Culture Roald Dahl books given inclusive overhaul by 'sensitivity readers' - Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute.

Augustus Gloop is no longer fat, Mrs Twit is no longer fearfully ugly, and the Oompa-Loompas have gone gender-neutral in new editions of Roald Dahl’s beloved stories.

The publisher, Puffin, has made hundreds of changes to the original text, removing many of Dahl’s colourful descriptions and making his characters less grotesque.

The review of Dahl’s language was undertaken to ensure that the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, Puffin said.

References to physical appearance have been heavily edited. The word “fat” has been removed from every book - Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may still look like a ball of dough, but can now only be described as “enormous”.

In the same story, the Oompa-Loompas are no longer “tiny”, “titchy” or “no higher than my knee” but merely small. And where once they were “small men”, they are now “small people”.

Passages not written by Dahl have also been added. In The Witches, a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs ends with the new line: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat/And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire/And dry as a bone, only drier.”

Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the underwhelming rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute/And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same/And deserves half of the blame.”

References to “female” characters have disappeared - Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.

“Boys and girls” has been turned into “children”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People and Fantastic Mr Fox’s three sons have become daughters.

Matilda reads Jane Austen rather than Rudyard Kipling, and a witch posing as “a cashier in a supermarket” now works as “a top scientist”.

Mrs Twit’s “fearful ugliness” is reduced to “ugliness”, while Mrs Hoppy in Esio Trot is not an “attractive middle-aged lady” but a “kind middle-aged lady”.

One of Dahl’s most popular lines from The Twits is: “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams.” It has been edited to take out the “double chin”.

An emphasis on mental health has led to the removal of “crazy” and “mad”, which Dahl used frequently in comic fashion. A mention in Esio Trot of tortoises being “backward” - the joke behind the book’s title - has been excised.

The words “black” and “white” have been removed: characters no longer turn “white with fear” and the Big Friendly Giant in The BFG cannot wear a black cloak.

The changes were made by the publisher, Puffin, and the Roald Dahl Story Company, now owned by Netflix, with sensitivity readers hired to scrutinise the text.

The review began in 2020, when the company was still run by the Dahl family. Netflix acquired the literary estate in 2021 for a reported £500 million.

Sensitivities over Dahl’s stories were heightened when a 2020 Hollywood version of The Witches led to a backlash over its depiction of the Grand Witch, played by Anne Hathaway, with fingers missing from each hand.

Warner Bros was forced to make an apology after Paralympians and charities said it was offensive to the limb difference community.

That same year, the Dahl family and the company apologised for the author’s past anti-Semitic statements.

Matthew Dennison, Dahl’s biographer, said that the author - who died in 1990 - chose his vocabulary with care. “I’m almost certain that he would have recognised that alterations to his novels prompted by the political climate were driven by adults rather than children," he said.

 
I see Sunak and Pullman covered above. Here's Salman Rushdie and some rando:

Rushdie took to Twitter Saturday to voice his opposition to the move by Puffin, in conjunction with the late author's estate.

"Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed," Rushdie tweeted.

Rushdie, 75, is no stranger to the debate around censorship. Following the release of his 1988 novel "The Satanic Verses," the then-Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the his death. The Indian-born author lost the sight in one eye after being attacked at a lecture in New York last year.
Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, a network of writers protecting freedom of expression, responded angrily to news of the revisions on social media.

In a thread of 13 tweets, she said the organization was "alarmed" by the changes, which had been made in "a purported effort to scrub the books of that which might offend someone."

She wrote: "If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society."
 
Part of the issue when it's UK authors is that there are already multiple Americanized versions; I have multiple editions of some Noel Streatfield books that have huge variations. I expect there's some language in the American publishing contracts that allows for wokeifying as well as turning every jumper into a sweater and every lorry into a truck.
"Amerification" of UK authors is some of the gayest shit that has ever been shat in or out of a butt. The languages are NOT THAT DAMN DIFFERENT YOU FUCKS, you don't need to change "kerb" to "curb" or "boot" to "trunk" people can figure this shit out. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is probably the highest-profile version of this. And a practice of doing it lets other shit slip in, some of which can substantially change the meaning of the work. At least sometimes it's done with the advice and consent of the author, but often not.

Tolkien's rant when they tried to do it to him should be the standard response.

Does the UK even bother doing britiziation of American works?
 
"Amerification" of UK authors is some of the gayest shit that has ever been shat in or out of a butt. The languages are NOT THAT DAMN DIFFERENT YOU FUCKS, you don't need to change "kerb" to "curb" or "boot" to "trunk" people can figure this shit out. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is probably the highest-profile version of this. And a practice of doing it lets other shit slip in, some of which can substantially change the meaning of the work. At least sometimes it's done with the advice and consent of the author, but often not.

Tolkien's rant when they tried to do it to him should be the standard response.

