Are you saying you cannot find the original VHS releases any longer? Or, are you hoping for a freshly remastered, high quality format of the original…because I know you cannot get that. Same for the Dahl books…you can find the originals. It’s like people collecting vinyl…sometimes it is a hunt to find what you want.
I’ll stop the hijack, but must say, the VHS copy is the 1980 rerelease, with the first of many edits and “Ep IV” in the title.
I do have some vintage paperback Dahl, but it ius short stories and the bigotry doesn’t seem too strong, I specifically got one for the story that inspired the James Garner film “36 Hours”. I think the movie was better. 
I learned something new today. I enjoy all the Star Wars, but I’m not the type fan that needs the original. In this case, what you want was never released in a format for home use, correct? I didn’t realize that. For Roald’s books, the huge majority of used will be the original version.
Hey, it was a consentual, sex-positive, female-initiated preteen sewer gangbang.
I admit, I’m not a big King fan. WTF is this from?
The novel It, which is otherwise pretty damn good and has had multiple adaptations (TV miniseries, a two-part set of decent films). Shockingly, none of the adaptations have included said scene 
. It’s an odd one, in that IMHO it is a thematically consistent consensual, sex-positive, female-initiated preteen sewer gangbang. It makes sense in the story. It’s just so, so unnecessary. There were a hundred other ways King could have come up with to accomplish the same thing. But of course he was high as a kite in the years he was writing this, so…yeah.
Pretty sure he was sober by then; I think Cujo was his last book written under the influence.
I remember finishing It, then going to sleep and waking up thinking “Damn, that was a weird dream about the preteen sewer gangbang part”, then checking and finding it was actually in the book.
Thank you. I’ve never read that one, nor seen any adaptations.
Cujo is the one he can’t really remember writing (I’m reminded of David Bowie apparently being unable to remember recording Station to Station - cocaine is a hell of a drug). But I think he was working on It for several years in the 80’s and it was published in 1986 which I think is the year he got sober.
Honestly I think it might be one of his finest works. It just has that turd in the punchbowl to get past. It works, again IMHO, but eww.
To expand, as kids after their big confrontation with Pennywise and as a calming/bonding exercise, the one girl asks the six boys to have sex with her.
I read it when I was thirteen, and boy did that scene make an impression on me. As an adult, there’s no goddamned way I’m rereading the book, though, because gah.
Well, they “needed” to have sex in order to, um, focus their mystical energies or something in order to find their way out of the dark labyrinth they were trapped in. Or maybe that’s just what they told their parents…
Now see, I just skip over that scene, because the rest of the book is one of my favorites of King’s, unfortunately.
As for Dahl, I’m still confused – are they still going to continue publishing the original versions, for those who prefer them, or will one have to go to a library or used bookstore?
My 14yo daughter was asking about It recently (I think there was some Pennywise reference in something she read, I can’t remember). We talk books all the time, and I was like, “Oh, It is so good! Except…yikes, okay, I can’t really recommend this to you.” I explained why, and she noped out of that book.
You’re right, it’s really good, one of my favorite explorations of the power of imagination, and with some truly terrifying monster scenes. Been decades since I read it, and that little paper boat floating down the gutter…
I don’t mind them changing stuff that is definitely offensive. But I think the idea should be to.minimize the changes, not to remove everything that just might trigger the overly sensitive. The French publishers are not making any changes. I enjoyed these stories long ago. Dahl had his nasty side and many of his stories have traces. But in general it is dangerous to rewrite history to meet contemporary morals - sometimes being preferable to maintain the past and use its rough spots as teaching points… I find some of this “modern Victorianism” somewhat disingenuous, though there is certainly no need to hurt other people’s feelings needlessly. I don’t really know enough about the changes to judge this article, which points out some changes that seem confusing, and compares the changes to puritan attempts to rewrite Shakespeare.
Excerpt:
“As any poet should understand, there is a difference between writers rewriting their own work and someone else taking liberties after the authors are dead. Even in the case of translations, where it’s unavoidable, something is inevitably lost, particularly when a lesser writer tampers with the work of a genius. The tin-eared tinkerers who rewrote Dahl might have made his books marginally less offensive, but also significantly less engaging.
Their work also embodies a kind of Year Zero thinking that we find foolish in the case of Victorians slicing off the racier bits of Shakespeare. Why would it be more admirable to surgically alter texts to fit our own moral preoccupations? Because we’re better people than they were?
If so, that’s all the more reason to give children a window into the real past, as the people living there saw it, rather than compress their reading material into an eternal now. If our moral ideas are so self-evidently correct (and to be clear, I think that in many cases they are), then it should be easy to train children to recognize the past’s mistakes. In the process, we can teach them that even people they love and admire are capable of grave errors.
This gives children a richer understanding not only of history but also of today, because we, too, are probably making mistakes that will one day seem obvious in hindsight.”
Fine, fine, but if other readers do prefer to read a “de-obnoxioused” version with more inclusive/inoffensive language or whatever—and especially if there are more of them than there are of you—then whoever owns the publication rights has an excellent reason to publish the revised version that you don’t want.
Personally, I think it’s on (adult) readers to have a basic minimum of awareness and non-naivete about these issues. Textual revisions over the course of publication history, either by original authors supervising a reissue or by the author’s heirs later on, are a very common phenomenon. If you want a 100% guaranteed unchanged form of a particular edition of a particular work, I think it’s on you as the reader to consciously seek that out.
Simply assuming that any work newly published or republished under an original author’s name by rights holders who are not the original author represents exactly what the original author wrote, and complaining that the editor or publisher did you dirty if your assumption turns out not to be true, is IMHO an unsustainably naive attitude for readers in this day and age. If you choose to read a work ascribed to a now-dead author in a copy was published, or reprinted, after the author’s death, you should be aware that it might contain revisions (or, in the case of a new title, might have been written by somebody entirely different).
Mind you, I’m all for archival and bibliographic preservation of original versions of texts as well as whatever revised and edited versions the rights holders choose to produce. But I don’t agree that the production of revised and edited versions by rights holders is ethically questionable in and of itself.
Publishers aren’t museum curators; if they own the rights to a particular work, or if they and the current rights holders agree on making changes to a particular work, they have no legal or professional obligation to preserve new printings of the work in unaltered form just because some readers prefer it that way.
That’s the most distressing news I’ve read in this entire brouhaha.
Sorry to continue the SPFIPTSGB hijack, but I thought I remembered - and it’s been decades since I read the book - that the kids thought Pennywise only targeted virgins, so they made the logical leap?