c4countdown

This is PC gone mad.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64702224

I should at least have read it properly as it seems Roald Dahls estate are greenlighting it, as a business decision.

Still think Roald is spinning in his grave though.

I think it's pretty crazy to be honest.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:59 am This is PC gone mad.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64702224

I should at least have read it properly as it seems Roald Dahls estate are greenlighting it, as a business decision.

Still think Roald is spinning in his grave though.

"Some said they approved of the changes." doesn't sound like that to me!

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:14 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:59 am This is PC gone mad.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64702224

I should at least have read it properly as it seems Roald Dahls estate are greenlighting it, as a business decision.

Still think Roald is spinning in his grave though.

"Some said they approved of the changes." doesn't sound like that to me!

Probably Roald Dahls estate as they want the classics to be read by any means

I'm not entirely convinced that "enormous" is any less offensive than "fat". Seems like an exercise in silliness.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 11:42 am I'm not entirely convinced that "enormous" is any less offensive than "fat". Seems like an exercise in silliness.

Its like some of the words in the expurgated scrabble list which include, BINT, CISSIES and ASPIE

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 12:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 11:42 am I'm not entirely convinced that "enormous" is any less offensive than "fat". Seems like an exercise in silliness.

Its like some of the words in the expurgated scrabble list which include, BINT, CISSIES and ASPIE

And, erm, BOGTROTTER.

I can understand why people might have differing opinions on the individual changes to the books. Personally I wouldn't have agreed with every individual change listed in the BBC article. However, the general principle of making minor revisions to an old book's text to reflect a changing culture is nothing new, including for Roald Dahl's works.

The first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 1964 described the Oompa-Loompas as a tribe of 3,000 black pygmies, imported from "the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had been before" to work in Willy Wonka's factory.

Responding to concerns that this evoked more than a hint of slavery, Dahl removed these references for the revised edition in 1972, in which they were described as "rosy-white". The 1971 film made them orange.

Children read and enjoy these books. They might read certain words and insults used by the narrator and naturally assume they can unconditionally repeat them without regard to the context. If this can be avoided by some minor changes to the text which don't affect the story, what's the problem? It's not as if they're quietly removing things in order to pretend they were never there. There's been quite a lot of publicity about it.

When I was in first grade in 2001, I got a good reprimand when I repeated a joke told by an Asian caricature in the sequel (Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator) to my parents. Could have gone a lot worse had I told it at school. I don't support censorship but I'd say please don't put the books on the shelves without a clear warning.

Johnny Canuck wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:08 pm When I was in first grade in 2001, I got a good reprimand when I repeated a joke told by an Asian caricature in the sequel (Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator) to my parents. Could have gone a lot worse had I told it at school. I don't support censorship but I'd say please don't put the books on the shelves without a clear warning.

If it's the telephone joke, it's pretty lightweight to be honest. But best avoided from a point of respect at least.

You know you can't get away with just talking about the joke like that, right? I presume it's:

It is very difficult to phone people in China, Mr. President,” said the Postmaster General. “The country’s so full of Wings and Wongs, every time you wing you get the wong number.

But anyway, is there not something you lose by removing the original canon? I think it's fine to leave them as it is and put some sort of warning not or whatever. "These are historical books etc."

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:41 pm It's not as if they're quietly removing things in order to pretend they were never there. There's been quite a lot of publicity about it.

A child reading the book afresh will not necessarily know any of this. They're not getting any of the context of the removal. The publicity is just now. It won't continue into the future for new generations reading the books.

I still think it's a financial ploy by Ronald' Dahls estate to make money and to retain the longevity of his books and adaptations.
There was no clamour to cancel any books.
This smacks of virtue signalling not unlike what Mattel and Hasbro did with Scrabble and its associated dictionaries no Scrabble communities wanted it in thank the most vocal against it was African countries and Pakistan

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:13 am I still think it's a financial ploy by Ronald' Dahls estate to make money and to retain the longevity of his books and adaptations.

