The censoring of Roald Dahl

[Trollheart]

Yes. it's also clear he changed the words he did due to a fear of backlash from certain quarters in the wake of all this idea that certain things are not acceptable. You think he would have done this had there not been a worry that it would impact sales?

[Janszoon]

Yes. it's also clear he changed the words he did due to a fear of backlash from certain quarters in the wake of all this idea that certain things are not acceptable. You think he would have done this had there not been a worry that it would impact sales?

I have no doubt it's entirely about making money. I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond that.

[Rubber Soul]

I'm not sure if Fat Albert is what you want to use as a perfect example either. (You do know that's Bill Cosby, right?

[Trollheart]

 

Yes. it's also clear he changed the words he did due to a fear of backlash from certain quarters in the wake of all this idea that certain things are not acceptable. You think he would have done this had there not been a worry that it would impact sales?

I have no doubt it's entirely about making money. I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond that.

What I'm saying - and I think I made it pretty clear - is that Dahl and his publishers would, let's say ten years ago, five even, have seen no reason to have to amend the books. Now they do, because of the way these things are looked at. I'm saying that the thinking on some sides has made it dangerous, that is, to sales, to include certain words or phrases that there should be no harm in including. As long as the idea is not to mock the, let's call it condition - whether it's fat, small, ugly, gay - or, if it is, to ensure the mocking is dealt with in the story, why should it not be left in? Like I said, does everything now that seems even mildly offensive have to be excised from past books? And if, using the word "fat" (which was mentioned), that word is removed, how will that help the problem of child obesity? I haven't read these books, but if a story is about, say, a child who gets fat from overeating, and that's removed, or made less of an issue, how then can any child know that overeating is not healthy? Most of these are supposedly moral tales. So you remove the moral? Makes no sense. I'm skinny as a rake. Some people are fat. I'm going bald and have buck teeth. None of these conditions offend me, and if they did, what would it matter? Taking the words away is not going to change anything. I'll still be skinny, balding with buck teeth. And old.

I'm not sure if Fat Albert is what you want to use as a perfect example either. (You do know that's Bill Cosby, right?

I did not. But take anything: Little Lulu and Tubby. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Where does it stop?

[Toy Revolver]

I'm not sure if Fat Albert is what you want to use as a perfect example either. (You do know that's Bill Cosby, right?

i wanna know if he gave all these drunk skinny white girls with limited drug experience quaaludes where the hell are dead ones?

[Rubber Soul]

I did not. But take anything: Little Lulu and Tubby. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Where does it stop?

When people finally take a deep breath. Both sides are guilty of censorship for different reasons. The left tried to ban Mark Twain for offensive language at a time when it was normal. Twain was an abolitionist. As for the right, well, anything non-biblical would be offensive to them. If some of them had it their way, we'd only have the Bible and Mein Kampf to read.

But common sense ultimately takes over. Right now Dahl and the Dr. Seuss survivors are living in fear, but in time, things will calm down. At least that's what history has taught us.

[Toy Revolver]

I did not. But take anything: Little Lulu and Tubby. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Where does it stop?

When people finally take a deep breath. Both sides are guilty of censorship for different reasons. The left tried to ban Mark Twain for offensive language at a time when it was normal. Twain was an abolitionist. As for the right, well, anything non-biblical would be offensive to them. If some of them had it their way, we'd only have the Bible and Mein Kampf to read.

But common sense ultimately takes over. Right now Dahl and the Dr. Seuss survivors are living in fear, but in time, things will calm down. At least that's what history has taught us.

i'm pretty sure the clear lesson from history is that people who ignore the first wave of fascism end up with totalitarian governments

[Psy-Fi]

i wanna know if he gave all these drunk skinny white girls with limited drug experience quaaludes where the hell are dead ones?

[Rubber Soul]

i'm pretty sure the clear lesson from history is that people who ignore the first wave of fascism end up with totalitarian governments

True. But we also get to the point when we get tired of being told what we can and cannot read. Heck, they couldn't even ban porn, what makes you think they'll succeed at banning children's' books?.

My guess is they'll push everyone to the point where they say enough. The only question will be how much damage is done in the meantime.

[Toy Revolver]

i'm pretty sure the clear lesson from history is that people who ignore the first wave of fascism end up with totalitarian governments

True. But we also get to the point when we get tired of being told what we can and cannot read. Heck, they couldn't even ban porn, what makes you think they'll succeed at banning children's' books?.

My guess is they'll push everyone to the point where they say enough. The only question will be how much damage is done in the meantime.

i thought america was like any other place on earth where you have to remain diligent about protecting your liberties before totalitarianism takes hold

if i knew we had a magic "enough" button i could've saved a fortune in antidepressants and anxiety medication

[Marie Monday]

it's not just roseanne being taken off her own show or these books being censored or a professor being forced to apologize when he did nothing wrong or a great journalist being fired or hate forest being removed from spotify or the turner diaries not being available hardly anywhere or a kid losing his scholarship for rapping along with a song or a popular tv cooking personality from kentucky losing her show

obviously it's the collective

when other people start having a say on what i have access to i take that seriously and i'm glad there's a conservative backlash against it - liberals should be for free speech as well and not just in the confines of the first amendment - and nods to the fact that the right are the most dangerous aggressors against free speech and thought but being less egregious than your opponent doesn't get you a pass

What Janszoon says is true. Every political persuasion has narrow-minded and intolerant members. Those are often the loudest ones. The difference is that with left-wing progressive politics it's just that, and the right wing stirs up paranoia about it on purpose. Meanwhile in right-wing politics the intolerance and censorship is a systematic part of the ideology. So what you get is right-wing politicians acting indignant about 'wokeness destroying free speech' while simultaneously trying to impose things like the don't say gay law. The danger is there, and any un-nuanced anti woke rhetoric helps to fuel it

