to evidence for the scenario that these editions were let happen by the publisher guessing the outcomes from the attention of Dahl Story Company pushing for new editions of their property by sensitivity pros.

It's looking like Puffin made the best of it. They may have exercised grammar oversight for the new editions and limiting market. Netflix acquiring during the process and letting it happen lends to them being in on it.
 
T

TaylorSwiftFan

Member
Raistandantulus said:
LOL This enraged them so much they mentioned this 6 times in 12 short paragraphs, including twice in the heading/subheading.

led by 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

The consultant team was led by a woman who describes herself as a ''non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum

describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'

The profile continues: 'Jo is an autistic, non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist.
Click to expand...
I agree - the word lunatic would have been less verbose.
 
cormack12

cormack12

Gold Member
Fake said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Roald Dahl books editors were led by 'non-binary, asexual' autist

The editors who neutered the works Roald Dahl were led by someone who describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
These people are like students buying Che Guevara T Shirts. But if you told me this idea was from someone autistic then I'd probably have believed you before.

Having said that, the Daily Mail is a shithouse of a newspaper.
 
AJUMP23

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
Fake said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Roald Dahl books editors were led by 'non-binary, asexual' autist

The editors who neutered the works Roald Dahl were led by someone who describes herself as a 'non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum.'
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
It isn’t necessarily this person that is the problem, they did the job they were hired to do. The person at the publisher that hired the person is even more of an issue because they will affect the whole division they are over by hiring only editors of the same mindset.
 
DeafTourette

DeafTourette

Perpetually Offended
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.

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...

I'm only on first page and you echoed my thoughts!
 
U

UnNamed

Banned
But if I'm offended by these changes, that basically intend I should be ashamed if I don't accept them, why editors don't listen my voice too?
 
J

jason10mm

Gold Member
Damn, now I gotta archive my James Bond kindle books just so they can't swap them out.

They really should do a market test. Put out the "original texts" next to "a modern refresh" and see which one sells. I GUARANTEE there ain't no one buying a "revised" copy of the James Bond novels, I dare-say no one under 45 is buying them AT ALL. This is an easy PR move to ease blue hair criticism of the films by sacrificing what must be pretty marginal book sales at this point.

Hopefully going into the public domain will allow non-revised works to flourish, and in 200 years the historians can decide.
 
gaming_again

gaming_again

Member
jason10mm said:
Damn, now I gotta archive my James Bond kindle books just so they can't swap them out.

They really should do a market test. Put out the "original texts" next to "a modern refresh" and see which one sells. I GUARANTEE there ain't no one buying a "revised" copy of the James Bond novels, I dare-say no one under 45 is buying them AT ALL. This is an easy PR move to ease blue hair criticism of the films by sacrificing what must be pretty marginal book sales at this point.

Hopefully going into the public domain will allow non-revised works to flourish, and in 200 years the historians can decide.
Click to expand...
My worry is that over time the older versions will simply be forgotten about.

Nobody reads the original Nancy Drew books.
 
K

Kraz

Banned
Admittedly, I partly like this because it lowkey reduces the significance of self-important religious strictures, like no images of Muhammad in print, to secular sensitivity, making such things common rather than divinely special.
Tams said:
Elizabeth Olsen Cooking GIF by Disney+
Click to expand...
Super Hero Disney GIF by Marvel Studios
 
gaming_again

gaming_again

Member
jason10mm said:
You mean the OG Drew books from the 50s versus modern books featuring Drew or were they "rewritten" as well?
Click to expand...
The revisions to the original Nancy Drew books came in 1959 under the order of publisher Grosset & Dunlap for a variety of reasons — to modernize the series, to diminish publishing costs by shortening the books, and to rid the books of racist stereotypes.
Click to expand...

What that quote fails to mention is that Nancy Drew was made to be more submissive to suit modern ideas at the time.
 
kruis

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
www.spectator.co.uk

The trouble with censoring Jeeves and Wooster

It would take longer than I’ve got to comb through copies of Thank you, Jeeves and Right Ho, Jeeves, to find out the ways in which they’ve been edited, ‘minimally’, to remove offensive language, but I think we can work out which bits may have fallen foul of the thought police. Penguin Random...
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk

It’s a safe bet though that children will have zero chance of ever seeing the originals of any story that has fallen foul of the thought police. School libraries are not going to stock the ‘unabridged’ versions of classic texts; they are more likely to be stuffed with propagandistic books about families with two mummies and grandads going on Pride marches. I could go on about this, but the least problematic route is to get books that are ready-pasteurised.

But to return to the Wodehouse problem, now that we know that authors may be amended at will by publishers, especially those whose estates do not put up enough of a fight, there’s only one way to go: second hand. If you want to know that you’re actually reading what an author wrote, eschew modern editions, and seek out used copies of the work – I’d go back a decade or so. The books themselves will probably look nicer and be much cheaper. But the great thing is that you’ll be reading what the author intended, not what the publisher thinks you should be reading. There’s a difference. And if it means that the publishers concerned are that tiny bit less profitable, well, we can live with that too.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom