zlacker

So? Do you dispute that the story is true?

>>exolym+(OP)
As presented it is just designed to generate outrage, which it seems to be doing a grand job of on here. There's a relevant quote from the Guardian article...

But the Roald Dahl Story Company said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”.

So, Roald Dahl's family and the company they still control are perfectly happy with this. Why aren't we?

>>drcong+Z4
Why would I care what Roald Dahl's family thinks?

If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining.

People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.

>>exolym+3b
Quite a lot of them are using modern language instead of anachronisms:

> Unsurprisingly given The Witches’ subject matter, many of the edits are to do with depictions of women. “Chambermaid” becomes “cleaner”. “Great flock of ladies” becomes “great group of ladies”. “You must be mad, woman!” becomes “You must be out of your mind!” “The old hag” becomes “the old crow”

There is some removing of fat as insult. There is that too. But pretty much all changes in above paragraph sound better then old ones.