So this was a publicity stunt by the publisher? As far as anyone can tell, no one ever asked for these changes to be made in the first place
It was done so poorly that this thought had already crossed my mind. A bunch of the changes were obviously unnecessary by any standard, and they didn't even pay attention to things like meter when editing poems.
I'm not even necessarily against this (we do this to kids' literature all the time and basically always have—as longs as the originals can still be had, not a big deal) but this was so lazy and awful that it's hard to believe they were serious—this was straight-up an illiterate editing effort.
Exactly. If they weren't artless hacks they'd write their own books instead of butchering others.
All that to say I am actually surprised they went back on their announce.
If you want another sad-making observation, the teachers say teens are increasingly finding late-20th-century kids' books hard to read, because the language is too complex for them to follow—they're used to first-person with very simple sentences with redundancy for anything important (so it's harder to miss), and publishers are chasing simplicity/clarity-at-all-costs hard for fear of alienating any of their shrinking reader-base, which of course re-enforces that decline in ability to handle sentence- and paragraph-level complexity—even goes for "advanced" readers, I'm told. This part's been heading that way for a while, but I guess has gotten much worse fast over the last 5ish years.
Basically, the genres that people still read (YA and romance) are trending hard toward first-person and very simple language. If you write in third publishers and agents will either tell you to switch outright, or you'll get a lot of "seems too distant and impersonal" and such, which is just them asking for first person without saying it. Some get through anyway, especially from authors who got their start 10+ years ago and have more sway, but first is strongly preferred.
That doesn't surprise me at all, I'm sure 20th century teachers found the same trend in 20th century students trying to read 19th century books. It's a shame, but it is what it is. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this, except that we should do what we can to encourage kids to read the classics despite (or even because) of the difficulty.
I have a suspicion that the trend dates back much earlier (60s? 70s?), and owes to de-emphasizing poetry in English classes, since reading poetry requires heavy tracking of complex context over long stretches of text, making even fairly-complex prose mostly seem easy by comparison. This may just be a continuation of that trend—kids' lit gradually getting simpler in response to declining literacy that is itself due to shifts in curriculum focus, causing an ongoing, further decline.
Or take Shakespeare for example; he wrote for the unwashed masses yet his writings are considered sophisticated and challenging today. I have an anthology of English renaissance drama from various playwrights that I revisit from time to time. The stories are usually quite crude and funny (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Tis_Pity_She%27s_a_Whore), but understanding them well enough to appreciate that humor can be a chore. I don't think these stories were considered difficult originally, but became so over time.
I read this as: editors are changing just some words in order to save Dahl, who should be banned completely. And Salon author calls their own stance “against censorship”. Hm.
Based on what?
As I said on reddit about this:
Warner Bros. have done fine with the pre-amble to their older cartoons that says something to the effect of "yo, this was written back when attitudes were different, they were shitty attitudes, but to erase them is to pretend it never happened."
A similar preface in the books would have worked much better, but wouldn't give you any amount of PR like this.
Then the PR statement came out, and anti-woke people are up in arms about it, and everyone else is going “huh that’s just weird to do”.
I feel like it surely has to be just a push to get the books back in the public mindshare if sales were slipping.
Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc
Whereas nobody I talked to who opposed these changes would consider themselves “anti-woke”.
Im not trying to pick a bone with you, but I’ve been lately thinking about a common trope where if someone opposes a change/policy , they get labeled “anti-this” or the worst is they get hit with a question of “why do you care” Where the goal isn’t to debate the merits of the change but simply shun the other person.
(also it definitely happens from both sides)
Maybe in your mind but not mine. Good liberals are anti-woke because woke is anti-liberal. It's a coercive force that any decent person should be against. At least anyone who critically examines it and the methods it uses to manipulate and gain unjust and unearned power over others.
People like you have always existed, suited in different skins, based on whatever gullible plebs could fall for or cowards could be frightened into.
It's funny that you mention religion, because yes I am a christian and so I understand that one day I will stand before god in judgement of my actions. I have no certainty that I am able to do what is required of me, only that I must try and this is what drives me to fight for "the least of these." Why do you lick the boot?
I personally agree with you wholeheartedly but I think your opinion is in the minority
You're right that one of these is unfair, but it is the latter not the former. "Woke" is the progressive fringe, not the mainstream. Opposition to woke is a set that includes both the moderate mainstream and the right fringe. Liberal enlightenment values, which represent the moderate majority today, are distinctly "anti-woke".
How so? Enlightenment values include the commitment to universal human dignity and the rejection of prejudice and discrimination. This is consistent with the goals of social justice movements.
The classic liberal stance is "don't be shitty to people", and, in turn, "call out people for being shitty". But "shitty" is pretty subjective, and it runs the gamut from "going out of your way to be specifically, personally aggressive and hurtful" to "using a word that in a different context might potentially be understood as critical to someone". It seems like the most vocally anti-woke people clutch their pearls in equal dismay for any attempt at avoiding either case.
