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 should also mention that a lot of books from the 70s and 80s get revised. It is stupid.
For example Are You There God Its Me Margaret. Newer versions remove the 70s menstrual methods.
The one that I Know What You Did Last Summer is based off of updates it so they're all using tech like cellphones and computers.
It ruins the original stories and it compromises the plot
 
On the contrary, his mean streak was what allowed him to speak into the mind of a child so effortlessly. A child's world is usually very self-centered and lacking in emotional control. These are things one learns with age. Dahl was a self-centered arse who said what was on his mind, with little regard to the consequences. Combine that with a very vivid imagination and a knack for storytelling, and you have a man who understands how children process the world. That's not to say he was a "Man-child". That's something else entirely.

That said, he was kind of a shit Dad, so you are right to an extent.

Not dissimilar to Prince Philip and a good number of the old school privately educated men of that generation.

It was a curious bridge between Victorian-Edwardian conservatives and coming to understand the democratization of modern western society. Especially in the UK.

That is another reason why Norway is a bit more magical in Dahls descriptions as to him it was both a place of happy childhood memories with grandparents and probably seemed more like “how things should be” to him.

The kind of complex man that Dahl was doesn’t exist in todays world. The pathetic attempts by millennials and Gen Z is just offensive in comparison.
You are not complex and deep if you grow a stupid beard, pretend to like mucked with beer and do a useless career or become an influencer.
Dahl is the kind of role model which sadly no longer exists.
 
I should also mention that a lot of books from the 70s and 80s get revised. It is stupid.
For example Are You There God Its Me Margaret. Newer versions remove the 70s menstrual methods.
The one that I Know What You Did Last Summer is based off of updates it so they're all using tech like cellphones and computers.
It ruins the original stories and it compromises the plot
This makes me genuinely MATI.

When I was a kid, I liked reading older books about kids.

The past is a different place and it's important to learn about the past. It's not like a kid today can't enjoy a fun caper involving large-scale watermelon theft, even if it happened in 1865.

It's assuming kids are stupid and can't consider that the values of the past are different from today's values.

They up in here influencing kids to darn socks and make preserves. Damn.
 
When I was a kid, I liked reading older books about kids.

The past is a different place and it's important to learn about the past. It's not like a kid today can't enjoy a fun caper involving large-scale watermelon theft, even if it happened in 1865.

It's assuming kids are stupid and can't consider that the values of the past are different from today's values.

They up in here influencing kids to darn socks and make preserves. Damn.
Kids are stupid, but kids aren't stupid, you know? Nobody underestimates kids more than people who claim to care about them.

Time moving in a linear fashion like it does, I read a lot of older kids' books in my own childhood, and that age was part of what made them magical. Different phrasing, different ways of doing things, novel concepts.

"What the hell is mercurochrome," I'd say to myself, and then either look it up or figure it out by context clues. The latter part being fun for my parents when I made inaccurate assumptions and tried to work them into my growing worldview, or sat them down very seriously and asked why they hadn't told me about the hippie movement. (We had a conversation about how MAD magazine recycles very old content.)

If it's a book for a super tiny kid, yeah, I can see quietly 'shopping the ponytail off a background Chinaman. If it's a book with a living author and the living author wants to make changes, well, you gotta go with that. But if you're editing a chapter book because you think chapter-book-age kids can't handle learning peripherally about the past, that's obnoxious.

The correct answer is a one-page forward, and then an appendix in the back (if the problem is unfamiliar terms/concepts). If the problem is racism, the appendix can be about the author's relation to race or just Thought Questions so everyone feels good about themselves.

I should also mention that a lot of books from the 70s and 80s get revised. It is stupid.
For example Are You There God Its Me Margaret. Newer versions remove the 70s menstrual methods.
This makes me pig-biting mad. I assume the revisionists don't want to scare young girls in 2023 by making them think they're going to have to wear a pad+belt, but what they lose is the understanding of what their mom/grandma used to use, what united all these women in recent history once a month. Not to get all "women's ways of knowing," but one of the agreed-on issues with menstruation in pop culture is that it doesn't get written about matter-of-factly.

