Sorry, just to be clear, the thing you're responding to isn't a troll proposigin a hypothetical, the Oompa-Loompa story got edited several times decades ago, in the decade after release. The edition you read growing up is an edited edition. This actually literally happened already.
It's fine if you retroactively disagree with this and wish you had time traveled back to undo the SJWs of the 1970s before they could start. I am not personally interested in litigating whether or not publishers should edit books. I don't care about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it wasn't a book I read often growing up and I don't care for either movie. I care least of all about what you think of a book. You do you, random stranger on the internet.
Your own link: Dahl found himself sympathizing with their concerns and published a revised edition -- that's great. His book, he can do what he wants.
Publishers editing books of their own accord after the author is dead to please imaginary mobs -- something else entirely. Not great. Bad. Very bad. Regardless of the type of edit or politics involved.
> Publishers editing books of their own accord after the author is dead to please imaginary mobs -- something else entirely.
In what sense? The ownership of the copyright is the ownership of the right to create derivative works and refrain from publishing the original. That's the law and the whole of the law.
It's fine if you retroactively disagree with this and wish you had time traveled back to undo the SJWs of the 1970s before they could start. I am not personally interested in litigating whether or not publishers should edit books. I don't care about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it wasn't a book I read often growing up and I don't care for either movie. I care least of all about what you think of a book. You do you, random stranger on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Fact...