The organization believes that the change in wording is akin to a new design and layout of works. In the meantime, the Roald Dahl Story Company stated that it was involved in the amendment with the publisher. “We have always defended the right to freedom of speech and expression,” the commentary says. We live in a country where freedom of choice reigns: if you don’t like Dal, don’t read it, but don’t change the original text,” says another comment.Įven British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak joined the discussion.Ī representative of his office noted the importance of preserving rather than editing literary works. Will we rewrite Shakespeare, Doyle, Joyce, Atwood, or even the Bible? Instead of rewriting the wording, Nossel proposes to preface the books with introductory text and clarify the historical context in which the works were created. In addition, she emphasized that such liberties are reflected in the original narrative and generally distort the work of great authors.īy setting out to eliminate anything that could offend someone, you weaken the power of the narrative, ”she said. Susan Nossel, a human rights activist and head of PEN America, was also among the opponents.Īccording to her, the organization is concerned about the hundreds of edits made to Dahl's books just because the original expressions could offend anyone. I don’t know how ethical it is to make changes to the text of a writer who has already died and cannot accept or reject them, ”one of the site users echoes him. “Something about this change in the Roald Dahl books bothers me. ) Dahl Estate should be ashamed, ”wrote the writer. “Roald Dahl was no saint, but this censorship is simply absurd! Such totalitarian censorship should be widely condemned by writers and publishers,” said one Twitter user.īooker Prize-winning writer Salman Rushdie could not resist commenting. The publisher of the books of the late Roald Dahl made hundreds of changes to them, presumably to make them more palatable to a "sensitive" audience. Some urge not to ignore this kind of censorship. Many users of social networks and public people reacted negatively to such changes made to the works of the writer. Fox, caterpillar tractors are no longer "black", but simply "deadly sinister monsters".Īnd in the new edition of The Witches, the heroine is a woman "leading an academic activity or managing a business" instead of a cashier in a store or a secretary. Moreover, the author's description of the character, implying an obese person, has been preserved.Īt the same time, the gender identity of the Oompa-Loompa pygmy tribe has become neutral: in the new edition, the description of small men ("little men") is no longer applicable to them, now they are small people ("little people").īy the way, in the Russian-language version from 1991, the inhabitants of Lumplandia are described as a “people”, in which there are both women and men. So, the "very fat boy" August Gloop in the new edition appears simply "huge". Fox, and James and the Giant Peach with new wording.Īs noted, this measure was taken out of respect for the "cultural sensitivity" of the current audience, as well as the desire to make the works more acceptable to a new reader.įor example, such epithets as “freak” and “crazy”, as well as other references to the appearance and psychological portrait of the characters, were removed from the book “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. The company re-released Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, The Witches, The Amazing Mr. The British publisher Puffin Books felt that the books "are not up to modern standards". From the works of the children's writer Roald Dahl, in some new editions, many words and expressions related to the mental health, physique, gender and race of the characters were cut or rewritten.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |