What grinds my gears...

[Captain...]

8 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

So don’t worry about it 

I don't, I worry about the people using this kind of thing to pursue a bullshit culture war and push an anti-woke agenda. 

 

 

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Who here is frothing with outrage and making a big deal out of it? Whether it's a new thing or not, people have the right to object to it if they don't agree. 

 

I personally am not really comfortable with trying to erase the acknowledgement that some things were acceptable in the past which aren't now, and I would prefer we used it to educate and learn from instead of trying to literally rewrite history. If there are words in the books which people find objectionable, they should be using them as conversation points with their children imo, or instead just read something else. Some people want everything changed from the past to reflect today's society, and if that's their opinion, that is fine too. 

 

There's also a very fine line imo between changing the words to make them kinder, and losing the whole meaning of why Roald Dahl wrote the way he did, but some people will disagree with that too of course.

 

As an aside, I always thought the Oompa Loompas were gender neutral anyway without realising it, I'd never thought of them as either men or women.

These sorts of edit are common place, the famous 5 books have had some of the old fashioned language (including racist terms) removed, the Mr Men books have completely redrawn Mr Strong. 

 

They have said that the small changes were carefully considered and made sure they didn't change the meaning of the stories. I can guarantee nobody would have noticed it if people hadn't started drawing attention to it. 

 

The outrage is here:

 

 

 

 

[marbles]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

These sorts of edit are common place, the famous 5 books have had some of the old fashioned language (including racist terms) removed, the Mr Men books have completely redrawn Mr Strong. 

 

They have said that the small changes were carefully considered and made sure they didn't change the meaning of the stories. I can guarantee nobody would have noticed it if people hadn't started drawing attention to it. 

 

The outrage is here:

 

 

 

 

You searched for “Roger Dahl Outrage” and are then upset and seemingly enraged because those articles popped up?  Is something wrong with you?

 

Are you actively tying to draw out the people who would be upset with this so you can argue with them?  
I don’t understand why you keep going on and on

[grobyfox1990]

9 hours ago, Captain... said:

I don't, I worry about the people using this kind of thing to pursue a bullshit culture war and push an anti-woke agenda. 

 

 

Agreed, although I reckon 1% of the population are strongly 'woke' and really care about these things and making sure their kids are gender 5.7 with purple hair and never say the word 'nationality' etc etc. And 1% are pink-faced pot-bellied mid-60s dinosaurs who get worked up about futile events like 'man of the match' being changed to 'player of the match' and Alex Scott getting a gig in the Sky studio. 98% of us are more worried about their sports teams, why their kids hate them and what's for dinner. So like you said, don't worry about it.

[Captain...]

8 hours ago, marbles said:

You searched for “Roger Dahl Outrage” and are then upset and seemingly enraged because those articles popped up?  Is something wrong with you?

 

Are you actively tying to draw out the people who would be upset with this so you can argue with them?  
I don’t understand why you keep going on and on

Of course I searched for outrage, and I left it in the screen shot so people could see. Generally my search results don't include hits from GB news and Daily Express. I know you are American so you probably won't understand the significance of those hits. It all plays into this divisive culture war going on in the UK of the "anti woke crusaders" against the "woke mafia". The key words are in the headlines which is all a lot of people read.

 

The point I've been making is that these kind of edits have happened for years and nobody knew, nobody cared, it was not news. Nowadays there are people out there now latching on to anything and stirring up any feelings that fit their agenda.

 

Now everyone here can say they are just concerned about the integrity of Roald Dahl's voice and story and are not being influenced by this anti woke agenda, but the fact that it is even news means you are talking about and thinking about it, and you can all say it is not stirring up resent for you, but it is for others and leading to greater divisions. That is the issue. 

 

The changes are silly and irrelevant but the consequences of large media outlets stoking up these feelings are not.

 

Finally I have a right to reply if you don't want me to go on and on about don't reply. I was asked where the outrage was, so I showed it.

 

 

Edited 20 February 2023 by Captain...

[Captain...]

29 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Agreed, although I reckon 1% of the population are strongly 'woke' and really care about these things and making sure their kids are gender 5.7 with purple hair and never say the word 'nationality' etc etc. And 1% are pink-faced pot-bellied mid-60s dinosaurs who get worked up about futile events like 'man of the match' being changed to 'player of the match' and Alex Scott getting a gig in the Sky studio. 98% of us are more worried about their sports teams, why their kids hate them and what's for dinner. So like you said, don't worry about it.

