Let’s discuss: Roald Dahl

[byjove]

I don't have an answer yet, but I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I see both sides of it.

[justbecause]

Looks like they are going to print the originals.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64759118

I think changing literature like this is a slippery slope. And there would be a lot of old copies out there anyway.

Changing words like “fat” and “ugly” seems kind of whatever.

And Phillip Pullman is really one to talk since his YA Sally Lockhart series did not age particularly well.

[notblanche]

My first impression is, as long as it's being done with the blessing of Dahl's estate, I'm fine with it. There's a lot of renewed interest among young children in these stories. And language choices matter. My 6yo and I are reading chapter books together and he understands/ can skip over words like "stupid." But he may not as easily understand some of the regressive world view points.

[notblanche]

Ok I went and looked at more of the text comparisons and the changes seem immaterial to me. They're not proposing to change the stories. And I'd prefer my kid's chapter books to be a little less rude tbh. But I do understand the slippery slope concerns.

[imapenguin]

Matt Haig (author) had a take on this that I largely agree with. I think it was a business move by those benefiting from the estate and little else. I tried to copy and paste his caption, but can’t, so you’ll have to click through to read.

http://instagram.com/p/Co7i9sns13u

[imapenguin]

Oh look at that, it embedded this time.

[enchanted]

Feb 24, 2023 8:59:29 GMT -6 byjove said:

I don't have an answer yet, but I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I see both sides of it.

This is where I am. I remember loving his books as a kid, especially Matilda. I haven't read them since I was a kid, though, even though they're on my bookshelf (obviously pre-edited versions). I also haven't really done any in-depth reading to see what the edits are, but my understanding is they really don't change the stories.

So basically, I don't know.

[abs]

This is a really interesting conversation. I really don’t know.

In general I don’t believe in banning books. I think kids should be able to read what they want. There needs to be conversations about problematic authors and problematic language but shielding them from that isn’t something I am interested in. On the other hand know better do better. If you can replace problematic language maybe you should. There have been updates in Judy Blume books so there is certainly a precedent. So I arrive back at it being complicated.

imapenguin provides even more to think about with her link. So much of upper middle grade fiction IS very preachy and all about learning a lesson. DD definitely lost interest in reading until she discovered she likes dystopian fiction. The Hunger Games revitalized that but there does seem to be a conception right now that reading is for learning and that’s it for junior high/high school kids. Not a great lesson.

Again. Complicated.

[adelbert]

Feb 24, 2023 9:53:58 GMT -6 imapenguin said:

Matt Haig (author) had a take on this that I largely agree with. I think it was a business move by those benefiting from the estate and little else. I tried to copy and paste his caption, but can’t, so you’ll have to click through to read.

http://instagr.am/p/Co7i9sns13u

I very much agree with his take. Roald Dahl's books still hold up fabulously and my boys and I have enjoyed reading them together.

[jaygee]

I’m laughing at the examples above because having reread most of Dahl’s work recently those passages don’t scratch the surface of what is cringey now. Like the beginning of James and the Giant Peach is full on descriptions of child abuse by the aunts. I hadn’t realized how dark it was and read it out load to DS at 5. I edited on the fly.

We’ve read the other books when he was older and they are dark but we enjoyed them and talked about the dark parts and rude language.

I’m not a fan of the editing personally. There are lots of book choices, I think it’s ok to just not like Dahl and read something else

[athn64]

Feb 24, 2023 20:49:21 GMT -6 jaygee said:

I’m laughing at the examples above because having reread most of Dahl’s work recently those passages don’t scratch the surface of what is cringey now. Like the beginning of James and the Giant Peach is full on descriptions of child abuse by the aunts. I hadn’t realized how dark it was and read it out load to DS at 5. I edited on the fly.

We’ve read the other books when he was older and they are dark but we enjoyed them and talked about the dark parts and rude language.

I’m not a fan of the editing personally. There are lots of book choices, I think it’s ok to just not like Dahl and read something else

I agree. I remember reading the BFG in school, and there's quite a bit about the giants actually eating children. I don't mind labels, or mentioning something in the book blurb about their being discriminatory language or what-not based on when the book was originally written.

