8 ms·

I don't hear the author complaining about the loss of the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This is where Dahl bowed to early 70s wokery and

I don't hear the author complaining about the loss of the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This is where Dahl bowed to early 70s wokery and erased the oompa-loompas' true identity as African slaves who would dribble for cocoa beans. Film adaptations have struggled with the fact that oompa-loompas are, however you dress them up, slaves. From this article which is much more interesting: https://theconversation.com/from-pygmies-to-puppets-what-to-do-with-roald-dahls-enslaved-oompa-loompas-in-modern-adaptations-166967 https://theconversation.com/from-pygmies-to-puppets-what-to-...

bombcar 4y ago
There’s a pretty obvious difference between convincing a living artist to revise his work and a massive company revising a dead author’s work.
- pavlov 4y ago
  Our current intellectual property law makes no distinction between these two cases. We should fix copyright rather than stoke useless culture wars. The publisher and Dahl’s estate are laughing all the way to the bank on this controversy.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    Right? The new works should be accredited to new authors with perhaps a "with thanks to" attribution. It is only because of copyright that this is not done
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Sadly that’s probably a decent reason to do a “approved update” - you can force all libraries to buy the new edition
    - defrost 4y ago
      > you can force all libraries to buy the new edition I'm sorry, what now? My local library here in Western Australia has a second edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1860, 3000 copies). There's been no pressure that I'm aware of to acquire the first, third, fourth, fifth or sixth editions or the numerous translations that I'm aware of - many of these are carried by other libraries. Who is going around libraries forcing them to get more recent editions?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Once a revision is widely known to be "racist" there'll be pressure to update to the "corrected" version.
    - tzs 4y ago
      No you can't. The libraries can keep whatever edition they already have.
- hashstring 4y ago
  I agree with your argument. I also think that revising a dead author’s work as was done here is tasteless.
- geysersam 4y ago
  That's not different from other rewriting copy right owners do. Disney has written an rewritten Mickey Mouse 10K times. We don't know if the original author would have approved all of those versions. It's up to them to manage the work. Personally I think the problem is excessive copyright. Without ownership, anyone could rewrite Dahl however they like. And if someone prefers the original version, that's fine too.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Speaking of Disney we learned this week that two of the stories of Don Rosa will no longer be reprinted - putting the Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck into an incomplete state. Arguably a death is more tasteful than a rewrite but either has room for regret.
docdeek 4y ago
Is it not a little different when the author changes their own work (as in the 1970s edits you mention) versus when it is changed after their death?
- elliekelly 4y ago
  Mickey Mouse has changed several times over since the death of Walt Disney. Books and plays are adapted to film, often without the input of the author, and a film adaptations almost always require significant changes. Sometimes the changes aren’t even necessary— they’re purely stylistic in order to modernize the story. In fact, most of Walt Disney’s films were books adapted and changed and “modernized” without the consent of the original author. Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is disgustingly racist and imperialist. Disney modernized the story significantly by removing many of those themes (although adding a few “modern” racist tropes of their own). No one calls those adaptations “cultural vandalism” though.
  - ldjb 4y ago
    There's a big difference. Adaptations are new works based on the original. The original work is still available to enjoy or critique in its original form. However, these new editions are effectively replacing the old ones. I don't so much mind them rewriting the books so long as the originals continue to be published. However, I don't expect that will be the case. Eventually, anyone going to a bookshop to buy one of Dahl's books will struggle to find the original version. That's a real shame, I think.
    - libraryatnight 4y ago
      Yeah to me there's something sinister about the notion there will be a time when someone just assumes that's what Dahl wrote. It's sad. Did anyone even ask for this? I can't imagine there was any backlash to Dahl sufficiently meaningful that it couldn't have dealt with simply by ignoring it.
      - mattbee 4y ago
onetimeusename 4y ago
What is your argument then? That every edit by anyone demanding changes should be done? That's not a good game to play. I can see how slaves might be offensive to people and be changed by the author but for example no one was offended by the word "screeching" and if they were I don't think we should let those people choose which words a book uses.
- pgodzin 4y ago
  But shouldn't we allow the rights holders to change things that they consider haven't aged well to allow broader appeal? Should they be required to publish the same version that they disagree with in perpetuity?
  - onetimeusename 4y ago
    I am fine with rights holders being allowed to change it (copyright is a different issue) but I am criticizing the reasoning.
  - pavlov 4y ago
    When a work is old enough to have aged poorly, it should be in the public domain, and then everyone could publish and read the version they prefer. Some of those might be more interesting and popular than the original. Copyright that persists long after the death of the author makes no sense to society at large. It’s just another form of rent-seeking capitalism.
zozbot234 4y ago
Perhaps it is indeed a grievous mistake to gloss over the fact that slaves are literally producing your chocolate even today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_Chocolate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_Chocolate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti... . Just because it might not be happening in the Western world, doesn't mean we have any less of a moral obligation to be genuinely concerned about this state of things.
hanoz 4y ago
You think that's in any way equivalent to turning the works over wholesale to a bunch of unhinged "sensitivity readers" who see fit to remove the word black when describing the BFG's cloak or Danny's father's tractor?
- Beldin 4y ago
  Is that seriously what the hullabaloo is about? The colour of the BFG's cloak? So you're saying that in this story about giants that eat children, and a smaller giant that brings them joyous dreams via some sort of trumpet, dreams he catches with a butterfly net and then mixes himself, in a story about mobilising the British army to get rid of the aforementioned giants by means of giving the queen a nightmare, in a story about a young girl kidnapped in her pyjamas from an orphanage, there is a cloak? Moreover, a cloak whose original colour is somehow hurtful to some folks, while changing it is apparently cause for grave concern amongst some folks? To that I say: huh. (/Mal from Firefly)

bombcar 4y ago

There’s a pretty obvious difference between convincing a living artist to revise his work and a massive company revising a dead author’s work.

