I think those were edits that Dahl made himself though, which feels different to me, but perhaps I have a very outdated / sentimental view of authorship and ownership of a text.
1 Like
hmm, a ramble off this actually, about censorship in films CW animal cruelty
Summary
i’ve seen Cannibal Holocaust twice now. It’s a fucked up 70s video-nasty horror with plenty of problematic elements in its depictions of different groups of people. However, it’s also well made, grimy as fuck in an engrossing way, and has a strong anti-colonial heart to it - which is a lot more than many more sanitised horror films have. I think that aspect of it makes it worthwhile or “justifiable” in spite of it being a difficult watch. It also had to defend itself in court against allegations of being a genuine snuff film, and they had to prove actors hadn’t been murdered on set which kinda tickles me 
but there is also genuine animal cruelty and death in the film, not staged. This doesn’t make it any worse than a lot of other more acclaimed films (e.g. Apocalypse Now) but still - something a lot of people would feel should never be on a screen, at least not for entertainment. I can more see an argument for censorship here, since what’s being shown on screen is real pain and harm.
still think films like that shouldn’t be changed and its not a contest to rank “what art is most problematic!!1!”, but do think there’s something in the difference between wanting to edit the message or views an art is representing vs. actual damage or cruelty being done in the real world within the art itself
2 Likes
Nearly started a thread on this yesterday. I don’t have a problem with it. Why is it OK to make a film of a book which has outdated ideas and keep those out of the film, but not OK to have a new version of the book which excludes those outdated ideas? The new film version of Matilda has the teacher as a black woman - were there any black characters in any of the books?
Like @escutcheon I’ve done a fair bit of editing when reading books. They aren’t sacred texts - they’re good stories which do get under the skin of the kids who read them, which makes it all the more important for a narrative which doesn’t perpetuate outdated language, because at the age when they’re reading them they won’t have the critical skills that adults do in making that distinction.
3 Likes
think i read that people were just like errr that’s not really on roald, and he was like yeah i probably got carried away with the old racism there and ok’d the edits. which is maybe nitpicking a bit but i don’t think the changes were necessarily instigated by him
1 Like
An adaption by its very nature must change things. I don’t think it’s the same thing at all.
3 Likes
Some interesting bits here. Seems like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in particular has had a real history of edits and changing with the times
3 Likes
Why though? Why not have an adaption of the old book which is also a book.
If people are so fixated on the old versions, then there’s plenty available for people to buy
Imo if you want the continued privilege of continuing to make money from your 60 year old children’s books then changing them with the times is a small price to pay and harms nobody. Not sure about other types of literature but I think for kids books there should be a bit of give and take
2 Likes
I wonder if there’s a split between people who have children reading this stuff or not?
- I have kids, and I’m happy for the books to be changed
- I don’t have kids, and I’m happy for the books to be changed
- I have kids and I think the books should stay as they are
- I don’t have kids and I think the books should stay as they are
0 voters
1 Like
it’s completely ahistorical to suggest societies didn’t edit or outright censor previous texts they found unsuitable btw, practically every era in history has done this because massive spoiler times changeeeeee
2 Likes
Yeah, I can go with that. Like the Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare, I think a clear and explicit reimagining / reworking is better than subtle tweaks and edits.
I have kids, i don’t care if the books are changed. Switching the word “fat” for “enormous” is a joke though
10 Likes
Kinda different, but Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume has been edited at different printings to change the parts about what menstrual pads she uses to fit which ever is most widely used by early teens at the time.
2 Likes
Same
1 Like
On a related note, a few years back I found an old 1970s Grimms Fairy Tales book at my mums, which I thought would be good to bring home and read to Jimbo, and MY WORD the version from back then are harsh. You know how in Disney it’s all about the evil step mothers? Well in this book it’s the mothers who are evil - no excusing things by them not being a blood relation. Everything is ten times worse than I remember it being - child abduction, death, injury.
I wonder if there was outcry when those stories started to get more sanitised?
2 Likes
Fortunately, when my lad was young he didn’t like Dahl so I never had the dilemma. He was more into uncontroversial authors, like Walliams and Rowling… 
3 Likes
If everyone is self-censoring the books when reading them and millions of uncensored copies exist for those who would prefer to own them I don’t really have a problem with this although it’s quite amusing it’s definitely down to corporate greed rather than a desire to do good.
Personally hope to never read Roald Dahl books to my kids as he was a horrible racist but that seems unlikely
Honestly it’s not as if they’re censoring Ulysses
1 Like