I think your estimations are on the low side, but I guess it all depends on your echo chamber. Which is why I like this forum it's a random cross section of people with one common interest. I'm just seeing more and more of this "culture war" crossing over into mainstream and places like general chat. I will also accept I'm probably a cause of that by arguing about this stuff, but you have to understand I'm really, really bored at work.

Edited 20 February 2023 by Captain...

[ClaphamFox]

9 hours ago, Captain... said:

These sorts of edit are common place, the famous 5 books have had some of the old fashioned language (including racist terms) removed, the Mr Men books have completely redrawn Mr Strong. 

 

They have said that the small changes were carefully considered and made sure they didn't change the meaning of the stories. I can guarantee nobody would have noticed it if people hadn't started drawing attention to it. 

 

The outrage is here:

 

 

 

 

This is a complete lie, though. Some of the changes have been very crass, have definitely changed the meaning of the stories, and have clearly been undertaken by somebody devoid of writing or editing talent. I cited one of them further up this thread. Another example in Matilda is where her love of the books of Conrad and Kipling have been removed and replaced with Austen and Steinbeck. This is ridiculous because the whole point of that passage was that Matilda dreamed of a life of adventure and read books about adventures - that point is completely lost in the updated version. How can you possibly justify removing any reference to Conrad and Kipling? 

 

The bigger issue is the idea that the world should be constantly revised to conform to the very delicate sensitivities of the hyper-sensitive. The implicit assumption that young people these days are so fragile and helpless that they can't grasp nuance or understand context seems deeply insulting to me. Worse, it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy - ie, if you tell young people that works of literature are 'unsafe' because they contain references to a previous era when - shock, horror - things were a bit different, they might start actually believing those things are unsafe and get very upset when there really is no need to. It certainly won't help any young person to develop emotional resilience, which can be a pretty useful skill when navigating adulthood. Personally I'm glad that there is growing resistance to the worst excesses of wokeism because it needs to be challenged, and challenged robustly.

 

[grobyfox1990]

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think your estimations are on the low side, but I guess it all depends on your echo chamber. Which is why I like this forum it's a random cross section of people with one common interest. I'm just seeing more and more of this "culture war" crossing over into mainstream and places like general chat. I will also accept I'm probably a cause of that by arguing about this stuff, but you have to understand I'm really, really bored at work.

True, life is echo chamber dependent. Tbh I think this forum is a massive echo chamber, but it suits all of my echoes so it's good reading. I'd love for a raging right-wing non-liberal to come on here who actually believes in what they believe in, and not get shot down. Someone who thinks Andrew Tate is a nice guy or does not believe in a warming planet etc. 

 

There was an example last year, I don't think the poster had a name (or I can't remember it), but they were saying Liverpool fans were responsible for the chaos in Paris. Then a week later said England fans were not responsible for trouble in Germany. The only common factor in both events? The poster was not present at either, just buying crap on the internet that suited their biases. I used these posts in a training course I had to do on tactics to manipulate people in order to upsell to them. So if you are bored at work, reading FT can kind of be work!!!

[Captain...]

40 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is a complete lie, though. Some of the changes have been very crass, have definitely changed the meaning of the stories, and have clearly been undertaken by somebody devoid of writing or editing talent. I cited one of them further up this thread. Another example in Matilda is where her love of the books of Conrad and Kipling have been removed and replaced with Austen and Steinbeck. This is ridiculous because the whole point of that passage was that Matilda dreamed of a life of adventure and read books about adventures - that point is completely lost in the updated version. How can you possibly justify removing any reference to Conrad and Kipling? 

 

The bigger issue is the idea that the world should be constantly revised to conform to the very delicate sensitivities of the hyper-sensitive. The implicit assumption that young people these days are so fragile and helpless that they can't grasp nuance or understand context seems deeply insulting to me. Worse, it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy - ie, if you tell young people that works of literature are 'unsafe' because they contain references to a previous era when - shock, horror - things were a bit different, they might start actually believing those things are unsafe and get very upset when there really is no need to. It certainly won't help any young person to develop emotional resilience, which can be a pretty useful skill when navigating adulthood. Personally I'm glad that there is growing resistance to the worst excesses of wokeism because it needs to be challenged, and challenged robustly.

 

Hmm, the delicate sensitivities of the hyper sensitive. Who in their right mind would get all worked up over whether Matilda read Conrad or Steinbeck. Such sensitive souls...

 

Yes challenge the worst excesses of wokeism, this is not it, not even close to it. It is also nothing new, books are updated all the time. The only thing new is the way this news is fed to you. I'm guessing you do not know Matilda word for word and have not read the new editions, so you can't comment on how the impact of a minor change affected your reader experience. Someone else has trawled through all the changes for you and packaged up a few neat little rage pills to justify this resentment they want you to feel.

