4 ms·

So? Do you dispute that the story is true?

drcongo 4y ago
As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article... But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we?
- nhchris 4y ago
  Fabricating the past does not become okay just because some relatives agree.
- exolymph 4y ago
  Why would I care what Roald Dahl's family thinks? If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining. People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    Did they remove all the bits about all the little kids being eaten and only their bones being left, which is a major element of The BFG? Or the plot of Esio Trot which is a guy tricking his downstairs neighbor into falling in love with him by swapping out her pet every few weeks with a larger one? Or the whole plot of George’s Marvelous Medicine which is a boy who mixes up a potion with everything he can find in his house, and feeds it to his nasty grandmother? He’s got a whole lot of crazy stuff, and I can only speak of things I’ve read to my kids recently.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Quite a lot of them are using modern language instead of anachronisms: > Unsurprisingly given The Witches’ subject matter, many of the edits are to do with depictions of women. “Chambermaid” becomes “cleaner”. “Great flock of ladies” becomes “great group of ladies”. “You must be mad, woman!” becomes “You must be out of your mind!” “The old hag” becomes “the old crow” There is some removing of fat as insult. There is that too. But pretty much all changes in above paragraph sound better then old ones.
    - krona 4y ago
      Replacing evaluative concepts with sterilized descriptive ones is Newspeak 101.
      - watwut 4y ago
        Not so much sterilized as replacing things that sound odd and archaic. No one, literally no one is using "old hag" as insult. It is not a thing, it sounds funny rather then insult.
        krona 4y ago
        > No one, literally no one is using "old hag" as insult. I'm guessing you've never met an English person then. Your grammar suggests this to be the case.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  >But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. This is the first time I heard of this kind of language 'update'. That's not normal. Shakespeare is genuinely hard to read and understand but we don't just change random phrases and words to match modern sensibilities. Even modern English translation will keep the original for reference. >As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, Because it is outrageous.
- Dig1t 4y ago
  Read the full change list on Reddit, it is not small.
- yucky 4y ago
  > So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we? Why should we care what some trust fund babies want? If I'm reading a book by Dahl I want to read it as he intended. If you read the article you'll see how idiotic the changes are and how they literally change the meaning of the passages when considered "problematic". They can write their own books if they want.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  The reasons vary but could all be addressed by releasing distinctive new editions. Remastered/unplugged/snowflake edition - whatever you want to call it. Just label them as distinct from the originals and everyone can be happy.
hw-guy 4y ago
Leftist censors seldom deny that the story is true--often the facts are indisputable. They are just outraged that someone made the facts available beyond the pale of the progressive Magisterium.
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, but please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. The cost/benefit of that is the opposite of what we need here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  While a right-wing Florida governor bans teaching about minority oppression and its history, it's the left you wanna single out? Censorship sucks generally. Stop flame baiting.

As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article... But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we?

nhchris 4y ago
Fabricating the past does not become okay just because some relatives agree.
exolymph 4y ago
Why would I care what Roald Dahl's family thinks? If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining. People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.
- mcphage 4y ago
  Did they remove all the bits about all the little kids being eaten and only their bones being left, which is a major element of The BFG? Or the plot of Esio Trot which is a guy tricking his downstairs neighbor into falling in love with him by swapping out her pet every few weeks with a larger one? Or the whole plot of George’s Marvelous Medicine which is a boy who mixes up a potion with everything he can find in his house, and feeds it to his nasty grandmother? He’s got a whole lot of crazy stuff, and I can only speak of things I’ve read to my kids recently.
- watwut 4y ago
  Quite a lot of them are using modern language instead of anachronisms: > Unsurprisingly given The Witches’ subject matter, many of the edits are to do with depictions of women. “Chambermaid” becomes “cleaner”. “Great flock of ladies” becomes “great group of ladies”. “You must be mad, woman!” becomes “You must be out of your mind!” “The old hag” becomes “the old crow” There is some removing of fat as insult. There is that too. But pretty much all changes in above paragraph sound better then old ones.
  - krona 4y ago
    Replacing evaluative concepts with sterilized descriptive ones is Newspeak 101.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Not so much sterilized as replacing things that sound odd and archaic. No one, literally no one is using "old hag" as insult. It is not a thing, it sounds funny rather then insult.
      - krona 4y ago
        > No one, literally no one is using "old hag" as insult. I'm guessing you've never met an English person then. Your grammar suggests this to be the case.
macspoofing 4y ago
>But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”. This is the first time I heard of this kind of language 'update'. That's not normal. Shakespeare is genuinely hard to read and understand but we don't just change random phrases and words to match modern sensibilities. Even modern English translation will keep the original for reference. >As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, Because it is outrageous.
Dig1t 4y ago
Read the full change list on Reddit, it is not small.
yucky 4y ago
> So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we? Why should we care what some trust fund babies want? If I'm reading a book by Dahl I want to read it as he intended. If you read the article you'll see how idiotic the changes are and how they literally change the meaning of the passages when considered "problematic". They can write their own books if they want.
Sporktacular 4y ago
The reasons vary but could all be addressed by releasing distinctive new editions. Remastered/unplugged/snowflake edition - whatever you want to call it. Just label them as distinct from the originals and everyone can be happy.

hw-guy 4y ago

Leftist censors seldom deny that the story is true--often the facts are indisputable. They are just outraged that someone made the facts available beyond the pale of the progressive Magisterium.

dang 4y ago
Ok, but please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. The cost/benefit of that is the opposite of what we need here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sporktacular 4y ago
While a right-wing Florida governor bans teaching about minority oppression and its history, it's the left you wanna single out? Censorship sucks generally. Stop flame baiting.