Netflix bought the rights to his works in 2021.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:54 am

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:41 pm It's not as if they're quietly removing things in order to pretend they were never there. There's been quite a lot of publicity about it.

A child reading the book afresh will not necessarily know any of this. They're not getting any of the context of the removal. The publicity is just now. It won't continue into the future for new generations reading the books.

Is that a problem? I read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a child, and this would have been the revised edition. Perhaps you did too. I had no idea it had been revised, but I don't think it mattered, especially as the substance of the story remained unchanged. How would my or anyone else's enjoyment of the story have been improved by reading the original instead of the revised?

And yet, over half a century later, the fact that it was changed is not hidden away - it's still very easy to find out about it.

It was addressing your point about quietly removing things. It would be quiet for all the new people that come into existence.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:54 pm It was addressing your point about quietly removing things. It would be quiet for all the new people that come into existence.

Unlikely to be quiet as I'm sure grandpa and grandma will remind their grandkids.
Mind you that's the same reason sectarianism still exists

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:50 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:13 am I still think it's a financial ploy by Ronald' Dahls estate to make money and to retain the longevity of his books and adaptations.

Netflix bought the rights to his works in 2021.

Netflix, that great bastian of censorship.
Im guessing their rights are only movie and TV rights rather than publishing rights.

I have watched The new Matilda musical and there was no censorship in place there

Some of the changes are just ridiculous by the way like the BFG having a black coat and someone going as white as a sheet. "Black" and "white" are perfectly normal usable words.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:54 amBut anyway, is there not something you lose by removing the original canon? I think it's fine to leave them as it is and put some sort of warning not or whatever. "These are historical books etc."

Agreed to all counts, leave them untouched but try to make it known that the impressionable kids shouldn't just spout them off as if everything is fine.

Johnny Canuck wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:54 amBut anyway, is there not something you lose by removing the original canon? I think it's fine to leave them as it is and put some sort of warning not or whatever. "These are historical books etc."

Agreed to all counts, leave them untouched but try to make it known that the impressionable kids shouldn't just spout them off as if everything is fine.

As a footnote to this, we were reading out load in our English Literature class and was reading from Huckleberry Finn, I was reading from a passage where Jim, a slave was talking, my teacher insisted I read it in character which I reluctantly did and half the class laughed and the other half was either appalled or embarrassed for me.
I got beat up for that.
So if they censor that book I would be happy

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:45 pm Some of the changes are just ridiculous by the way like the BFG having a black coat and someone going as white as a sheet. "Black" and "white" are perfectly normal usable words.

I stopped reading at that point as it smacked of the right wing press lazy journalism against the PC brigade when they said Labour controlled councils wanted to ban Baa, baa black sheep, in the 80s

Johnny Canuck wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:54 amBut anyway, is there not something you lose by removing the original canon? I think it's fine to leave them as it is and put some sort of warning not or whatever. "These are historical books etc."

Agreed to all counts, leave them untouched but try to make it known that the impressionable kids shouldn't just spout them off as if everything is fine.

But the Roald Dahl books we read aren't "untouched" - they were edited as early as the 1970s to remove references to slavery - the Oompa Loompa's were originally black pygmies imported from Africa - this sort of evolution is normal to ensure childrens books can continue to be enjoyed as cultural sensitivities change.

The most important thing to remember is that this is a business decision to sell more books and the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of free market capitalism rather than some lefty, PC gone mad, "cancel culture" boogie man.

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:27 am The most important thing to remember is that this is a business decision to sell more books and the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of free market capitalism rather than some lefty, PC gone mad, "cancel culture" boogie man.

Woke consumerism is a thing apparently

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/roal ... 1677241128

Good old Puffin the anti woke consumerists

I try to avoid using simplistic catch-all terms like "woke" or "gammon" etc. anyway and instead address each topic on its own merits.

A friend of mine was worried and asked if they looked fat and I was like "No, not at all. You just look enormous." I think it went down well. There were tears of joy - I presume.