 

If you're really concerned go and read the new version and come back and tell me how all the magic of Matilda was ruined because they changed 2 authors' names. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

True, life is echo chamber dependent. Tbh I think this forum is a massive echo chamber, but it suits all of my echoes so it's good reading. I'd love for a raging right-wing non-liberal to come on here who actually believes in what they believe in, and not get shot down. Someone who thinks Andrew Tate is a nice guy or does not believe in a warming planet etc. 

 

There was an example last year, I don't think the poster had a name (or I can't remember it), but they were saying Liverpool fans were responsible for the chaos in Paris. Then a week later said England fans were not responsible for trouble in Germany. The only common factor in both events? The poster was not present at either, just buying crap on the internet that suited their biases. I used these posts in a training course I had to do on tactics to manipulate people in order to upsell to them. So if you are bored at work, reading FT can kind of be work!!!

I'd like to see this too (and indeed I have seen both in my time here), but I'm curious as to exactly why someone *shouldn't* be shot down for either of those two viewpoints.

 

Is this a US 1st Amendment argument for proliferation of misinformation without consequences, or something else? Genuinely curious.

[ClaphamFox]

22 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Hmm, the delicate sensitivities of the hyper sensitive. Who in their right mind would get all worked up over whether Matilda read Conrad or Steinbeck. Such sensitive souls...

 

Yes challenge the worst excesses of wokeism, this is not it, not even close to it. It is also nothing new, books are updated all the time. The only thing new is the way this news is fed to you. I'm guessing you do not know Matilda word for word and have not read the new editions, so you can't comment on how the impact of a minor change affected your reader experience. Someone else has trawled through all the changes for you and packaged up a few neat little rage pills to justify this resentment they want you to feel.

 

If you're really concerned go and read the new version and come back and tell me how all the magic of Matilda was ruined because they changed 2 authors' names. 

But in all your posts on this you seem to be basically saying "what difference does it make?" rather than making a case for why these changes are justified or necessary. My view is that works of literature shouldn't be messed about with unless a compelling reason is given for doing so (ie, removing something grossly offensive like the N word). The reason I feel this way is because if this becomes a continual process of revision, with works being rewritten every decade or whatever, eventually you'll reach a point where all the originality, colour and nuance has been removed from the original work and replaced with something altogether more bland and beige. I would say that a number of the edits Penguin has made to Dahl's books definitely meet this description. And they haven't even bothered to make a strong case for doing so - they've just made some vague remarks about 'sensitivities'.

 

Your view (and feel free to correct me) seems to be that altering literary works is absolutely fine unless somebody can make a strong case against it. So the burden of proof falls upon those objecting to the changes, not those making them. I think it should be the other way around. That's where we differ.

[Captain...]

17 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

But in all your posts on this you seem to be basically saying "what difference does it make?" rather than making a case for why these changes are justified or necessary. My view is that works of literature shouldn't be messed about with unless a compelling reason is given for doing so (ie, removing something grossly offensive like the N word). The reason I feel this way is because if this becomes a continual process of revision, with works being rewritten every decade or whatever, eventually you'll reach a point where all the originality, colour and nuance has been removed from the original work and replaced with something altogether more bland and beige. I would say that a number of the edits Penguin has made to Dahl's books definitely meet this description. And they haven't even bothered to make a strong case for doing so - they've just made some vague remarks about 'sensitivities'.

 

Your view (and feel free to correct me) seems to be that altering literary works is absolutely fine unless somebody can make a strong case against it. So the burden of proof falls upon those objecting to the changes, not those making them. I think it should be the other way around. That's where we differ.

The authors or in this case proprietors/owners can do what they want with the art they own for whatever reason they see fit. It's their art they own it. George Lucas made huge changes to Star Wars. I didn't like all of them, (Han shot first), but it's his art. Matilda has been adapted many times, they had her reading Moby Dick in the film.

 

Art changes all the time, the issue you seem to to have is not that it has changed but because they have made edits for reasons of kindness/sensitivity/woke agenda. Books, particularly kids books, will update references that are out dated. I'm assuming the "Woke" reason for changing Kipling and Conrad is due to colonial references in their work, but I don't actually know the reason. Would you have had a problem if the original authors in the story were obscure authors lost to the annals of history that nobody had heard of and they were changed to more relevant references? 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'd like to see this too (and indeed I have seen both in my time here), but I'm curious as to exactly why someone *shouldn't* be shot down for either of those two viewpoints.

