There's been a disappointing lack of nuance in the HN discussion of this topic. The particular changes that were made to the altered editions strike me as quit

There's been a disappointing lack of nuance in the HN discussion of this topic. The particular changes that were made to the altered editions strike me as quite stupid, for the most part. However, there is nothing new about media being edited to remove offensive language. It may be pointless and stupid in many instances – but it's not the sign of some incoming cultural apocalypse. I can easily think of less recent examples: * Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The book was edited (within Dahl's lifetime) to change the depiction of the oompha loompas as black slaves. * Biggles. The Wikipedia article mentions that "...later editions had to be somewhat edited in line with changing norms of acceptability, especially regarding race..." * Under Drake's Flag. I remember reading a heavily edited version of this as a child in the 90s. I haven't read the original, but I think G.A. Henty was, err, less than entirely progressive on issues relating to race and colonialism. * The Dam Busters movie. The n-word (used as the name of a dog!) is usually edited out or overdubbed (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jun/11/itv.broadcasting https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jun/11/itv.broadcasti...). Each change has to be judged on its merits. What I think is silly is the pretense that these changes to the Dahl canon signal a new phase in the culture wars, or some new era of censorship. Kids today actually have access to a much wider variety of literature than at any point in the past.