Does the UK even bother doing britiziation of American works?
I really want a Nigeria Pidgin copy of the Harry Potter books, it would be earthshatteringly excellent.
 
"Amerification" of UK authors is some of the gayest shit that has ever been shat in or out of a butt. The languages are NOT THAT DAMN DIFFERENT YOU FUCKS, you don't need to change "kerb" to "curb" or "boot" to "trunk" people can figure this shit out. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is probably the highest-profile version of this. And a practice of doing it lets other shit slip in, some of which can substantially change the meaning of the work. At least sometimes it's done with the advice and consent of the author, but often not.

Tolkien's rant when they tried to do it to him should be the standard response.

Does the UK even bother doing britiziation of American works?
Look, buddy, if you need to read about Harry's fat cousin and his "Knickerbocker Glory" that's your problem
 
All this just to pander to people with no children or any meaningful investment in the future.
They don't need any, they just get into positions of power and subvert someone else's.


"Amerification" of UK authors is some of the gayest shit that has ever been shat in or out of a butt.
Ah, yes. I remember when they changed "car park" to "parking lot" in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide books. One of Marvin's lines doesn't land as well as a result. (In response to being asked what he's doing in a car park: "Parking cars, what else does one do in a car park?")

While the original joke was damaged, I now I appreciate the meta-humor that Marvin was implying you must be an idiot if you don't know what happens in place literally named "noun verb", and some "localizer" decided the entirety of North America was indeed precisely that stupid.
 
They don't need any, they just get into positions of power and subvert someone else's.



Ah, yes. I remember when they changed "car park" to "parking lot" in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide books. One of Marvin's lines doesn't land as well as a result. (In response to being asked what he's doing in a car park: "Parking cars, what else does one do in a car park?")

While the original joke was damaged, I now I appreciate the meta-humor that Marvin was implying you must be an idiot if you don't know what happens in place literally named "noun verb", and some "localizer" decided the entirety of North America was indeed precisely that stupid.
This is my main complaint with it; I've no problem if someone were to actually TRANSLATE from fagbritish english to GOD'S OWN REDNECK ENGLISH but that is an actual translation that needs to be handled on the level of Asterisk and Obelix, where you fully understand all the puns and jokes and meanings and ... recreate it in another language.

But the various englishes are so close together that they end up doing some dumb-ass sed script and wreck things.
 
yes, and the same thing happens with spain spanish/latin american spanish. it's totally normal.
Well, you have to with LatAm/Euro Spanish because they don't conjugate verbs the same way and it would just confuse the hell out of readers otherwise. Off the top of my head, the single biggest difference is the "you" and the "formal you" are switched, and considering one of those is used among friends and the other in a more professional, formal setting, you wind up with a mess unless that's addressed.
 
These changes make me MATI. This is fucking newspeak. Besides, most of these changes either completely change the meaning of the quote, or just make it less descriptive in a pathetic way. Some are even directly contradictory in their wording. Low IQ people made these changes. Not one was an author I would be willing to bet.
 
I watched a Styxhexenhammer video on Rumble about this. It's pretty creepy. Like something from 1984. This is why you should by physical books and all other media if you can. Buy old used books. They can't change them.
They can't change a .pdf either. That's not an argument in favor of physical over digital media but rather against streaming and cloud services, which are only a single implementation of digital media. I'd argue that digital media still has a leg up over physical here, because it is much easier to distribute. If your goal is to make sure that everyone in the world had access to the original unedited copies of a book, it would be much easier to accomplish with digital copies.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the big Dahl set on Amazon is out of stock now. Individual books are still available.

Just got my order of The Enormous Crocodile. Can confirm that the juicy little child is still fat. Speaking of "Amerification", I just noticed that "roundabout" (as it's shown in the list of changes) became "merry-go-round".

EDIT: Hah, check this out:
1677021721235.png

The big quote on the back of the book is one of the lines that got marked for censorship.
 
Last edited:
Phillip Pullman wants you to know that he didn't like Roald Dahl anyway. This guy is so salty, didn't he write some young adult fantasy? I remember there being a very dumb movie. LOL. Seethe, bro. I'm not going to read your literally-who recommendations.
Pullman would be exactly the type to have an axe to grind against a beloved literary icon. He is no more reverent of the works of Tolkien (which he regards as childish and irrelevant to the real world) and Lewis (which he regards as actively harmful).

He mainly makes the argument that it is impossible to sanitise the past, so we shouldn't bother trying. And he seems to hold some regret for the ongoing sanitisation of the present that's happening by way of new authors works being edited for sensitivity before they're even published. (Or maybe I'm reading too much into this one little quote of his?)

it’s quite hard to resist the nudging towards saying this or not saying that, which is a pity,...png


I was hoping he might have elaborated more on that last point. Alas, It only ever came in passing in the original interview. But if he's not going to say it, then I will: if cucked publishers can mercilessly edit a piece of literature that is known and loved by millions, they can do the same, if not worse, to first-time authors.