 

Is this a US 1st Amendment argument for proliferation of misinformation without consequences, or something else? Genuinely curious.

There's shot down and there's shot down. Obviously explain why Andrew Tate is a total loser, but the amount of times you see a good back n forth stopped by derogatory comments or 'this thread has turned into a disgrace' etc when there's a simple disagreement going on is quite boring. Remember it happening during the World Cup when someone dared to say they weren't unbelievably amazingly outraged by it and were quite enjoying the tournament. 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

The authors or in this case proprietors/owners can do what they want with the art they own for whatever reason they see fit. It's their art they own it. George Lucas made huge changes to Star Wars. I didn't like all of them, (Han shot first), but it's his art. Matilda has been adapted many times, they had her reading Moby Dick in the film.

 

Art changes all the time, the issue you seem to to have is not that it has changed but because they have made edits for reasons of kindness/sensitivity/woke agenda. Books, particularly kids books, will update references that are out dated. I'm assuming the "Woke" reason for changing Kipling and Conrad is due to colonial references in their work, but I don't actually know the reason. Would you have had a problem if the original authors in the story were obscure authors lost to the annals of history that nobody had heard of and they were changed to more relevant references? 

Roald Dahl is no longer around to make edits to his work. The owners of his output may have the legal right to change it if they see fit, but that doesn't mean they should. I think that once an writer dies, the original written work shouldn't be changed unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so. I'm not talking about stage or film adaptations, where there is some licence for creative people to come up with new interpretations of existing works. I'm referring to the printed texts, where the artist's creativity was originally displayed and should be left alone for future generations to appreciate. 

 

Yes, I suspect you're correct that Conrad and Kipling were removed because their works contain descriptions of colonialism that might surprise or even shock the modern reader. But history is shocking, and understanding that is surely an important part of growing up. Conrad remains one of the best novelists of all time; Kipling is not my cup of tea at all, but he remains a well-known and widely-read figure in British literary history. Your question of whether I'd feel the same if obscure authors had been replaced instead misses the point - these edits clearly have not been made to make them more 'relevant' to the modern reader (Conrad and Kipling are just as well known as Austen and Steinbeck). They've been made in some cack-handed attempt to remove references to authors whose works have caused a bit of controversy because they reflect values of a previous age.

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

There's shot down and there's shot down. Obviously explain why Andrew Tate is a total loser, but the amount of times you see a good back n forth stopped by derogatory comments or 'this thread has turned into a disgrace' etc when there's a simple disagreement going on is quite boring. Remember it happening during the World Cup when someone dared to say they weren't unbelievably amazingly outraged by it and were quite enjoying the tournament. 

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

Definitely agree with that - if you're going to say that someone is wrong, it's a good idea to give an idea of exactly why and back up your viewpoint, not just go straight for the outrage and ad hominems.

 

Of course, sometimes someone comes in who rather clearly just wants to screw with people and will not sway even in the face of clear and convincing evidence and so is arguing in bad faith (happens more often than you might think on certain topics @ClaphamFox ) and then the best idea is to just present the evidence for the benefit of everyone else, and when they obviously sidestep or look to ignore it, I have no real issue with stating just exactly how ignorant and sometimes sociopathic they are.

[Captain...]

32 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Roald Dahl is no longer around to make edits to his work. The owners of his output may have the legal right to change it if they see fit, but that doesn't mean they should. I think that once an writer dies, the original written work shouldn't be changed unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so. I'm not talking about stage or film adaptations, where there is some licence for creative people to come up with new interpretations of existing works. I'm referring to the printed texts, where the artist's creativity was originally displayed and should be left alone for future generations to appreciate. 

 

Yes, I suspect you're correct that Conrad and Kipling were removed because their works contain descriptions of colonialism that might surprise or even shock the modern reader. But history is shocking, and understanding that is surely an important part of growing up. Conrad remains one of the best novelists of all time; Kipling is not my cup of tea at all, but he remains a well-known and widely-read figure in British literary history. Your question of whether I'd feel the same if obscure authors had been replaced instead misses the point - these edits clearly have not been made to make them more 'relevant' to the modern reader (Conrad and Kipling are just as well known as Austen and Steinbeck). They've been made in some cack-handed attempt to remove references to authors whose works have caused a bit of controversy because they reflect values of a previous age.

So you'd be happy with Walliams going back through his books and making similar edits as has been rumoured he's going to do? 