pavlov 4y ago
Our current intellectual property law makes no distinction between these two cases. We should fix copyright rather than stoke useless culture wars. The publisher and Dahl’s estate are laughing all the way to the bank on this controversy.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Right? The new works should be accredited to new authors with perhaps a "with thanks to" attribution. It is only because of copyright that this is not done
- bombcar 4y ago
  Sadly that’s probably a decent reason to do a “approved update” - you can force all libraries to buy the new edition
  - defrost 4y ago
    > you can force all libraries to buy the new edition I'm sorry, what now? My local library here in Western Australia has a second edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1860, 3000 copies). There's been no pressure that I'm aware of to acquire the first, third, fourth, fifth or sixth editions or the numerous translations that I'm aware of - many of these are carried by other libraries. Who is going around libraries forcing them to get more recent editions?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Once a revision is widely known to be "racist" there'll be pressure to update to the "corrected" version.
  - tzs 4y ago
    No you can't. The libraries can keep whatever edition they already have.
hashstring 4y ago
I agree with your argument. I also think that revising a dead author’s work as was done here is tasteless.
geysersam 4y ago
That's not different from other rewriting copy right owners do. Disney has written an rewritten Mickey Mouse 10K times. We don't know if the original author would have approved all of those versions. It's up to them to manage the work. Personally I think the problem is excessive copyright. Without ownership, anyone could rewrite Dahl however they like. And if someone prefers the original version, that's fine too.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Speaking of Disney we learned this week that two of the stories of Don Rosa will no longer be reprinted - putting the Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck into an incomplete state. Arguably a death is more tasteful than a rewrite but either has room for regret.

docdeek 4y ago

Is it not a little different when the author changes their own work (as in the 1970s edits you mention) versus when it is changed after their death?

elliekelly 4y ago
Mickey Mouse has changed several times over since the death of Walt Disney. Books and plays are adapted to film, often without the input of the author, and a film adaptations almost always require significant changes. Sometimes the changes aren’t even necessary— they’re purely stylistic in order to modernize the story. In fact, most of Walt Disney’s films were books adapted and changed and “modernized” without the consent of the original author. Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is disgustingly racist and imperialist. Disney modernized the story significantly by removing many of those themes (although adding a few “modern” racist tropes of their own). No one calls those adaptations “cultural vandalism” though.
- ldjb 4y ago
  There's a big difference. Adaptations are new works based on the original. The original work is still available to enjoy or critique in its original form. However, these new editions are effectively replacing the old ones. I don't so much mind them rewriting the books so long as the originals continue to be published. However, I don't expect that will be the case. Eventually, anyone going to a bookshop to buy one of Dahl's books will struggle to find the original version. That's a real shame, I think.
  - libraryatnight 4y ago
    Yeah to me there's something sinister about the notion there will be a time when someone just assumes that's what Dahl wrote. It's sad. Did anyone even ask for this? I can't imagine there was any backlash to Dahl sufficiently meaningful that it couldn't have dealt with simply by ignoring it.
    - mattbee 4y ago

onetimeusename 4y ago

What is your argument then? That every edit by anyone demanding changes should be done? That's not a good game to play. I can see how slaves might be offensive to people and be changed by the author but for example no one was offended by the word "screeching" and if they were I don't think we should let those people choose which words a book uses.

pgodzin 4y ago
But shouldn't we allow the rights holders to change things that they consider haven't aged well to allow broader appeal? Should they be required to publish the same version that they disagree with in perpetuity?
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  I am fine with rights holders being allowed to change it (copyright is a different issue) but I am criticizing the reasoning.
- pavlov 4y ago
  When a work is old enough to have aged poorly, it should be in the public domain, and then everyone could publish and read the version they prefer. Some of those might be more interesting and popular than the original. Copyright that persists long after the death of the author makes no sense to society at large. It’s just another form of rent-seeking capitalism.

zozbot234 4y ago

Perhaps it is indeed a grievous mistake to gloss over the fact that slaves are literally producing your chocolate even today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_Chocolate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_Chocolate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti... . Just because it might not be happening in the Western world, doesn't mean we have any less of a moral obligation to be genuinely concerned about this state of things.

hanoz 4y ago

You think that's in any way equivalent to turning the works over wholesale to a bunch of unhinged "sensitivity readers" who see fit to remove the word black when describing the BFG's cloak or Danny's father's tractor?

Beldin 4y ago
Is that seriously what the hullabaloo is about? The colour of the BFG's cloak? So you're saying that in this story about giants that eat children, and a smaller giant that brings them joyous dreams via some sort of trumpet, dreams he catches with a butterfly net and then mixes himself, in a story about mobilising the British army to get rid of the aforementioned giants by means of giving the queen a nightmare, in a story about a young girl kidnapped in her pyjamas from an orphanage, there is a cloak? Moreover, a cloak whose original colour is somehow hurtful to some folks, while changing it is apparently cause for grave concern amongst some folks? To that I say: huh. (/Mal from Firefly)