Ronald Dahl Censored


Its an interesting question though, how to handle historic texts in general

Do you update the language so that it has the same impact as it did at the time it was written - so that the intention is kept the same
Or do you leave it exactly as it is, and then have people experiencing the story in a very different way to how the author intended

It could mean that classics end up "going out of fashion". And then you have to wonder if that's actually a bad thing. Are there countless great stories out there that never get discovered because of the huge pool of classic stories that fill the public conciousness?
 
Its an interesting question though, how to handle historic texts in general

Do you update the language so that it has the same impact as it did at the time it was written - so that the intention is kept the same
Or do you leave it exactly as it is, and then have people experiencing the story in a very different way to how the author intended

It could mean that classics end up "going out of fashion". And then you have to wonder if that's actually a bad thing. Are there countless great stories out there that never get discovered because of the huge pool of classic stories that fill the public conciousness?
I'd argue, we can handle them by understanding the context it was written in. Books become very useful to help us understand what the general views of the world were like at that time. If someone doesn't like the way a book has been written then they can write another one and have that published. World views are changing and evolving constantly.
 
cannot be edited?

I am happy for books to be edited to fit in with modern standards

how would you edit Gone with the Wind to fit into modern standards? Why would anyone want to? It was a piece of it's time and interesting because of that. (I am aware it was a historical novel written in 1930s)

What does fit in with modern standards mean? Where would you draw the line? What is the purpose of fitting in?
Its an interesting question though, how to handle historic texts in general

Do you update the language so that it has the same impact as it did at the time it was written - so that the intention is kept the same
Or do you leave it exactly as it is, and then have people experiencing the story in a very different way to how the author intended

It could mean that classics end up "going out of fashion". And then you have to wonder if that's actually a bad thing. Are there countless great stories out there that never get discovered because of the huge pool of classic stories that fill the public conciousness?

Dickens made simple might be a good idea but it isn't Dickens.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue, we can handle them by understanding the context it was written in. Books become very useful to help us understand what the general views of the world were like at that time. If someone doesn't like the way a book has been written then they can write another one and have that published. World views are changing and evolving constantly.
Yeah, its a very good point that it becomes a artifact of its time.

But kids can't grasp those contexts, so it would end up having an impact.
 
What does fit in with modern standards mean? Where would you draw the line? What is the purpose of fitting in?

to fit in more with modern life. I struggle to explain it any more than that. its not a hard concept to grasp
wherever the publisher wants to draw the line to appeal to as many people as possible. this is capitalism.
to appeal to more people (a new audience maybe)
 
Yeah, its a very good point that it becomes a artifact of its time.

But kids can't grasp those contexts, so it would end up having an impact.
I do understand that concern and it is a fair one. That said, these kids don't have to read the book if it becomes too "problematic" though. That debate should be had as and when required.

There is a difference between editing books to meet a certain "standard" (and who exactly defines those standards?) and say, burning them. It is a step towards that though.
 
Last edited:
to fit in more with modern life. I struggle to explain it any more than that. its not a hard concept to grasp
wherever the publisher wants to draw the line to appeal to as many people as possible. this is capitalism.
to appeal to more people (a new audience maybe)
That is the purpose of literature in your eyes? Fair enough but I disagree on a fundamental level.

I assume you would leave Shakespeare and the Poets alone.
I do understand that concern and it is a fair one. That said, these kids don't have to read the book if it becomes too "problematic" though. That debate should be had as and when required.

There is a difference between editing books to meet a certain "standard" (and who exactly defines those standards?) and say, burning them. It is a step towards that though.
God forbid the kids have to put some effort in. Just let them back on their Xbox.
 
Last edited:
Surely that is more of a translation than sanitising the prose?

I wish they had when I did Chaucer at school.
Of course. I'm quite neutral on the Dahl books changea. I think foot notes or end notes might have been better. Though I'm saying that as an adult who as a child would have read them.I don't know how many children would.
 
I do understand that concern and it is a fair one. That said, these kids don't have to read the book if it becomes too "problematic" though. That debate should be had as and when required.

There is a difference between editing books to meet a certain "standard" (and who exactly defines those standards?) and say, burning them. It is a step towards that though.
I'm just being argumentative to try to flush out the debate here tbh, I'm not even sure which side I agree with. Its possibly an impossible question.

I don't think the text in Dahl's books is problematic personally. Calling someone fat or ugly isn't a big issue to me. But I'm Gen X / Millenial. I can just about see that Gen Z might have a problem with it, and that's their perogative - we all have to remember that our generation changed things, just as the ones that come after us will do too. Its the natural order of things.
But if we don't update books, using these Dahl ones as an example, at what point in time do they become too out of touch for kids to read - because that's when they basically die and get written off to time.

Someone has to make that choice - do we resign them to the status that say, Shakespeare's writing has, where its only really read as a study. Or do they get updated to keep the basic story in tact for a much longer period.

