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.
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.
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?