|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 19, 2023 0:25:36 GMT
I will post this here,
The new editions of Dahl books are being censored and edited to make them more woke friendly which it’s indeed a huge scandal and totally wrong. Dahl was indeed an all around idiot with very inept opinions (particularly he was antisemitic) as Rushdie said here but my main take about this tweet is how congruent is Salman Rushdie! He didn’t have to defend the work of the dead bigoted guy who justified the fatwa against him (which recently influenced a madman to attack him and harm him in a big way!) but here he is fighting for his rival words. Something Dahl refused to do for him and even condemned him even when his life was also in danger.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 19, 2023 1:27:17 GMT
I read the Guardian article and am appalled at the supposed changes. This type of censorship is devastating to the integrity of authors.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Feb 19, 2023 2:08:06 GMT
This is gobsmacking. Absolutely wrong. Who’s next? Dickens? I mean he slammed greedy misers when all Bob Crachitt had to do was pull himself up by his bootstraps and work harder. Surely Scrooge was maligned. We should fix that, right?
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 19, 2023 2:44:52 GMT
It’s an abomination and I’m glad that a lot of people is pushing against it!
EDITED I even have seen a few very woke people on Twitter being scandalized by it.
The so called sensitive readers is a phenomenon that began with young adult literature. Activists destroyed books and careers so it become a thing to hire easily offended idiots to read books beforehand. It’s not a surprise they first try to go for a children author.
A few weeks ago, the NYT wrote an opinion piece remembering the scandal around a more adult oriented book, American Dirt. It wasn’t censored but some very offended people tried to canceled it because cultural appropriation and misinformed cultural data (I’m Mexican and I couldn’t care less for those things! Actually, Guillermo Arriaga defends the book in the piece and said, no one bemoaned about it in Mexico. It was mostly an American phenomenon). They didn’t succeed but they also kinda did. I mean the book was still a huge bestseller but editors are now scared by those very few screaming idiots so a) they won’t work with the new author again (even when her first book was a hit!); b) they now hire “sensitive readers”.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Feb 19, 2023 7:35:41 GMT
What a shame. People start down this path with the best of intentions (cultural sensitivity, etc.), but it seems to always go too far.
|
|
|
Roal Dahl
Feb 19, 2023 11:05:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by roverpup on Feb 19, 2023 11:05:50 GMT
Dan and I were talking about this one time.
Back during WWII (and earlier) it was popular if you had a black dog to use the name "N*gger" for it. Not something anyone nowadays would do, but this was what was done back then.
Well, some one was writing about the "Dam Busters" raid led by the famous aviator Guy Gibson who own a huge black lab with that moniker. He decided that if the raid was successful he would send back a one word codename to indicate the bombs dropped by the RAF had breached the structures and he used the word "N*gger" - after his beloved pup. The author wrote about this exactly (also using the context of why that word was used, but an editor changed the code word to "African American" (not wanting to have the offensive word in the book.
But the change is stupid. 1) because "African American" wasn't the code word! (So historically inaccurate) 2) "African American" wasn't even a phrase that was around back then. 3) NOBODY would name their dog "African American" back then or now!
Just stupidity, pure and simple! And of course the author was furious!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Feb 19, 2023 14:52:34 GMT
At least that author was still alive to have a voice.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 19, 2023 15:17:27 GMT
Yes, I can imagine that if he wasn't, maybe his heirs or publisher, not wanting to be accused of being racist would do what Dahl's family is doing now - just acquiesce to the wokism and accept the change to the text.
I saw in the comments to this Dahl tweet that someone said that none of Dahl's racist/antisemitic views permeated his stories, so the hysteria surrounding him on social media is just such a hysterical over reaction.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 19, 2023 17:38:31 GMT
Since I'm not here to make anyone feel purposely uncomfortable, I did as you requested but I have to add, me doing this kind of makes the whole point of this topic moot, right?
In my opinion words SHOULD make people feel uncomfortable (and that word holds a social and historical context that especially should). IMO blanking out letters of an objectionable word makes it more palatable and makes it lose its impact. And don't you think this "watering down" of words is kind of like a fig leaf on a Greek statue - we all know what's behind the asterisk so why not be honest and show it?
But like everything else there is the context of a time and a place for everything. And even I have been known to use a euphemism or two when I talked in the presence of Dan's mum or such, so the asterisk has been employed. 🙂 Better I hope now.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 19, 2023 18:53:56 GMT
I think there is a fine line here. If the word is being used in an historic context I don’t understand why it should be censored. I mean that is what Guy Gibson’s dog was called and that was the codeword he used. If someone was using the word contemporaneously I totally understand why it would be offensive but I don’t understand why it can’t be used In explaining something that happened historically. Maybe I’m missing the point here and if so perhaps you could explain jbc. I’m very willing to be educated.
|
|