I'm possibly repeating myself now, and even so I don't have an answer :)
 
Of course. I'm quite neutral on the Dahl books changea. I think foot notes or end notes might have been better. Though I'm saying that as an adult who as a child would have read them.I don't know how many children would.

it's a slippery slope for me. However, it is for the owner's of the work and the publishers to decide. Once they are in public domain then originals can be printed by anyone.
 
I'm just being argumentative to try to flush out the debate here tbh, I'm not even sure which side I agree with. Its possibly an impossible question.

I don't think the text in Dahl's books is problematic personally. Calling someone fat or ugly isn't a big issue to me. But I'm Gen X / Millenial. I can just about see that Gen Z might have a problem with it, and that's their perogative - we all have to remember that our generation changed things, just as the ones that come after us will do too. Its the natural order of things.
But if we don't update books, using these Dahl ones as an example, at what point in time do they become too out of touch for kids to read - because that's when they basically die and get written off to time.

Someone has to make that choice - do we resign them to the status that say, Shakespeare's writing has, where its only really read as a study. Or do they get updated to keep the basic story in tact for a much longer period.

I'm possibly repeating myself now, and even so I don't have an answer :)
It's a reasonable to question to ask.

We all know that social norms change and what is acceptable by the vast majority now is not the same as what was acceptable 200, 100, 50, 20 years ago. There's nothing inherently wrong with history being what it is. I think it should be left alone and if the copyright owners want to change it they shouldn't say it's written solely and wholly by Roald Dahl and certainly not on the date it was originally published.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PTR
I'm just being argumentative to try to flush out the debate here tbh, I'm not even sure which side I agree with. Its possibly an impossible question.

I don't think the text in Dahl's books is problematic personally. Calling someone fat or ugly isn't a big issue to me. But I'm Gen X / Millenial. I can just about see that Gen Z might have a problem with it, and that's their perogative - we all have to remember that our generation changed things, just as the ones that come after us will do too. Its the natural order of things.
But if we don't update books, using these Dahl ones as an example, at what point in time do they become too out of touch for kids to read - because that's when they basically die and get written off to time.

Someone has to make that choice - do we resign them to the status that say, Shakespeare's writing has, where its only really read as a study. Or do they get updated to keep the basic story in tact for a much longer period.

I'm possibly repeating myself now, and even so I don't have an answer :)
There’s nothing wrong with being argumentative. Personally I think that historic text should be left alone as an artefact.
 
Last edited:
That is the purpose of literature in your eyes?

the purpose? no. the purpose is to be enjoyed. If a publisher decides that more people/a wider audience/a new younger audience will get enjoyment out of it by modernising it then so be it. Happens all the time. I have no issue with it

I assume you would leave Shakespeare and the Poets alone.

have no issue either way. if a publisher decided to edit it then I wouldn't be bothered
 
it's a slippery slope for me. However, it is for the owner's of the work and the publishers to decide. Once they are in public domain then originals can be printed by anyone.

I would prefer the books to stay the way they were. The consequence of that would be that his books would gradually stop being bought, and all you'd see would be small/big screen adaptations that repackage some characters for a modern audience. Like Noddy which still gets used in kids cartoons but nothing like the originals (no evil brutish gollywogs portrayed as the villains etc). None of which bothers me either but the publishers of the books will get less money when that happens. This is their choice.
 
I hope someone does. The best items are the ones where someone finds something and thinks they are on a nice earner, then stand trying to feign being pleasantly surprised when the valuation is only a couple of hundred quid.

Or when some old dear brings something that she thinks might be worth a few quid and is blown away when that little thing she's had on her shelf is worth much more.

Can't stand the
"Great Uncle Oswald bought this at a Parisian auction house in 1902 for £900 and its had pride of place in the drawing room ever since" ones.

You just pray that Oswald was a fuckwit who splashed out on a fake.
 
I think it should be left alone and if the copyright owners want to change it they shouldn't say it's written solely and wholly by Roald Dahl and certainly not on the date it was originally published.
Someone should definitely mention this to everyone who thinks the bible was written by god, mind ;)
 
the purpose? no. the purpose is to be enjoyed. If a publisher decides that more people/a wider audience/a new younger audience will get enjoyment out of it by modernising it then so be it. Happens all the time. I have no issue with it



have no issue either way. if a publisher decided to edit it then I wouldn't be bothered
If penguin and the estate wish to sanitise the work it is their product to do whatever they wish.
Changing literature to fit in with modern sensibilities is vandalism imho.
However, I have plenty of books to read before I die so I’m happy to let the modern world carry on and water down everything.
I would prefer the books to stay the way they were. The consequence of that would be that his books would gradually stop being bought, and all you'd see would be small/big screen adaptations that repackage some characters for a modern audience. Like Noddy which still gets used in kids cartoons but nothing like the originals (no evil brutish gollywogs portrayed as the villains etc). None of which bothers me either but the publishers of the books will get less money when that happens. This is their choice.
I agree that the works are the property of the estate and they can do what they wish.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top