 

Personally I don't see an issue with Roald Dahl foundation doing this as a representative of Dahl. I also suspect there were a few things they decided should be removed, I've seen references to revising language around mental health, but not the actual text that's changed. So the decision was probably to make a wholesale review now to future proof the books rather than have to constantly edit them. 

 

I just don't see any of the changes as a big deal, and not worthy of the news feed headlines about the woke agenda.

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

23 minutes ago, Captain... said:

So you'd be happy with Walliams going back through his books and making similar edits as has been rumoured he's going to do? 

 

Personally I don't see an issue with Roald Dahl foundation doing this as a representative of Dahl. I also suspect there were a few things they decided should be removed, I've seen references to revising language around mental health, but not the actual text that's changed. So the decision was probably to make a wholesale review now to future proof the books rather than have to constantly edit them. 

 

I just don't see any of the changes as a big deal, and not worthy of the news feed headlines about the woke agenda.

 

 

Walliams can do what he wants as the author of his works. Personally I'd be happy if he burnt every copy as they're utterly awful, but the point is it's up to him.

 

You've made it clear that you're happy with others to make those decisions on behalf of deceased authors if you think the changes are no 'big deal'. I'm much more wary of it. That's basically what it comes down to. 

[Innovindil]

 

 

I dont think the fatty dance works as enormous enormous enormous, so on that ground, I'm against these changes. 

 

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

My two pence worth. Either leave people's work alone or just cancel it altogether. Not in favour amending other people's work without their permission.

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

My two pence worth. Either leave people's work alone or just cancel it altogether. Not in favour amending other people's work without their permission.

Phillip Pullman agrees with you.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Dunge]

People do adaptations of books all the time though, don’t they? I hardly dare imagine what Jane Austen would have made of “Pride & Prejudice & Zombies”.

 

I think the fear with changing Dahl’s work is that making them more PC could just remove what made them special. Being fat wasn’t what made Augustus Gloop the character he was. Augustus Gloop was fat because he was gluttonous and had no self-control, which is also why he plunged into the chocolate river. The Twits being ugly wasn’t what made the characters; they were ugly because they took no care over their appearance and had no care for either animals, people or society. Boggis, Bunce & Bean were bloodthirsty. The BFG was far from handsome or smart but he was kindly. Mr. Victor-Hazel was a nasty bully who thought he could ride roughshod over all around him, while Danny’s father was a man who “smiled with his eyes”. (That description has always stuck with me.)

 

True, the characters would stay that way, but the colourful descriptions took you into those worlds before giving a platform to understand them. They exaggerated the stories in a masterful and engaging way, stories full of nice people or animals and baddies who both deserved and got their comeuppance. It’s not like you get to the end of Charlie and the Chocolate factory and hate fat people. You get there and find it’s a win for Charlie’s humility. Maybe the oompa-loompas had certain undertones but their role ultimately was as moral guardians of the story rather than anything to be laughed at.

 

I accept that stories do change from generation to generation, and perhaps it’s a choice between bringing them “up to date” and losing them entirely because they’re seen as no longer relevant. But it does feel like a shame.

Edited 20 February 2023 by Dunge

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

... the best idea is to just present the evidence for the benefit of everyone else, and when they obviously sidestep or look to ignore it, I have no real issue with stating just exactly how ignorant and sometimes sociopathic they are.

Call them a c0ck and pop them on block served me well for years. Now I just go straight to block for thickos, trolls and bigots. Life is way to short for arguing with internet nonces.

[marbles]

6 hours ago, Captain... said:

Hmm, the delicate sensitivities of the hyper sensitive. Who in their right mind would get all worked up over whether Matilda read Conrad or Steinbeck. Such sensitive souls...

 

 

Kinda strange take, dont you think?

Cant the EXACT same thing be said about the people (woke, if you like) who get hyper sensitive about a particular word - to the point of changing books?

Wouldnt they be considered "sensitive souls"?   

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 February 2023 by marbles

[SeCrEt FoX]

I think its a shame personally. Growing up reading Roald Dahl books took your imagination, his descriptions painted these characters in your mind and made childhood memories. I loved his work because of this and it was his signature writing. You could read a random book half way through and know straight away if it was a Dahl book.

My kids have read them and watched the movies and absolutely loved them too growing up. Personally I think his work should be left alone. 

 

It just seems to me that people of today love to find flaws and faults on anything and when they get their way they move onto the next thing. Don't get me wrong, some things do need changing and I get it most of the time and a lot have been a success, but what's next? Clothing 2000 year old statues because their deemed inappropriate Or painting over paintings because a percentage of the population does not like it?