It feels much more disturbing, though, to just silently update the language in the books to be more in line with modern sensibilities. Dahl was a man of his time, and as a general rule his books have good morals and values exhibited in them. They are perfect children's books, not afraid to dip into a little darkness or to poke fun at the adults who run the world, and that's a huge part of why they've been so successful and universally loved.
The mental attitude and sense of self-superiority it must take to feel comfortable taking the knife to something so well loved is really mind-boggling to me. I am very happy that I bought our collection of Dahl's books before this happened.
Everyone is a product of their time. People apparently need to be told this now.
Of course, once he reaches an age where he's old enough to better understand explanations of racism in media, etc, that's a different story. All cultural history has attitudes that may have changed or that we may even view as repugnant. It's important that people learn about the past and what people were like in the past (or still today).
Maybe this type of thing would go off much better if parents were given a choice, and have the opportunity to confront these things with their children when they think they are ready.
There have been thousands upon thousands upon thousands of children's books written in the last sixty years. Leave the classics the fuck alone, especially when the authors are unable to defend their work.
Is it though? A modified version of the scene seems like a dishonest solution to a problem that has good, straightforward solutions:
- Don't show them (if its a conversation you don't want to have yet)
- Show them and then discuss the scene
Norms change time... different people think different things are ok... these are lessons children need to learn just like any other.
I can understand what you are saying however I STRONGLY disagree on your conclusion. If those things bother you and don't express the values you want your options should be either to A) watch them and then have a discussion with your children to explain what wasn't acceptable or B) find new movies that display the values you want to pass on.
Changing the past to reflect the present or ideal future is a TERRIBLE idea. I don't know exactly when it was that we all decided that we can't ever tell new stories or create new things instead of rehashing creative works of the past but I'll be glad when that trend ends.
Part of reading these books as a child or adolescent is being introduced to the cultural contexts of other times (and perhaps places). When a modern child reads a Victorian children's book, for example, they pick up pretty quickly that it's coming from a different cultural context. And this is a great way to learn about some of the more 'confronting' aspects of other cultural contexts in a pretty non-threatening way (they're just words on a page).
How horrifying. This is where you as a parent are supposed to find opportunity for a lesson on evaluating media. "This is an inappropriate joke but the rest of this movie is so good that I'm letting you watch. Don't make fun of peoples' accents." If he's too young for that lesson, he's too young for the movie.
Still, as a kid who read his books repeatedly, and as someone who has read most of them to my kids in the last few years, I feel comfortable stating that this anti-Semitic tendency doesn't come through on his work.
There might be room for arguments that other prejudices do come through. The Oompa-Loompas are definitely a little... problematic. And some of the language around women in The Witches hits the ear a bit oddly today.
When I say "he was a man of his time" I don't mean to excuse everything he said or wrote. I suppose maybe that's a junky phrase that kind of dodges what I actually mean, which is something like "he was who he was, and we should talk about what we find objectionable about him instead of papering it over."
There's also something funny about changing his writing in light of some of the worst things he had to say... By the same logic of the edits, maybe we should change the quotes where he expressed antisemitism to make them more palatable. (I'm being facetious obviously, but there is something worth thinking about in why one feels more reasonable than the other).
Right, that's precisely the problem. The publisher is changing history!
I'm okay with new books being published that clean up the old stories, but they can't rightly list Roald Dahl as the author. The author on the cover needs to be "Roald Dahl & Whoever".
People act like this is the end of Dahls legacy, yet his stories have probably been discussed more in the past 24 hours than the past few years combined.
I recommend the book Graveyard clay on the death on languages, and how the dead are still as chatty as the living- in many ways the dead are harder to silence.
These situations are perfect for having actual, meaningful conversations with your kids. Not only will you clearly articulate expectations to your kids, but you'll grow closer.
Funny examples you list there, where reinterpretations still happen after 2000+ years.
The approach in your comment is very pop culture or mainstream religion view of this, not an actual, historical one.
That will probably happen — multiple times — as soon as the (original) books are in the public domain, but right now there is no way the publisher is going to give a cut of the sales to a 2nd named author (especially since anyone good would also push back on some of the ill-considered changes).
It is worthwhile to meditate on Nassim Nicholas Taleb's idea that the most intolerant minority tends to win.