Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes, some old books have some very offensive words. But so do some modern books and there are books I think wholly offensive and depraved but I wouldn't ban them. I'd not give them to anyone either. Some are highly acclaimed by some people.

The offensiveness of words changes with time and audience.

The question is, was a word "very offensive" at the time it was written for the audience it was written for?

In a modern work, the answer is clearly yes, and was the author's intention.

In an older or historical work, the answer may well be no, in which case, IMO, changing it is the equivalent of translation.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

They should stick to publishing living authors instead of trying to monetise the PD works.
Maybe Disney & friends should have had a special copyright dispensation instead of the crazy extension of life + ever-increasing-years for everything.

If Disney got special copyright dispensation, then a lot of others would want the same thing.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If Disney got special copyright dispensation, then a lot of others would want the same thing.

The point is they HAVE got it, but it's been applied universally.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Quoth

They can only publish and market a certain number of books a year. So by reducing the marketing effort and royalty payments by publishing well known PD works they are limiting income of living authors.

I call BS. Publishers publish what they think will sell. Do you seriously think a publisher will pass up what they think will be the next Hunger Games because they are just too damned committed to keeping Moby Dick in print?

They also pay the sensitivity readers/editors a pittance.

Better they didn't pay them at all. But that's neither here nor there.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

In an older or historical work, the answer may well be no, in which case, IMO, changing it is the equivalent of translation.

One of the issues with the Dahl edits is not just that they happened at all, but that they were so poor, not nearly up to the quality of the original, even to poems that wouldn't scan. In other words, translation isn't merely swapping out good words for bad.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to read Wodehouse (and I say this as someone who's read 74 of his books in my quest to read them all in order) and being willing to accept a "translation"*. Unlike Christie, it's not about the plot, it's about the language. And unlike Dahl, mature readers presumably recognize the context of its times.

*No aspersions meant on those who must read him in non-English translations, but I view it as a near-impossible task.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I call BS. Publishers publish what they think will sell. Do you seriously think a publisher will pass up what they think will be the next Hunger Games because they are just too damned committed to keeping Moby Dick in print?

Their track record shows they might. They are very poor at picking new talent and do refuse what later turns to to be successful. The obsession with scrubbing the past almost certainly does result in them missing new talent.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Their track record shows they might. They are very poor at picking new talent and do refuse what later turns to to be successful. The obsession with scrubbing the past almost certainly does result in them missing new talent.

The question is on how often a new writer is getting refused before they give up and just self publish.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The question is on how often a new writer is getting refused before they give up and just self publish.

Some of the authors I've met are going the self-publishing route with the possibility of building up their reputation and then moving to the traditional publishing route. OTOH, more of them are sticking with self-publishing since it allows them to have more control and more income per unit sold. Thankfully, many of them are now using proofreaders and editors.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The question is on how often a new writer is getting refused before they give up and just self publish.

Sometimes they get rejected by all the major publishers and make a small publisher and the author millions.

Most of the the authors the Big Ones pick don't make their advance in royalties, though the book can still make a profit. Hence Penguin is a major publisher of well known "classic" works, many of which are PD. Our local bookstore gives that an entire bay. Crazy, but safe income.

[SomeSteve]

"The trouble with censoring Jeeves and Wooster" by Melanie McDonagh:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...s-and-wooster/

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Their track record shows they might. They are very poor at picking new talent and do refuse what later turns to to be successful.

The also publish books with great fanfare that later turn out to be duds. See The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters. Publishing is an art as much as it is a science.

The obsession with scrubbing the past almost certainly does result in them missing new talent.

I see zero proof of it. Please point me to an article from a reputable source that says the same thing you are saying. Until then, my call of BS stands.

[Quoth]

I've numbered your points.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

1. The offensiveness of words changes with time and audience.

2. The question is, was a word "very offensive" at the time it was written for the audience it was written for?

3. In a modern work, the answer is clearly yes, and was the author's intention.

4. In an older or historical work, the answer may well be no, in which case, IMO, changing it is the equivalent of translation.

1. Agree 100%

2. Maybe, but was it deliberate or the author being stupid?

3. In modern works the offensiveness varies with reader's age, class, culture, philosophy etc. Sometimes it's not the author's intention to offend. Sometimes it is, sometimes some people see demons were there are none. Impossible to generalise. Attitudes, or apparent attitude of the media can change in days. How do we define modern?

4. Sometimes in a work, old or recent, there is no better phrase or word. When it's the same language (like today and 1930 rather than 1630), a synonym is the term, not translation, but I know what you mean and even on older works like 17th C, maybe it shouldn't be changed. Back by time of Chaucer you need side by side view of original and modern English, which you need two ereaders for with an ebook, or stupidly short pages in landscape. Even if the word or phrase can be edited maybe some would still find it offensive.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SomeSteve

"The trouble with censoring Jeeves and Wooster" by Melanie McDonagh:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...s-and-wooster/

From that article:

School libraries are not going to stock the ‘unabridged’ versions of classic texts; they are more likely to be stuffed with propagandistic books about families with two mummies and grandads going on Pride marches.

I can promise you that as a kid boring old Jeeves and Wooster would have paled in interest compared to a book about a family with not one but two of the walking dead in it! I mean c'mon.

Otherwise I'm not familiar with that paper, but seeing as the other big linked to article was a piece complaining about Netflix making Cleopatra black... well, that is just not meant for me.

[issybird]

Please don't use the cover of quoting from another source to post commentary that is inappropriate to the main forum. You can always quote and comment in P&R if you'd like.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

Please don't use the cover of quoting from another source to post commentary that is inappropriate to the main forum. You can always quote and comment in P&R if you'd like.

I quoted from an article linked to in this thread. A link that didn't raise eyebrows.

The point of linking to an article is for others to read it and inform this discussion. My comments were directly related on what was linked to. I don't understand why one is acceptable and the other is not.

I am asking, not arguing. I thought I was above board.