Is "woke" confusing kids

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

In what way is calling a fat character "fat" either anti-semitic or tremendously racist?

I assume you're addressing this question to someone who said that it was. I didn't mention anything about the use of the word fat

Is it Cancel Culture then if the people who own the work, unilaterally decide to change it themselves in order to make more money?

Isn't that their choice? To deny them their own free will over what they do with the property they own seems a bit...hmm

But it's OK. Yet again I remind myself that I'm not here to change people's minds. I don't actually care what they do with Roald Dahl's books because they own them and I respect their rights to freedom of expression. I'm not going to change the minds of those who like to get outraged about confected cancel culture controversy. 

I'm sure the media will flip it round eventually anyway to "No one reads Dahl any more because the anti-cancel culture mob forced them to keep all the outdated stereotypes" ?

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

We have to think very carefully about whether it's desirable to have such unappointed morality police deciding what should or should not be acceptable

Agree -  it should be the decision of the people who own the work as to whether they re-edit it - not the un-appointed Cancel Culture / Anti Cancel Culture mobs?

AKA exactly what is happening. This really does seem like a fuss about nothing

[Crewton]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Agree -  it should be the decision of the people who own the work as to whether they re-edit it - not the un-appointed Cancel Culture / Anti Cancel Culture mobs?

AKA exactly what is happening. This really does seem like a fuss about nothing

But the owners of the works are responding to the very real potential that the "mob" will bring bad publicity to their commercial enterprise aren't they? (See  also the hoo-ha about the latest Harry Potter game). Exactly like what happened to Kate Clanchy, to the dismay of the parents of kids she'd taught and written about and most of the kids themselves. Some groups are using the right to be offended as a blunt tool to silence intellectual debate and to ruin peoples' careers and, unfortunately, complacency and complicity is allowing them to get away with it. 

[Comrade 86]

Cancel culture is a phenomenon through which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable or inappropriate manner are ostracised, boycotted or shunned; their films removed from circulation, their books removed from school curriculums, venues refusing to put on their shows, their names and reputations muddied. That is not the case here. Dahl's books are being edited, not burned, suppressed, or removed from book stores. Quite the opposite in fact, given Netflix intend to release a brand new series of films and TV adaptations, as well as updated versions of the author's written body of work. 

Instead of quietly seething over another perceived example of the ever-growing reach of the 'cult of woke', perhaps some might wish to consider what exactly is being 'cancelled' and whether, in fact, the proposed changes are principally driven by moral or commercial concerns. It seems either dim-witted, disingenuous or both to suggest that Netflix have paid over £300 million to simply 'cancel' Dahl's work, but I suppose it does give the usual suspects something to rage over.

[Stive Pesley]

14 minutes ago, Crewton said:

But the owners of the works are responding to the very real potential that the "mob" will bring bad publicity to their commercial enterprise aren't they?

Do you not see the paradox here? They keep the harmful stereotypes and the "woke mob" call them out about it, or they modernise the books to be more inclusive and that's also the fault of the "woke mob"?

They bought the work, knowing it contained anti-semitic, racist, sexist, ableist and fatphobic tropes and have exercised their freedom of choice as a commercial business. What do you think they should have done?

 

[Anon]

47 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I assume you're addressing this question to someone who said that it was. I didn't mention anything about the use of the word fat

Is it Cancel Culture then if the people who own the work, unilaterally decide to change it themselves in order to make more money?

Isn't that their choice? To deny them their own free will over what they do with the property they own seems a bit...hmm

But it's OK. Yet again I remind myself that I'm not here to change people's minds. I don't actually care what they do with Roald Dahl's books because they own them and I respect their rights to freedom of expression. I'm not going to change the minds of those who like to get outraged about confected cancel culture controversy. 

I'm sure the media will flip it round eventually anyway to "No one reads Dahl any more because the anti-cancel culture mob forced them to keep all the outdated stereotypes" ?

 

 

I wanted to know why the conversation had been slid towards racism and anti-Semitism, seeing as those weren't the examples of changes to the original text that have been given or discussed in this thread.

If you have examples of those things, please provide them and we can discuss them, but it seems like you're using Dahl's racist and anti-Semitic views to justify changes to his work that have absolutely nothing to do with either of those things.

[Crewton]

59 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Do you not see the paradox here? They keep the harmful stereotypes and the "woke mob" call them out about it, or they modernise the books to be more inclusive and that's also the fault of the "woke mob"?

They bought the work, knowing it contained anti-semitic, racist, sexist, ableist and fatphobic tropes and have exercised their freedom of choice as a commercial business. What do you think they should have done?

 

One point of correction - no-one has ever claimed that the published work of Dahl contain any examples of his undoubted antisemitism. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, whilst criticising the Dahl family for waiting 30 years after his death with a huge commercial deal in the offing before publicly apologising for his views, also said that children should be taught about his offensive statements and beliefs alongside his work. Elements of other discriminatory language however do exist in Dahl's works, but I see no reason why the same principles shouldn't apply, particularly to the examples that have made the news today.

