Roald Dahl's work edited to cater to identity politics

Post Reply New Topic

Somehow when all those dated offensive words were allowed children were a lot less mentally ill.

Or at least far less diagnosed.
I'm not sure the two are the same though.

I'm not aware that "fat" or "ugly" are terms associated with "identity politics", or even that they are terms which "aren't allowed".

The books have been edited for one reason alone: the copyright holders want to make money, and think these changes will make them more money.

Dahl previously removed references to Willy Wonka's pygmy slaves shipped over from darkest Africa, and replaced them with the fictional Oompa-Loompas.

Very likely, I reckon.

I'd encourage people to read a biography on Dahl, instead.
Such a tragic life.

Nothing to do with identity politics. It's disingenuous to say so but I guess all's fair in the culture wars.

It is about money, but it's also about culture in the wider sense. Roald Dahl's books have remained very popular, much longer than most books stay relevant. They still sell to children who are reading for the first time in great numbers today. That's because they're good stories, not because they contained a few descriptors that used to be commonplace but are now considered harmful insults.

So if we're still publishing and selling them, we have to judge them by today's standards. Would a book by a contemporary author be published if it used this language?

The answer is no.

It would be edited out because it doesn't reflect our culture anymore. You can argue that isn't true, that it's just woke snowflakery or political correctness gone mad.

Fortunately, there's an impartial adjudicator in this trial and it's called commerce. This change has cost someone money and it would only have happened if there was a greater risk to profit from inaction than there is from action. The market says that the culture has changed and it's the only thing with a cold, rational approach to analysis. You either catch up or you cling to your newly minority views and watch the world progress with increasing confusion and frustration.

Millions of copies of older books containing the original language exist on shelves worldwide if you want to do some historical research and see what passed as acceptable language in days gone by. We're not losing anything by making these changes.

I think Philip Pulman had the better idea though - when an authors books become problematic for a modern audience, that' the time to simply stop publishing them and make some room for a new Roald Dahl to emerge.

Whenever a business does anything 'woke' these days, you'll get liberals in here claiming those businesses are only interested in making money. I'm tired of hearing this crap.

Firstly, it's impossible to know for sure the true motivations in any given case.

Secondly, the idea that businesses are always only interested in making profits and never interested in pushing political agendas is just flawed if anyone bothers to think about it. After all, businesses are run by human beings, who have political leanings like anyone else. Rich businesspeople often spend the money they've earned on influencing the politics and culture of their societies; therefore it stands to reason that sometimes those businesspeople would use their own businesses (and not just the money in their bank accounts) to do the same.

What political point do you think is being made here?

It's not like they've edited the books to say "vote for Keir Starmer's Labour, now 80% less antisemitic". This is pretty Milquetoast, trivial stuff. There is no "don't call people ugly" party.

Maybe that's just a concession that being "anti-woke" is the same as being pro-insulting people.

The thing is an entire generation of p*ssies was created. These can't people can't handle words like fat, bald, ugly, and short being used in children's books anymore.

Nonsense. If anything it would hurt the sales.

Where is your evidence of this as a motive?

Nothing says you're not a p**** like being so fragile you lose your s**t over changes to a children's book.

Are you making fun of me?

You're all bent out of shape over changes to a children's book, if that's not the definition of fragile I don't know what is. Therefore, you're in no position to call anyone a p**** because right now your picture is next to the definition in the dictionary.

I'm not making fun of you, I'm pointing out how ridiculous you look. If me pointing this out causes you to feel ridiculed it's likely because you understand just how fragile losing your s**t over a children's book really is.