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.

 
Fucking cunts.

Goddamit, I used to own the Charlie and Chocolate Factory book along with its sequel.

And donated both to some local library years ago.

Should have held onto them if I had known his descendants are cucks.
Many more children will have access to the decucked version thanks to your donation. Or the library might have sold it for a nickel and the buyer is now flipping it on eBay. Either way, you increased the total happiness in the world.
 
Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may still look like a ball of dough, but can now only be described as “enormous”.
I would like to run a test calling women either "fat" or "enormous" (i.e., "My god, you're [X].") to see what generates more upset.

In any case, it's humorous that they don't need to bowdlerize the books for anti-Jewish sentiments. It seems Dahl was a professional and kept his political views out of his art.
 
I would like to run a test calling women either "fat" or "enormous" (i.e., "My god, you're [X].") to see what generates more upset.

In any case, it's humorous that they don't need to bowdlerize the books for anti-Jewish sentiments. It seems Dahl was a professional and kept his political views out of his art.

Yep.

Also he knew how controversial anti semitism was once Hitler made it totally uncool.

Then again, the Child Catcher in that hideous movie “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang arguably had a touch of Shylock about him, and Dahl did indeed pen the screenplay.
 
Article from The Telegraph includes a big list of changes, many lines being outright removed:

The books effected, at least according to that list:
The examples from The Witches are all about fatness and ladies, but I wonder if they did anything about the 1960s-vintage view of diabetes in the book.

Which is something that you might want to update: make the kid brown, sure, but what about Grandma's "I'mma die lol?" If you're going to excuse only the latter as part of a book written in a different era, then that's just hypocrisy.

  • George’s Marvellous Medicine
I'm surprised they tackled this one at all. It's about a boy who mixes up all the unsecured substances he finds in a house and poisons his terrible grandmother, then everyone applauds.

I mean, it rules, but even the basic premise is inherently offensive to the easily-offended.

The examples show what they're doing: removing authorial voice. When I read Dahl's books as a kid, they were already decades old (and very British) and I remember being tickled by that: here was a different style of writing by a man from another place, with unfamiliar words and interesting phrasing that helped get a single-digit kid's mind aware of the possibilities of language. Kids love novelty and subversion, and IMO books like Dahl's are good for enticing a kid off on reading journeys of their own. You love the feeling that you picked out this book yourself, and you might be the only kid reading it for a while--your parents didn't hand it to you; this is your experience.

Which is not great when the subject of your special book from the library is troonery in the modern day, but I sure loved learning about poaching techniques that I will never use from Danny, The Champion of the World.

I dunno, man. Remember when "bowdlerize" was a derisive term?
 
Examples of it, taken from here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1626860237104857089.html


1676754220962.png


1676754239418.png


1676754248024.png


1676754269755.png


1676754278001.png


1676754285774.png
 
Oh, so we're at the Ministry of Truth section of 1984 now. The works of the past must be rewritten to align to today's Party ideology.

Next up is the Memory Hole, where the censors demand the destruction of every non-edited version of the book. They could cause confusion and degrade their precious copyright, you see, all totally sane and ordinary.
And in the USA, this is where the censors would run up against the First Amendment.

Never read any of Dahl's stuff I can remember, but there were obviously reasons the original versions of his books sold. Sadly, those who consider themselves "woke" may buy these bowdlerized versions of the Dahl books.

Enough to puke legions of dogs off fleets of gutwagons.
 
The Secret Garden is a profoundly racist book. It includes entire chapters dedicated to describing Indians as dirty, subhuman, and the antithesis of health.

I read it when I was 12 and was horrified. However, the rest of the book is wonderful, and it gave a very enlightening glimpse into the psychology of people 100+ years ago.

Maybe when Leonard Maltin warned viewers about mean Looney Toons cartoons, we were at the best political correctness could be. I guess we all expected this, but damn.
 
At this point I hope WWIII breaks out in the next three months and the fucking octopi take over.
At least they won't be fussed over fucking skintone.

We should never have left the oceans.
Octopi are probably crazy racist in weird aquatic noneuclidean ways we can't begin to comprehend
 
The Secret Garden is a profoundly racist book. It includes entire chapters dedicated to describing Indians as dirty, subhuman, and the antithesis of health.

I read it when I was 12 and was horrified. However, the rest of the book is wonderful, and it gave a very enlightening glimpse into the psychology of people 100+ years ago.

Maybe when Leonard Maltin warned viewers about mean Looney Toons cartoons, we were at the best political correctness could be. I guess we all expected this, but damn.
Isn't there also incest in it?
 
I wonder what could have been their problem with sailing with Joseph Conrad?

Yet they keep in Hemingway who was basically a proto-Hunter Thompson.

Unhinged violence and substance problems are so much more acceptable than allegories or illustrations of the dark inner demons of man?

Taking Kipling out is not just kind of strange, but Steinbeck is no conjuror of the fantastic and mysterious.

Not sure how tales of the other worldliness of India and her wildlife are less appropriate for children than accounts of retarded man children rapists and the desperation of starving families during the depression.

Don’t get me wrong, Steinbeck is a genius and wordsmith, but I always thought there was a reason he is usually taught to mid teens, rather than 8-10 year olds.

Sorry, but who the fuck do these censors think they are?

Dahl was not just crafting wonderful stories for children, but he was sharing the influences which shaped his vivid and incredible imagination.

Trying to shoehorn in Steinbeck over Kipling because Steinbeck is more overtly championing the working class is not just sheer disrespect to Steinbeck and Kipling, it’s disrespectful to Dahl, and to the very children reading.
 
There’s so much I want to say about this, but I can’t. This just makes me sad on a whole other level this is happening, and so many people are happily accepting it as a good thing. As someone who grew up with a love for books, it really hits me hard. As someone who once considered myself a liberal because they billed themselves as the party of free speech, question everything, anti-censorship etc…it makes me sick to see what they’ve become
 
Back