zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Here's a good list of changes. Most are about removing any references to ugly or fat. But also other strange things like changing the author's Matilda likes to read to include Jane Austin and John Steinbeck, not calling people crazy, swapping screeching to annoying, removing brothers and sisters to favor "siblings" and using "folks" instead of "ladies and gentlemen"

https://twitter.com/incunabula/status/1626860237104857089

>>bko+h5
I wonder when will they start editing Harry Potter, what with the Dursleys being caricature fatsos = villains.

>>unixgo+MH1
That was my thought. Reading about all the changes had me looking askance at Roald Dahl: it's like, sheesh, somebody's far more edgy than they really needed to be.

But that's who that guy was. That's what came out when he set out to be edgy. Removing it, you might as well write a different book. Misrepresenting who the guy is in order to sugar-coat him seems not the right approach, to me.

So if you do that, you should DEFINITELY edit Harry Potter to get the terfliness out of it, simply because I'd like to see Rowling's reaction to that :)

I don't think the oppressed need their enemies painted over and hidden. I think they need allies. A little more 'You have my bow." "And my axe!"

"Let's just not mention Sauron k?", not really the same effectiveness.

>>Applej+XR1
> you should DEFINITELY edit Harry Potter to get the terfliness out of it

Have you actually read Harry Potter? What are you referring to within the books?

Rowling was a progressive darling for years until she expressed disallowed sentiments outside of her fiction writing.

>>exolym+Hp2
Not quite. Harry Potter is a remarkably pro-status-quo story.