They're literally erasing a historical document, and in a more insidious way. A coming-of-age book deals with a universal theme; the person at the center of it reacting to and accepting/not accepting the world around them. Sometimes that world is Arrakis, sometimes that world is happening in the 1970s, but if it's written well, the reader resonates with the protagonist's struggles regardless.
The one that I Know What You Did Last Summer is based off of updates it so they're all using tech like cellphones and computers.
It ruins the original stories and it compromises the plot
I haven't read the book, but if you follow these revisionists' logic, they're going to have to deepfake an intro scene for every horror movie ever. It'll just be the main characters T-posing and telling each other that their cell phones suddenly don't work; let us agree to never talk about them ever again.
 
If it's a book for a super tiny kid, yeah, I can see quietly 'shopping the ponytail off a background Chinaman.
The history of the Chinese and pigtails is actually very interesting.


"The late 19th century saw a significant increase in Chinese immigration to the United States. By 1880, the Chinese population of the United States was over 100,000 and located primarily in California. Over 90% of immigrants were male and had come to the United States to earn money to send to their families. As the majority of these men planned to return to China, they needed to keep their queues lest they be marked as revolutionaries."

It's an actual thing that Chinese men actually did. Obviously not in 1950 or whenever, but saying "all pigtails on Chinese are racist" is actually sort of racist in that it erases an actual historical practice.
 
The inclusivity machine has four main ways of destroying older works of fiction deemed too problematic for modern audiences to consume unchallenged.

1) If the author is still alive, they will update their works for the woke crowd, or approve changes made to adaptations of their works in the service of inclusivity. Most will do this willingly and require little to no persuasion.
Examples: Neil Gaiman, Rick Riordan

2) If they are still alive but refusing to play ball - or if they have been MeToo'd, come out as a Republican, etc - push the narrative that the author is bigoted and you cannot separate the art from the artist. Encourage boycotts of their works. It should be socially unacceptable to support them financially.
Examples: Orson Scott Card, J.K. Rowling

3) If the author is dead, push the narrative that they were bigoted, which shouldn't be hard to do if they lived 100 years ago. They were a product of their time, but that's no excuse. It's okay to enjoy works by this author, since they're no longer making money from it, just as long as you don't idolize them, and understand they were not a good person.
Examples: H.P. Lovecraft, Rudyard Kipling

4) If the author is dead and bigoted, but they are a household name and you can't stop people idolizing them, update their works and any adaptations of their works for modern audiences, and pretend like the author would have been cool with it.
Examples: J.R.R. Tolkien, Roald Dahl

Note that this doesn't just apply to authors. These rules get applied in one way or another to almost any type of content creator or public figure, dead or alive.
Examples: Alfred Hitchcock, Richard Wagner, Scott Cawthon

Also note the woke-washing of historical figures. In their case, it's not their works that need updating, but works of fiction about them, which many people confuse for their true stories.
Examples: the Founding Fathers, the Suffragettes - as portrayed in Hamilton and Suffrageddon, respectively
 
The ridiculous thing about the leftist hating on and erasing Kipling is that Kipling did not hate, or even really despise, Pajeets.
In his stories of British India, he treats Indians as individual people and frequently admirable people, and even depicts the more bigoted class of Anglos as foolish, ignorant, and constrained by their prejudice.
It is probable that the reason that the Left do not exculpate him is his "failure" to break away from his devotion to the Imperial project, to which the subject peoples of the Empire were expected to serve in a capacity analogous to that of the modern White leftist in the Woke movement.
That probably hits too close to home for these people.
 
Jesus, they've completely gutted everything that's descriptive and unique about those passages.
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.
Okay, and now that you're older and wiser, what are your views on the Indian peoples when it comes to health and sanitation practices?
 
The inclusivity machine has four main ways of destroying older works of fiction deemed too problematic for modern audiences to consume unchallenged.