I think there is a performative element to a lot of "woke" efforts, but I have to be very careful about saying that, lest I inadvertently carry water for someone who wants to use my words to justify racial slurs or deliberate mis-gendering or any number of other things that I think are shitty. It should not be "this self-described liberal said that 'woke' is performative, therefore there's no real objection to me calling black people [racial slur]".
That’s not a label I’m applying to them without their consent. It’s a term they use themselves as a matter of pride.
I did also mention that other people found it odd too, which was meant to imply that nobody was really for this change.
can you be up in arms but not be considered anti-woke?
I get what you’re trying to say, I just wonder how many people decided not to be up in arms about this and other subjects similar to this and decided to keep quiet so they would not be considered anti-woke.
I say this cause in my work env, people are heavily pushing language shift recommendations and it seems like nobody dares speak up about it (me included) to stay polite/be considered part of the good ones. But in reality most people are not for the change at all.
And it’s usually a minority of people pushing for changes like this.
If the problem is that you want to have a thoughtful conversation about an issue but are worried about being labelled, first identify if being thoughtful or critical is the what the group wants or has the propensity to do. If you're lucky then you will be around people willing to have a discussion and can frame a lot of the conversation around you filling in your understanding (when in fact you're trying to get others to start thinking critically). Asking a lot of questions about the results of outcomes is also a great way to stop people from auto-piloting into popular opinions.
It seems like you’re conflating objecting to something with being up in arms about it.
A reasoned objection is very different than the over the top reaction from some people, even on here, saying “wokeness is the end of literary freedom etc”. Analyzing it on a case by case basis vs jumping to extreme conclusions based on one’s biases.
Maybe the problem you're trying to point out is that, like most labels, anti-thing leaves no nuance. To what level is a person against something? Are they questioning that thing to gain better understanding? Or are they trying to justify their bias?
I liked his books quite a lot as a kid, and haven't prevented any children in my care from accessing them. But on revisiting as an adult there is a kind of... meanspiritedness to them. It's hard to describe but almost like, spiritual viciousness or a deep nasty pessimism about people.
Part of this may be why they appeal to children anyway. I didn't consciously notice as a kid but I suspect they registered as slightly transgressive in some way, and were alluring for that reason. Anyway none of the edits really address that, or could. To a significant extent that feeling is a fundamental part of the books and can't be removed.
Oh, yeah, that is absolutely why they were so popular. This is arguably an example of what TVTropes calls "Seinfeld is unfunny" (the inventor of a new style of media seems derivative or at least uninteresting to modern audiences); today it maybe doesn't stand out so much, but Dahl was probably the first modern childrens' writer to write stuff like this.
Personally I didn’t mind it. A lot of British comedic writing and entertainment was similar in vein. There’s a lot of emphasis places on barbed wit in a lot of their media (even as far back as Shakespeare), and I think Dahl essentially took that and formed it into a kids book.
Even when I was a child though, I felt any mean spritidness was always directed in a way towards the antagonist or received from a bully. It was largely in adversarial relationships. Maybe I misremember though.
Either way, I think his overall stories are almost always so incredibly charming , coupled with Quentin Blake’s wonderful art, that they’re a must read for children.
Yes, I felt this way about his books when I was a kid. I did like the books despite it, but there was always an element of grotesque cruelty to his books that I didn't particularly care for.
Still, removing that from the books is wrong. Read different books, or write your own books. Editing his books to remove the author's distinctive style is just plain wrong. What's the objective, to trick kids into thinking Roald Dahl was a different sort of man? To what end? Whatever the problem, deception is not the answer.
Should we edit Shakespeare to remove all that hard-to-read 'olde English'? Maybe edit Romeo and Juliet to give it a happier ending, and get rid of that nasty violence with daggers and poison? (that's much worse than Roald Dahl describing characters as 'fat' or 'female' isn't it?)
It's been done. Multiple times. Yet somehow we didn't have the same sort of performative outrage.
Hell, even the bible has been rewritten multiple times with lots of infighting about what the right version is.
The publisher does not have a rational unified will. It is made of up people and its actions are a product of internal politics.
In this case, as is usual, a tiny group of hyper-motivated woke ideologues would have banded together to push for these changes, and deployed the usual array of ideological superweapons that the woke have access to in our culture-space (there are no antibodies to their power plays unlike traditional religions, and pushback against woke ideas in institutional contexts is often legally punishable by various mechanisms related to civil rights law).
This tiny group swung the publisher to its will, because they care with the self-destructive fervor of religious zealots, and everyone else is just trying to get along, so they win despite being a microminority.
It's another step in the long march through the institutions; basically all our academic, corporate, cultural, military, and scientific establishments have fallen under woke control by the same mechanisms.
Ref: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
This may result in some additional sales, as people scramble to get the old versions. But it also puts egg on Puffin's face, and may hurt their reputation among buyers and authors. Overall, it seems more like inertia and incompetence rather than a finely-tuned publicity stunt.