[Janszoon]

What I'm saying - and I think I made it pretty clear - is that Dahl and his publishers would, let's say ten years ago, five even, have seen no reason to have to amend the books. Now they do, because of the way these things are looked at. I'm saying that the thinking on some sides has made it dangerous, that is, to sales, to include certain words or phrases that there should be no harm in including. As long as the idea is not to mock the, let's call it condition - whether it's fat, small, ugly, gay - or, if it is, to ensure the mocking is dealt with in the story, why should it not be left in? Like I said, does everything now that seems even mildly offensive have to be excised from past books? And if, using the word "fat" (which was mentioned), that word is removed, how will that help the problem of child obesity? I haven't read these books, but if a story is about, say, a child who gets fat from overeating, and that's removed, or made less of an issue, how then can any child know that overeating is not healthy? Most of these are supposedly moral tales. So you remove the moral? Makes no sense. I'm skinny as a rake. Some people are fat. I'm going bald and have buck teeth. None of these conditions offend me, and if they did, what would it matter? Taking the words away is not going to change anything. I'll still be skinny, balding with buck teeth. And old.

The article you posted mentions that Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were described as black in the original edition of the book but changed to white in the early 70s. So I think it's pretty clear that changes to books are not a new phenomenon. Going back further, whole sections of Frankenstein were altered for the 1831 edition, and the altered version is the one that most people have read. A few years ago, I was even surprised to discover that a lot of the US editions of Discworld books swap British terms for their American counterparts ("noughts and crosses" becomes "tic-tac-toe", for example). Some of these changes may be good, some may be bad, and some may just be stupid (I think you and I will both agree the Discworld changes fall into the third category), but I'm just saying it's something that's gone on for a very long time, it's driven by publishers wanting to sell more books, and even if it's sometimes dumb, it's far from being one of the major problems in the world today.

[Marie Monday]

What I'm saying - and I think I made it pretty clear - is that Dahl and his publishers would, let's say ten years ago, five even, have seen no reason to have to amend the books. Now they do, because of the way these things are looked at. I'm saying that the thinking on some sides has made it dangerous, that is, to sales, to include certain words or phrases that there should be no harm in including. As long as the idea is not to mock the, let's call it condition - whether it's fat, small, ugly, gay - or, if it is, to ensure the mocking is dealt with in the story, why should it not be left in? Like I said, does everything now that seems even mildly offensive have to be excised from past books? And if, using the word "fat" (which was mentioned), that word is removed, how will that help the problem of child obesity? I haven't read these books, but if a story is about, say, a child who gets fat from overeating, and that's removed, or made less of an issue, how then can any child know that overeating is not healthy? Most of these are supposedly moral tales. So you remove the moral? Makes no sense. I'm skinny as a rake. Some people are fat. I'm going bald and have buck teeth. None of these conditions offend me, and if they did, what would it matter? Taking the words away is not going to change anything. I'll still be skinny, balding with buck teeth. And old.

The article you posted mentions that Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were described as black in the original edition of the book but changed to white in the early 70s. So I think it's pretty clear that changes to books are not a new phenomenon. Going back further, whole sections of Frankenstein were altered for the 1831 edition, and the altered version is the one that most people have read. A few years ago, I was even surprised to discover that a lot of the US editions of Discworld books swap British terms for their American counterparts ("noughts and crosses" becomes "tic-tac-toe", for example). Some of these changes may be good, some may be bad, and some may just be stupid (I think you and I will both agree the Discworld changes fall into the third category), but I'm just saying it's something that's gone on for a very long time, it's driven by publishers wanting to sell more books, and even if it's sometimes dumb, it's far from being one of the major problems in the world today.

this also. As if certain words being avoided because they're bad for sales is anything new.

[Guybrush]

I see two generalizations that I find somewhat difficult about this discussion.

The term wokeness seems to be generalized to encompass a lot of stuff, from general awareness about racial prejudice to now censoring children's books. Is that right that this is all part of the same movement? To me, I'd think someone could be for awareness to prejudice (sounds great) and still not be for tossing kids out of school for rapping, censoring Dahl, etc.

Then it seems wokeness is "owned" by the political left and used by the right as a way to attack the left. Noone likes to be subjected to moral superiority, so that sounds like a great narrative to weaponize. But isn't this also a bit simple? Won't f.ex. censoring Roald Dahl have supporters and detractors both among democrats and republicans?

These broad stroke generalizations just seem to make it harder to have a discussion that's very meaningful, I think. Maybe one could poke a hole in them.

[Janszoon]

I see two generalizations that I find somewhat difficult about this discussion.

The term wokeness seems to be generalized to encompass a lot of stuff, from general awareness about racial prejudice to now censoring children's books. Is that right that this is all part of the same movement? To me, I'd think someone could be for awareness to prejudice (sounds great) and still not be for tossing kids out of school for rapping, censoring Dahl, etc.

Then it seems wokeness is "owned" by the political left and used by the right as a way to attack the left. Noone likes to be subjected to moral superiority, so that sounds like a great narrative to weaponize. But isn't this also a bit simple? Won't f.ex. censoring Roald Dahl have supporters and detractors both among democrats and republicans?

These broad stroke generalizations just seem to make it harder to have a discussion that's very meaningful, I think. Maybe one could poke a hole in them.

The term "woke" is about awareness of racism, but in the past few years conservatives have decided to start using it to refer to pretty much anything in society that they don't like.