Roald Dahl... and white out

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was an announcement about words in Roald Dahl's books that were to be changed due to an ever changing social landscape. There was much criticism. And the decision was reversed. Being an unpublished writer of no acclaim whatsoever, the Roald Dahl situation was intriguing because there are two very interesting parts of it to consider.

1) Censorship is evil!!!
2) Wouldn't it be great to change a couple terribly outdated things I've written in the past because my awareness wasn't as good or I wasn't as mature than now?

I think both of these statements are 100% true. Now, to get things out in the open Roald Dahl had "issues" with social beliefs. But, as far as I can tell, this did not translate in to his books... unless the Knids were a metaphor for something... you know... like how The Wizard of Oz is a political commentary on America. And despite Dahl's beliefs, he had a pretty good imagination and put together some very classic children's lit... of which I've enjoyed a lot with my daughter.

Now censorship is a problem because it is a censor on thought and expression. Censorship is often used to prevent criticism of an authoritarian authority, to create an illusion of civilian content. When you don't have to justify yourself, you can do whatever you want. This can come across in literature (and other media) as well. For instance apartheid was strictly kept from the camera for as long as possible in South Africa, so it more a secret than a governmental / social policy. Books have out rightly been banned in the US because they darned to suggest things that weren't popular ideas for some people.

The suggested modifications to Dahl's books wouldn't have really been "censorship". As the books would exist... virtually in whole. A very small number of rough edges were to be sanded. But that itself, is still impeding or inflicting damage to a book as a whole. We don't generally publish books by people with some words changed by editors....

...oh wait... we do that all the time! It is just this is almost always done before the initial publication. To do it after publication... that is unusual. And it creates a difficult standard, of where to stop pulling at the thread. There are connotations in his books which really aren't meant to be as demeaning, but they can come across as such today, especially as we learn more about everything that is human, mental and physical. So I'm left torn here. I don't like the idea of change an author's words. On the other hand, I know there is stuff I've written, that I would have liked another crack at, with the smidgeon more wisdom and awareness that I have now than I did then.

Part of me invited the idea of changing a couple references in his books. Another part of me is glad they left it alone. Makes one think that this stuff is complicated after all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Time for lots of footnotes seems to me. Like when one reads something from Elizabethan England. They used words differently and a word would have a different meaning in those times compared to today. So one needs all the information to appreciate the work. Hence, copious notation.

 

[Jayjay]

Time for lots of footnotes seems to me. Like when one reads something from Elizabethan England. They used words differently and a word would have a different meaning in those times compared to today. So one needs all the information to appreciate the work. Hence, copious notation.

And if there is something that children love to see in their books, it's lots of footnotes.

I don't think the Roald Dahl thing is about being woke. It's about making money. The RD estate wants to keep the royalties flowing, but the world has changed and the originals aren't selling as much because parents may find it off-putting to read them to their children. So they updated the content in ways they thought would garner a larger audience.

I suppose, there is nothing for them to keep the old text also available for collectors and whatnot. But the estate and the publisher need to be mindful of possible backlash vs. profit from that niche audience. Hypocrisy doesn't sell.

 

[laughing dog]

This is not a new phenomena. Hugh Lofting's Doctor Doolittle books have undergone editing in the 1960s and 1980s because the originals were racist. I don't recall any hubbub about those edits.

Frankly, I think the content should be left alone and parents can explain to their children if there are any issues.

 

[Patooka]

Now, to get things out in the open Roald Dahl had "issues" with social beliefs. But, as far as I can tell, this did not translate in to his books.

His non fiction books and adult novels are a little less subtle. I'm pretty certain Oompa Loompas came from his opinion of "others" during his time serving in the RAF as well.

As to the topic, it's not much of a much. It happens more often than you'd think. I once asked an American what's the fucking difference when it comes to the King James Bible and that's an afternoon of my life I'm never getting back. I just hope the people who are offended by this are ideologically consistent and were equally outraged when Sam Clements' novels were altered a few years back.