It is the job of sensitivity readers to ensure all new books meet this minimum standard. It almost goes without saying that any "respectable" publisher nowadays is going to choose who to accept or reject based on the perceived social value of the work, as seen through a woke shyster's lens because most the people in that industry are woke shysters.

And it's just so frustrating how Pullman waxes lyrical about authors who are still alive, seemingly using the controversy around Dahl as a springboard to say they don't get enough recognition. But I think the most frustrating part is that they could be the best in the world and the inclusivity machine would still come for them, if indeed it hasn't already.

I suppose it would be too much to ask to have him redpill a BBC audience about this exact issue. But it took me way too long to clip the interview, so I'm sharing it with you anyway.


It's also worth noting also that Philip Pullman has had previous altercations with the social justice mob. He was made to apologise in 2021 for comments he made on Twitter in defence of another author who was also in their line of fire.
Rape sperging aside, here's some more Twitter insanity, this time directed at author Philip Pullman:

View attachment 2430000

Here are some of the offending tweets:

View attachment 2430012
View attachment 2430014

some context:

View attachment 2430015
View attachment 2430019

more offending tweets:

View attachment 2430002

Twitter is, predictably, chimping the fuck out.

View attachment 2430004
View attachment 2430036

I'm failing to understand how his tweets literally ~endanger people.

Kate Clanchy, the author he spoke in defence of, was in her own words: "given the chance to do some re-writing" of her (award-winning) memoir because of a complete nothingburger controversy about the way she described some minority kids.

This is actually one of the more visible examples of what I meant about new literature being subjected to censorship in the name of inclusivity, just as bad (if not far worse) than what is happening to Roald Dahl. Note that, in most cases, it would never get as far as being published. The corrections would be made in a sternly worded email to the author, who'd has no choice but to accept them with open arms. And that's to say nothing of the authors who self-censor, or who genuinely believe in what the woke mob are doing.

Full list of my posts about these two authors and their depressing struggle sessions:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/social-justice-warriors.4463/post-9714660
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/social-justice-warriors.4463/post-9719502
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/social-justice-warriors.4463/post-9765454
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/social-justice-warriors.4463/post-9765726
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/social-justice-warriors.4463/post-11499630

One last thing about Philip Pullman – he is currently the woke movement's darling because he supports trans rights, he writes fantasy and is not J.K. Rowling.


But they will turn on him, maybe not while he's still alive, but there is no question they will if their movement remains active for another couple of decades. And when they do, he will probably deserve it, not least for everything he's done to appease them in the meantime.

And when they do, they will most likely bring up the way humans and their daemons in His Dark Materials are almost always opposite sexes (implying a binary), the creepy age gap in the sequel, and the fact that when the battle lines were being drawn he needed to spend quite a while before deciding he was on Team Trans.

screencapture-twitter-PhilipPullman-status-1053001990710710273-2023-02-22-02_31_51 copy.png

Link, Archive

You may be the iconoclast now, Phil. But that won't stop the iconoclasts coming for you too.
 
What about editing the binary data directly somehow? Like the hexadecimal codes?

(that would take a lot of skill or maybe AI though)
Acrobat can edit PDF files quite easily. But they don’t have a mechanism for doing it to you remotely …. Yet.

And there’s tons of other low hanging fruit before the start writing viruses to edit your pdfs
 
@DoubleD Thank you for the information dump! This is really interesting. I don't understand people like Pullman. You don't have to like Roald Dahl. You don't have to like any authors. But it's not in your best interest to openly harp on them when it comes to issues like this. Does he think his 'you should just read newer authors, they deserve the attention' line won't be applied to his own work, or does he really not care?

And it's just so frustrating how Pullman waxes lyrical about authors who are still alive, seemingly using the controversy around Dahl as a springboard to say they don't get enough recognition. But I think the most frustrating part is that they could be the best in the world and the inclusivity machine would still come for them, if indeed it hasn't already.
Good point. I called them 'literally who's' in my post but for all I know they could be really good and worth reading. But what is happening to Dahl's work certainly is not going to help them. They're not iconic, and seeing how fast the woke 'rules' keep evolving they never will be because in three years or so someone will find something problematic with their works and they'll just quietly vanish.
 
They made a movie that bombed because they cut out most of the anti-Catholic-Church parts. Then they recently made a BBC One series which again nobody watched because most of the episodes nothing fucking happens. Seriously, it had the last season released in December last year and most people didn't even notice.

It's also infamous for having two 12-13 year old protagonists have sex to stop the world ending or something equally retarded.
Let's see how they would react if we give them a taste of their own medecine.
 
Back