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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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,
> 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".
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.
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?