But those listed edits definitely seem more performative.

[jaygee]

Feb 24, 2023 21:01:03 GMT -6 athn64 said:

Feb 24, 2023 20:49:21 GMT -6 jaygee said:

I’m laughing at the examples above because having reread most of Dahl’s work recently those passages don’t scratch the surface of what is cringey now. Like the beginning of James and the Giant Peach is full on descriptions of child abuse by the aunts. I hadn’t realized how dark it was and read it out load to DS at 5. I edited on the fly.

We’ve read the other books when he was older and they are dark but we enjoyed them and talked about the dark parts and rude language.

I’m not a fan of the editing personally. There are lots of book choices, I think it’s ok to just not like Dahl and read something else

I agree. I remember reading the BFG in school, and there's quite a bit about the giants actually eating children. I don't mind labels, or mentioning something in the book blurb about their being discriminatory language or what-not based on when the book was originally written.

But those listed edits definitely seem more performative.

Exactly.

Also, the new Witches movie with Anne Hathaway is great but also sort of terrifying. I watched it after DS and I finished the book. I decided not to show it to him because he’s pretty sensitive to movies. He liked the book but it’s pretty creepy.

[athn64]

Feb 24, 2023 22:19:43 GMT -6 jaygee said:

Feb 24, 2023 21:01:03 GMT -6 athn64 said:

I agree. I remember reading the BFG in school, and there's quite a bit about the giants actually eating children. I don't mind labels, or mentioning something in the book blurb about their being discriminatory language or what-not based on when the book was originally written.

But those listed edits definitely seem more performative.

Exactly.

Also, the new Witches movie with Anne Hathaway is great but also sort of terrifying. I watched it after DS and I finished the book. I decided not to show it to him because he’s pretty sensitive to movies. He liked the book but it’s pretty creepy.

I tried to watch it, but it was too creepy for me. Definitely not one for my girls. They're a little too sensitive for it.

[goldenbird]

Feb 24, 2023 21:01:03 GMT -6 athn64 said:

Feb 24, 2023 20:49:21 GMT -6 jaygee said:

I’m laughing at the examples above because having reread most of Dahl’s work recently those passages don’t scratch the surface of what is cringey now. Like the beginning of James and the Giant Peach is full on descriptions of child abuse by the aunts. I hadn’t realized how dark it was and read it out load to DS at 5. I edited on the fly.

We’ve read the other books when he was older and they are dark but we enjoyed them and talked about the dark parts and rude language.

I’m not a fan of the editing personally. There are lots of book choices, I think it’s ok to just not like Dahl and read something else

I agree. I remember reading the BFG in school, and there's quite a bit about the giants actually eating children. I don't mind labels, or mentioning something in the book blurb about their being discriminatory language or what-not based on when the book was originally written.

But those listed edits definitely seem more performative.

Both of these points are how I feel.

[goldenbird]

As with anything I think there needs to be a discussion about when the books were written and this is one reason why this phrase or description is in the book.
I'm rereading a series of psychological murder thrillers that started being punished in 1985. It's written by a psychologist from CA who is most definitely a democrat. But even so there are a few word choices and sentences that are cringe. The books written over the last 20 years don't have any of that. It's kind of fascinating to see the differences.

[fancynewbeesly]

As an elementary school librarian this doesn’t sit well with me. I really don’t like the idea of editing books for modern times. Both my girls are readers. In third grade DD read all of Roald Dahls books, excluding the witches (too scary for her). Her favorite were James and the Giant Peach.

I just feel it is a slippery slope-they would have to edit Beverly cleary, Judy Blume, Enid Blyton, and many many other authors-Even adult ones like Mary Higgins Clark.

I would rather a note in the book similar how Disney plus does before some of the older movies than edit it. Especially when written at a different time. Interest in reading is definitely declining with kids (they have an uphill battle with tech) and I don’t think this is the answer.