Roald Dahl was anti-semitic? Who knew?

Cafe Society
41

I guess I can try with some examples. Sticking with James and the Giant Peach, here are some thoughts I had:

I guess I can try. Sticking with James and the Giant Peach, here are three that seem superfluous:

They gaped. They screamed. They started to run.

Who had been dancing wildly round the deck during this song

You know very well I’m blind, snapped the Earthworm. There’s no need to rub it in

And here a couple that I think could have been handled better:

In another minute, this mammoth fruit was as round and large and fat as Aunt Sponge herself, and probably just as heavy

instead of being removed, could have been changed to

In another minute, this mammoth fruit was as big as Aunt Sponge herself, and probably heavier than most people

A few women screamed. Others knelt down on the side-walks and began praying aloud. Strong men turned to one another and said things like, I guess this is it, Joe, and Good-bye, everybody, good-bye

didn’t need to removed to remove the gender roles. It could just have been changed to

A few people screamed. Others knelt down on the sidewalks and began praying aloud. Still others turned to one another and said things like, “I guess this is it, Jo*,” and “Goodbye, everybody, goodbye!”

I guess the idea is to make them not seem so scared of the peach. And maybe to remove the idea of screaming, which they seem to take issue with?

*Jo is more gender neutral with minimal changes.

42

So the problem is that they didn’t make enough changes?

I don’t think this is a reasonable thing to outlaw or otherwise “not allow.” An author who doesn’t want a work to be changed after their death should stipulate as much in their will. Otherwise, it’s correctly left up to the judgment of whoever holds the copyright.

43

The problem is that they changed the work. Tim Burton did not “change” the book Charlie and the Chocolate factory, he made a film based on the book. Caroline Alexander did not change the Greek version of The Iliad, she create a new English version.

44

They changed the work in the way that an editor changes a work. Dahl, in signing over copyright and associated rights to his heirs, gave them permission to do that without his input.

How on earth would you go about not allowing this?

45

I don’t have a problem with these changes, but I think it would be good to acknowledge they have been made. Like the cover could say MATILDA, by ROALD DAHL (new edition edited by Fred Fnord).

46

Where’s the profit in that? Why do you hate capitalism?

47

Were James’s parents still eaten by an escaped rhinoceros? Because even at seven years old, that really bothered me - I knew rhinos were herbivores.

48

Matilda has one of the more eye-rolling changes:

The books that transported Matilda to new and unknown places from her living room have changed. Previously, “she went on olden-day sailing ships with Joseph Conrad. She went to Africa with Ernest Hemingway and to India with Rudyard Kipling.”

Now, Matilda travels with Jane Austen, and Kipling is removed entirely: “She went to nineteenth century estates with Jane Austen. She went to Africa with Ernest Hemingway and California with John Steinbeck.”

49

I’m not following this too closely. Has the estate committed to never again publishing the originals, or should we expect to see “exclusive unabridged re-releases” selling at a premium in a decade or two?

50

Step 1 - Cause controversy and sell a bunch of books to those that like the changes or don’t know/care
Step 2 - Reissue originals to those that did care
Step 3 - Profit$

51

There is controversy about whether Conrad’s works are racist, about which I have no opinion. Kipling, on the other hand, was a propagandist for British imperialism. One of his best-known works is literally titled “The White Man’s Burden”. He richly deserves to be forgotten.

52

No matter how much you may not like it, these changes are being managed by The Roald Dahl Story Company, who retains the copyrights to these stories after Dahl’s death and is the only entity that can and should be able to make these changes. This actually is exactly what you describe, the publisher working with the “author” and requesting changes. If Dahl didn’t want his stories tampered with, he could have left stipulations in his will to that effect, and it would be up to his heirs to follow those stipulations or not.

Honestly, this is an argument for copyright reform. If copyright lasted say, death of the author + 30 years, all his works would now be in the public domain and people would be able to publish any version of them that they like, be they faithful to the original or updated to reflect modern sensibilities. Instead, beloved works can fall into the hands of poor custodians who can make whatever changes they like until everyone who grew up with the originals are long dead.

53

What do you think “seemingly” means"? It means from what I can see, he was bigoted. according to the facts as one knows them; as far as one knows.

54

The one that made me laugh out loud: from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, when Wonka is visiting the Oompa-Loompa chieftain to convince the Oompas to come be his factory workers. In the original, the tribe’s leader says:

“It’s a deal!” he cried. “Come on! Let’s go!”

This is modified to:

“Let’s go and ask the others. But I think it’s a deal!”

The chief evidently got educated about toxic authoritarianism, and realized he had to get consensus from the group before making a decision. :smiley:

55

It’s really not - " Jo" isn’t used for a male. You’d really have to change the name altogether ( maybe to “Chris” or " Pat") to make it gender-neutral. Although even if you wanted to change “women” to people and “men” to still others, it’s not necessary to change the name of a specific (yet generic) person to a gender-neutral name.

56

Unless you’re Charles Dickens…

http://esthersnarrative.une.edu.au/jo-the-crossing-sweeper/

57

I don’t understand this viewpoint. Has it ever been necessary for writers to stipulate in their will that they don’t want their work changed (yet still published under their name) after their death? I’d have assumed this was a given, other than concerning abridged versions I suppose. The idea of post-mortem editing seems extremely dishonest, and a bit Orwellian.

58

If they are leaving their publishing rights (royalties, contractual control, etc.) to their heirs, then hell yes, they need to have some kind of specific legal mechanism that says, in effect, “Even if my heirs and my publishers agree about publishing revised editions of my books with changed content, here are the official restrictions on what they can and can’t change”.

Publishing rights, like money and other objects of value, are things that the recipient can use in whatever legal way they see fit. If you want to restrict how your heirs are allowed to use what you leave them, you have to set up something like a trust specifically tasked with carrying out your wishes in that regard.

Not really, IMHO. What would be dishonest and “Orwellian” would be pretending that the revised edition is the original edition.

But publication information (the stuff in the fine print in the front of the book) exists for reasons, and one of the reasons is to provide basic facts about publication history. If you look at the title page of your Roald Dahl book and it says “Revised edition copyright 2024” or something like that, then caveat emptor. If it says “First edition, copyright 19xx whatever” or something like that, but what the text actually contains is the revised version, then that’s fraudulent.

59

Or Tim Rice:

“So they finally decided to go
Off to Egypt to see brother Jo.”

60

That all sounds reasonable, thanks. I suppose I’ve always assumed that ‘revisions’ in this context would be snipping bits out to streamline a work, maybe changing illustrations - the Roald Dahl news story (of whole sentences being replaced with new ones) is being presented like this is unusual - is this just hysteria? Is there a limit to how much new material could be added before it would become fraudulent to sell the book as authored by Dahl?