zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Media changes, art is reshaped by new generations. Roald Dahl is dead, the rights to his books have been sold and people are updating them to keep them relevant. This happens to translations (as an example) all the time as the popular lexicon changes. This is how media and art stays relevant. The world changes. The owners of the books have a vested interest in modifying them to continue to be relevant. The tweaks have not impacted the heart of the story, so why do people care? Other than a knee-jerk reaction to 'wokeness'.

>>a2tech+Bl
I think exolymph did a good job of explaining why people care when she mentioned "the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining" (>>34850273 ). Some of these edits cross well into Bowdlerism. They're also surprisingly extensive. That alone is interesting!

Dahl was a transgressive writer also for his day - at least I've always had that impression. His macabre deliciousness and sharp wit are what makes his books so good—like an Edward Gorey for kids, but not too much for kids. So some of these edits are artistically consequential, the same way that the Bowdlers' "Family Shakespeare" was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_Shakespeare).

Things go in cycles, so I wonder if the Bowdlers will be rehabilitated. Probably not, because their specific motives are so anachronistic now. Also, their name has been a term of derision for 200 years and that's a black hole to get out of. But if you abstract away from the ideological specifics, the phenomena are remarkably similar.