1) If the author is still alive, they will update their works for the woke crowd, or approve changes made to adaptations of their works in the service of inclusivity. Most will do this willingly and require little to no persuasion.
Examples: Neil Gaiman, Rick Riordan

2) If they are still alive but refusing to play ball - or if they have been MeToo'd, come out as a Republican, etc - push the narrative that the author is bigoted and you cannot separate the art from the artist. Encourage boycotts of their works. It should be socially unacceptable to support them financially.
Examples: Orson Scott Card, J.K. Rowling

3) If the author is dead, push the narrative that they were bigoted, which shouldn't be hard to do if they lived 100 years ago. They were a product of their time, but that's no excuse. It's okay to enjoy works by this author, since they're no longer making money from it, just as long as you don't idolize them, and understand they were not a good person.
Examples: H.P. Lovecraft, Rudyard Kipling

4) If the author is dead and bigoted, but they are a household name and you can't stop people idolizing them, update their works and any adaptations of their works for modern audiences, and pretend like the author would have been cool with it.
Examples: J.R.R. Tolkien, Roald Dahl

Note that this doesn't just apply to authors. These rules get applied in one way or another to almost any type of content creator or public figure, dead or alive.
Examples: Alfred Hitchcock, Richard Wagner, Scott Cawthon

Also note the woke-washing of historical figures. In their case, it's not their works that need updating, but works of fiction about them, which many people confuse for their true stories.
Examples: the Founding Fathers, the Suffragettes - as portrayed in Hamilton and Suffrageddon, respectively
Your post is absolutely spot on and it’s legitimately making me MATI. I’ve been passionate about writing since I was a child, I have notebooks full of novels and short stories I wrote. I want to write fiction that could contain controversial topics and themes, but I want to do this because I want people to think. However the fact that you can get cancelled or boycotted now for having different opinions and themes that the mob doesn’t like is fucking insidious. I remember seeing writers on Tumblr get accused of being sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/anti-Semitic/anti-BIPOC to the point where the writers and bloggers just couldn’t take it anymore and closed their creative writing blogs. Now the site is teeming with people that hold nearly the exact same opinions, and they’re still tearing into each others throats over the slightest little mistep. These people cannot create anything beautiful, they only bastardise and destroy what’s already created, then half the time tear apart the actual creator for being “problematic”. Even Goodreads, a book reviewing site, is now full of reviews denouncing a book because an author is transphobic or non-PC. These are the same people that SQUEEEEEEE over poorly written fanfiction-tier novels and poetry compilations that kiss queer, feminist, and BIPOC ass and nominate them for Readers Choice awards. I literally walk into Barnes and Noble and all they’re promoting is Black Lives Matter grift books and they were even featuring Manhunt by that disgusting goblin Troon. It’s fucking vile and I hate how anti-intellectual and sheeplike as a society we’ve become. The bowdlerisation of literature is one of the more sinister steps of creating a soulless, totalitarian state where anything they doesn’t exist in the present must be altered to cater to modern ideologies.
 
Kids are stupid, but kids aren't stupid, you know? Nobody underestimates kids more than people who claim to care about them.

Time moving in a linear fashion like it does, I read a lot of older kids' books in my own childhood, and that age was part of what made them magical. Different phrasing, different ways of doing things, novel concepts.

"What the hell is mercurochrome," I'd say to myself, and then either look it up or figure it out by context clues. The latter part being fun for my parents when I made inaccurate assumptions and tried to work them into my growing worldview, or sat them down very seriously and asked why they hadn't told me about the hippie movement. (We had a conversation about how MAD magazine recycles very old content.)

If it's a book for a super tiny kid, yeah, I can see quietly 'shopping the ponytail off a background Chinaman. If it's a book with a living author and the living author wants to make changes, well, you gotta go with that. But if you're editing a chapter book because you think chapter-book-age kids can't handle learning peripherally about the past, that's obnoxious.

The correct answer is a one-page forward, and then an appendix in the back (if the problem is unfamiliar terms/concepts). If the problem is racism, the appendix can be about the author's relation to race or just Thought Questions so everyone feels good about themselves.


This makes me pig-biting mad. I assume the revisionists don't want to scare young girls in 2023 by making them think they're going to have to wear a pad+belt, but what they lose is the understanding of what their mom/grandma used to use, what united all these women in recent history once a month. Not to get all "women's ways of knowing," but one of the agreed-on issues with menstruation in pop culture is that it doesn't get written about matter-of-factly.

They're literally erasing a historical document, and in a more insidious way. A coming-of-age book deals with a universal theme; the person at the center of it reacting to and accepting/not accepting the world around them. Sometimes that world is Arrakis, sometimes that world is happening in the 1970s, but if it's written well, the reader resonates with the protagonist's struggles regardless.