If kids can be trusted to form their own opinions about gender and sexuality, with proper education, why can't they be trusted to form their own opinions about other areas of discriminatory attitudes and literature? 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I assume you're addressing this question to someone who said that it was. I didn't mention anything about the use of the word fat

Is it Cancel Culture then if the people who own the work, unilaterally decide to change it themselves in order to make more money?

Isn't that their choice? To deny them their own free will over what they do with the property they own seems a bit...hmm

But it's OK. Yet again I remind myself that I'm not here to change people's minds. I don't actually care what they do with Roald Dahl's books because they own them and I respect their rights to freedom of expression. I'm not going to change the minds of those who like to get outraged about confected cancel culture controversy. 

I'm sure the media will flip it round eventually anyway to "No one reads Dahl any more because the anti-cancel culture mob forced them to keep all the outdated stereotypes" ?

 

 

Wait till Netflix get they’re hands on the bible,,

what ever happened to if you don’t like a book or author don’t read it?‍♂️

[Mucker1884]

16 hours ago, Crewton said:

...and a woman described as having a "horse-face" is now described as having a "face"...

 

Don't see the problem (With that change).  It's perfectly acceptable. 
I've seen faces before, so trying to picture a woman with a face is not that difficult at all.  ?

 

 

 

 

 

[maxjam]

Some of the changes highlighted do seem a bit excessive tbh;

https://news.sky.com/story/roald-dahl-book-rewrites-branded-absurd-censorship-by-salman-rushdie-12815658

Hundreds of edits have reportedly been made to the latest editions of Roald Dahl's classics.

A report in the Daily Telegraph compared the latest editions with earlier versions of the texts.

It found language concerning weight, mental health, violence, gender and race had been either cut or rewritten.

The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach are now the Cloud-People, while references to Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad in Matilda had been changed to Jane Austen and John Steinbeck.

In The Witches, a reference to women "working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman" has been changed to "working as a top scientist or running a business".

In James and the Giant Peach, Miss Sponge is no longer described as "the fat one", Miss Spider's head is no longer "black" and the Earthworm no longer has "lovely pink" skin but "lovely smooth skin".

In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer described as ugly and beastly but just beastly.

Re. Hogwarts Legacy (the new game based in the Harry Potter world) referenced above, I bought that game as its a really, really good game - it generated a lot of hate simple because its JK Rowling universe, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with the game and it even contains an unskippable Trans character quest.  Just your typical hate fuelled pile on that thankfully didn't work.

[Wolfie]

A couple more changes to the Dahl stories:

References to colours have also been changed - the BFG's coat is no longer black; while Mary in The BFG now goes "still as a statue" instead of "white as a sheet"

WTF.

[Comrade 86]

37 minutes ago, Archied said:

Wait till Netflix get they’re hands on the bible

Not the best example Archie. Want to take a stab at how many revisions of that text there were for the King James bible and subsequent versions? Also, why? Oddly, 'cult of woke' notions are not listed as a key drivers, whilst socio-political concerns and modernisation are. What folk insist is a new and developing threat to society has actually been happening for 1000 years plus.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-King-James-and-subsequent-versions

39 minutes ago, Archied said:

what ever happened to if you don’t like a book or author don’t read it?‍♂️

Does that not ring true for the revised texts too?

For clarity, I loved Dahl's books as a kid. Dark, mischievous, often pretty grisly and macabre. My lad read all my copies and I had literally no concerns over whether he'd be 'damaged' by doing so. As with other 'threats' highlighted on this very thread, he's more than capable of working stuff out for himself.

The fact remains, this is purely and simply a commercial decision made by Netflix and nobody else, specifically designed to broaden appeal and increase revenues against their £300 million investment.  Despite this, folk can't help but leap on it the same way they did when at the advent of female Dr Who characters and female Jedi knights. The bone-jarring irony is that the very same protagonists endlessly screech about 'wokies' being perpetually outraged / offended are actually the ones making mountains out of molehills, in this instance at least. Pretty senseless to moan about divided society while perpetuating the chasms ourselves, least to my way of thinking. 

*not directed at you specifically btw, just a general observation 

[BondJovi]

16 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

A couple more changes to the Dahl stories:

References to colours have also been changed - the BFG's coat is no longer black; while Mary in The BFG now goes "still as a statue" instead of "white as a sheet"

WTF.

I don't really understand what a lot of these changes are for. Well, I do. It is in the hope that the books can still sell by the millions and stand no chance of offending anyone. We are sanitising above and beyond what is sane.

I read my 3 year old the Funnybones pet shop book the other week. Throughout that book the parrot throws out insults, "big bum, baldy, four eyes" and such. My son thought these were hilarious. But he also knows it isn't nice to go around insulting people. 

And when the time comes and we read the Dahl stories,in their original form, I am of no doubt he would also find it hilarious. But he would easily understand that some of that is not kind to say.

There is a thread in the football side of this forum about swearing in a family stand. The common sense answer seems to be, you can't stop it, but you can explain and teach children that the language they may hear isn't appropriate and not to be repeated.

How many children of an age that could read these stories are gaming online with strangers and encounting completely unfiltered conversations. How many play games such as Call of Duty or GTA? How many listen to music that is far more offensive than Dahl could ever be.

On the most part, children love the gruesome stories, they love the descriptions. Most today are influenced by youtubers or other online people, not stories from books, so I am sure making stories even more safe and sterile is going to change that...

[May Contain Nuts]

31 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

while Mary in The BFG now goes "still as a statue" instead of "white as a sheet"

I'm surprised The BFG hasn't been removed altogether tbh, always got dodgy vibes from that dude. Stealing children from their bedrooms, planting 'dreams' into their heads, giving them hallucinogenic substances and promising to take them to see the queen.

Creepy AF

[Archied]

41 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Not the best example Archie. Want to take a stab at how many revisions of that text there were for the King James bible and subsequent versions? Also, why? Oddly, 'cult of woke' notions are not listed as a key drivers, whilst socio-political concerns and modernisation are. What folk insist is a new and developing threat to society has actually been happening for 1000 years plus.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-King-James-and-subsequent-versions

Does that not ring true for the revised texts too?

For clarity, I loved Dahl's books as a kid. Dark, mischievous, often pretty grisly and macabre. My lad read all my copies and I had literally no concerns over whether he'd be 'damaged' by doing so. As with other 'threats' highlighted on this very thread, he's more than capable of working stuff out for himself.

The fact remains, this is purely and simply a commercial decision made by Netflix and nobody else, specifically designed to broaden appeal and increase revenues against their £300 million investment.  Despite this, folk can't help but leap on it the same way they did when at the advent of female Dr Who characters and female Jedi knights. The bone-jarring irony is that the very same protagonists endlessly screech about 'wokies' being perpetually outraged / offended are actually the ones making mountains out of molehills, in this instance at least. Pretty senseless to moan about divided society while perpetuating the chasms ourselves, least to my way of thinking. 

*not directed at you specifically btw, just a general observation 

No I get it and I’ve never read any of his books so not really fussed , I think where we differ a bit is this constant need to change things from they’re original because some are offended or triggered by the most silly of stuff does bother me ( not hugely enough to lose sleep over) , I’m not offended by the change just cheesed off that we have to keep doing this to placate people and let’s be honest the new words will then become offensive further down the line, it’s the constant thing of being forced to keep people happy over stupid stuff,

im starting a petition to get a beard and tash painted on the Mona Lisa as it is way too gender rigid and not inclusive enough,

I just wonder what cushy lives the people who search for this stuff and demand changes must have , jeez ain’t we got enough real stuff to worry about , I’m laying wooden floors at home today and that’s a proper pain in the ass on top of work and everything else in this world we have to negotiate ??‍♂️

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Kokosnuss said:

I'm surprised The BFG hasn't been removed altogether tbh, always got dodgy vibes from that dude. Stealing children from their bedrooms, planting 'dreams' into their heads, giving them hallucinogenic substances and promising to take them to see the queen.

Creepy AF

Let’s not even get on to the child catcher in chitty chitty bang bang ,,,,, im 62 and he still gives me the heeby geeby s 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

I’m not offended by the change just cheesed off that we have to keep doing this to placate people

Fair enough - except - and I repeat, this is not being done to placate anyone. It's being done because the new owners of the work have chosen to, in order to continue to generate revenue. My one and only point here is that it's no one's business what they do with the work they own. It's just another confected media storm designed to start arguments and generate clicks.

Everyone here believes in freedom of choice right? 

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

4 hours ago, Crewton said:

One point of correction - no-one has ever claimed that the published work of Dahl contain any examples of his undoubted antisemitism

Objection

The Witches is well-known for being full of anti-semitic tropes. 

 

As you were

[SSD]

This has commerical business stench all over it. If the general public were so bothered about the "outdated" language being used, don't buy the books and then it will simply go out of print and make no money. You have a choice, you don't have to allow your children to read his works. There's 1000s of other children's books in a saturated market.

Netflix bought the rights for a tidy sum of money a couple of years ago, they're due to release a number of his novels as films. I wonder whether they've had some influence along with the publisher ?? changing the wording from fat to enormous.... really? Is that going to make a huge different to someone who's struggle with a mental health disorder? As someone who's battle with mental health in the past, I'd rather people be honest with me than try and dodge the issue. 

His stories have always been a great bridge for kids who want something more mature but also entertaining. There's far worse material out there which adults allow there kids to play, read or watch. 

[Archied]

22 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Fair enough - except - and I repeat, this is not being done to placate anyone. It's being done because the new owners of the work have chosen to, in order to continue to generate revenue. My one and only point here is that it's no one's business what they do with the work they own. It's just another confected media storm designed to start arguments and generate clicks.

Everyone here believes in freedom of choice right? 

 

 

Your splitting hairs , they are changing stuff to preempt complaints/outrage so if anything it’s a bit worse as people have to do this even before the moaning ,threats to boycott ect ect are even voiced ,,, 

look I’m all for looking at things sensibly but come on the balance has gone and we are dealing with the ludicrous a lot of the time and that’s how we get this blurring and ridicule of woke the same as we get it with right wing tag??‍♂️