I haven't read the book, but if you follow these revisionists' logic, they're going to have to deepfake an intro scene for every horror movie ever. It'll just be the main characters T-posing and telling each other that their cell phones suddenly don't work; let us agree to never talk about them ever again.
One of the things I hated about Scream 4 and why 1 & 2 are the only canon ones is because the one girl had a landline.....in 2011
 
Has anybody in the West made any successful children's literature since J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter?
James Pattersons middle school and Jeff kinneys wimpy kid series? I get those aren't exactly high literature but at least Patterson stuck to his principles and Jeff Kinney cares more about telling a good story than pushing a message. The only message he does push is "kids these days need to get off the dang social media and talk to other people." As seen in the wimpy kid book old school, and that's actually a message more books should push.
 
Whenever I read "sensitivity readers", I picture fat black single women. After reading this, I think I'm corred and I'd even add "bald".

imagen_2023-02-19_204730356.png
I "get" why the other changes, but this ain't one. The original says nothing offensive, rather it's a warning. This one makes less sense than the rest.
 
A classic from The Onion:

Pudgy Doughboy With Rosy Red Cheeks Presses Nose Up Against Window Of Chocolate Shop​

BOSTON—His woolen mittens dangling from the ends of his sleeves and his mouth partially agape in breathless wonder, a pudgy doughboy with rosy red cheeks is currently pressing his round button nose up against the display window of a local chocolate shop, sources confirmed. The astonished butterball, his cheeks aglow in the biting cold, is reportedly flattening his plump face right up against the shop window, occasionally wiping the fog from the steamed-up glass as he gazes longingly at the sugary confections contained within, his mind dancing with possibility, his eyes wide with wonder. According to sources, the sight of a fresh tray of bonbons being carried ever so tantalizingly to a display table near the front of the store has caused the transfixed doughboy’s eyes to glaze over in an almost narcotic stupor of yearning and delight. Reports have also confirmed that the intoxicating aromas of melted chocolate, sweet cream, and fresh puff pastry wafting out of the shop’s just opened door have merged in midair to form a veritable olfactory symphony in the roly-poly tot’s imagination, each delectable scent drawing the little piglet’s flushed cheeks closer still to the glass, an inaudible “Wow!” forming on his drool-glistened lips. At press time, the doughboy’s impatient mother was grabbing him by his coat sleeve and rushing him hurriedly along down the street.

 
Your post is absolutely spot on and it’s legitimately making me MATI. I’ve been passionate about writing since I was a child, I have notebooks full of novels and short stories I wrote. I want to write fiction that could contain controversial topics and themes, but I want to do this because I want people to think. However the fact that you can get cancelled or boycotted now for having different opinions and themes that the mob doesn’t like is fucking insidious. I remember seeing writers on Tumblr get accused of being sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/anti-Semitic/anti-BIPOC to the point where the writers and bloggers just couldn’t take it anymore and closed their creative writing blogs. Now the site is teeming with people that hold nearly the exact same opinions, and they’re still tearing into each others throats over the slightest little mistep. These people cannot create anything beautiful, they only bastardise and destroy what’s already created, then half the time tear apart the actual creator for being “problematic”. Even Goodreads, a book reviewing site, is now full of reviews denouncing a book because an author is transphobic or non-PC. These are the same people that SQUEEEEEEE over poorly written fanfiction-tier novels and poetry compilations that kiss queer, feminist, and BIPOC ass and nominate them for Readers Choice awards. I literally walk into Barnes and Noble and all they’re promoting is Black Lives Matter grift books and they were even featuring Manhunt by that disgusting goblin Troon. It’s fucking vile and I hate how anti-intellectual and sheeplike as a society we’ve become. The bowdlerisation of literature is one of the more sinister steps of creating a soulless, totalitarian state where anything they doesn’t exist in the present must be altered to cater to modern ideologies.

You know what? Write that book anyway. Write it just to spite them. Self-publish if you have to. It is easier than ever to self-publish on the big online platforms that aren't quite as censor-happy as the woke snobs in their publishing houses.

But most importantly: anti-woke people read books. Conservatives read books. Libertarians read books. The more that woke authors abandon common sense, the bigger the gap in the market there is for those types of audiences. And if you were to publish a book tomorrow, I'd tell my friends to read it, or buy it for their kids if you write for children.
 
Back