Why Roald Dahl hasn’t been cancelled (despite what they want you to think)

Watch our video on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Populism, and Trump: • How Shakespeare Influe...
Join our Discord server: / discord
Roald Dahl is the latest target of the wokey lefty youthy wokey stupid wokey evil wokey woke brigade! Or is he?
In this video I offer a nuanced view of the re-writing of Roald Dahl, a series of edits scandalised in the press and taken to dystopian extremes.
What is censorship? Is it ever ok to edit the works of a dead writer? What gives us the right to re-write? Watch to find out.
Written, presented, and edited by Dr. Rosie Whitcombe
@books_ncats
Directed, produced, and edited by Matty Phillips
@ma_ps_
mphotos.uk
Timestamps
00:00 Preface
01:15 Introduction
03:09 The Edits
14:21 The Reaction
27:39 Censorship
37:56 It’s all Capitalism, baby
40:22 Why this is insidious
46:53 What should we do?
50:26 Conclusion
Bibliography coming soon.
Music licenses
Piano Sonata no. 8 in C minor 'Pathetique', Op. 13 - Complete Performance
Performed by Paavali Jumppanen
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
All other music is Public Domain Mark 1.0

[@larsbar]

I’m a teacher, and I feel like lessons comparing the classic and rewritten prints of Dahl’s texts are writing themselves. There’s a reason why history and English are integrated so often, and it’s because it’s just so gosh darn interesting to analyse the constantly evolving nature of culture

[@books_ncats]

Absolutely! - Rosie

[@Nikitomate]

Darn, now I want to go to britain to listen in on your future lessons. This sounds super interesting!

[@SpecialInterestShow]

That's actually a great idea! I could see that being a wonderful discussion topic to really get kids/teens thinking!

[@trollnystan]

This reminds me of the changes years ago here in Sweden made to Pippi Longstocking, a book that first came out 1945, over some racist language it had and the outrage over it. Even after Astrid Lindgren's children came out saying that she would have supported the changes because the last thing she would've wanted was to make children feel alienated or discriminated against, people were still upset about it. I'd say that I remember feeling uncomfortable about the offending bits in both her and Roald Dahl's books once I'd hit an age where I could more critically analyse the media I consumed (in the mid 1990s), and I am as white as they come.

[@availanila]

There was also a small vocal complaint, decades later, over _And Then There Was None_ that explicitly forgot the author agreeing with it and the Black, Indians and Native Americans that were insulted by the previous names. They'd rather slap their knees in delight at blatant hatespeech that have their beloved (nee blatant hatespeech) speech be marked as taboo.

[@Nikitomate]

Yeah, I was thinking about the same. The changes were made in the german reprints as well and some people lost their minds over it way too much. The changes were very sensible and minor and did not take away from the joy of reading those books. In the contrary: now I don't have to explain certain outdated and uncomfortable words to my child while reading.

[@hallievanoutryve3109]

That is very cool of Astrid, and makes me love Pippi all the more ( although I am generally against censorship, if the author agrees..and it was for a reasonably good reason)

[@hallievanoutryve3109]

The bigger problem Imo, is that some of the people decrying these changes are totally cool with the rampant book ban happening all over the US- removing kids books that feature characters from marginalized identities in a positive light. Most of the books havnothing age inappropriate- only LGBT characters, and/or POC characters, especially black characters who commit the offense of living themselves and being proud of who they are.

[@Nikitomate]

@@hallievanoutryve3109 Yes and this is really disturbing. What kind of person needs someone to be to want others feeling unseen and miserable?! Art and writing is a collective human endeavor and should be for EVERYBODY!

[@theoriginalnik]

To the man who said “children without parents (to explain) wouldn’t be given Roald Dahl books to read”, I present to you the entire plot of Matilda and the reason why it was my favorite book growing up 😊 But in all seriousness, great job breaking this down. I do have mixed feelings about this myself, but I don’t know that I could offer a better solution that would allow a child to navigate context and nuance independently, which I feel like is at the core of the point. Kids at the Roald Dahl reading age haven’t necessarily been taught the critical/analytical reading skills yet that you tend to start developing later in your literature education. 100% on board with your “conspiracy theory” though 😂

[@books_ncats]

Thanks for watching and for your thoughts - it’s a difficult subject to navigate but very interesting, too, I think. And yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if all this attention has drummed up book sales 😅 - Rosie

[@Picturedragon]

Also, children who do have parents around are often given these books without any guidance or supervision because the parents have fond memories of them and it doesn't occur to them that they should explain anything to the kids!

[@SpecialInterestShow]

I think it'd be great material for introducing a 6th grader to literary analysis, historical beliefs, and the debate over censorship. 6th graders I feel would likely still be young enough to have fond memories of the books, without feeling ridiculously too old for it like a high schooler might. Basically I think this is cool for teaching preteens about stufr

[@chocobere]

I remember reading an old paperback edition of Anne Frank's diary, printed in 1969. There was a paragraph at the beginning stating that the text had been edited, indeed some of it was deemed "uninteresting to the reader". I also owned a newer copy and could compare both. They had edited out the parts where Anne talked about periods and described female genitalia, and explained how she and her friends, with no formal sex ed, had understood and deduced how human reproduction worked. Never heard any outroar about the editing out of all of this, interestingly enough. 😅

[@hesrichard3049]

these people piss me off. no one complains about people editing, for example, shakespeare, to make it easier for the average person to read. so why is it any different for kids books? these books are made to help kids learn to read, and having words they’ve never even heard included in the book isn’t going to help, at all. i genuinely don’t understand the anger.

[@meikahidenori]

There's a point where we should let some of those old books go and bring in new ones. There are so many fantastic children's authors from around the world waiting to become some kids favourite writer that we can choose from. In truth we slow are moving away from those writers who defined certain genres and getting brilliant new ones with fresh ideas.

[@KRStephen]

I also wonder how many of them might complain about Disney's fairy tale movies not being as gruesome and violent as the original materials. If I remember correctly, when the live action Little Mermaid came out, what they complained about was not the fact that she didn't have to choose between killing the prince or dying herself and losing her soul.

[@Amy-ky5wr]

It's important that kids come across new words in books as that expands their vocabulary.

[@hesrichard3049]

@@Amy-ky5wr right, but having words that literally no one uses anymore doesn’t teach them anything

[@Amy-ky5wr]

@@hesrichard3049 it teaches them vocab that will be useful for reading the full backlog of classic literature that's been written in their language. If we just want them to be economic units without knowledge of history or deeper cultural interests, you're right it's pointless them knowing any words other than the ones in current circulation.

[@cinnasauria]

The "are you saying children are too stupid to understand outdated language" type argument is kind of fascinating. Is it "stupid" to not automatically know the meaning of a word you've never heard before? I feel like it would make a bit more sense to suggest that children are encountering new words on a regular basis regardless, and can go ask someone or look up their meaning if they don't know. Still, in the context of this whole discussion, I think it matters whether kids might be reading these books in a context where they KNOW it's a product of its time. It's worth considering that kids (And adults, tbh) have to learn a bunch of unspoken rules about socialization, and repeating things they hear and read is part of that attempt to understand the world. I remember there being a point in elementary school where we were introduced to older stories for the purpose of discussing the cultural differences between the time of writing and the time of reading. We learned that "queer" meant "strange" and "gay" meant happy and it still felt awkward to read these words out loud given that, at the time, even "gay" was usually pejorative. On the flipside, when I was even younger and innocently enjoying funny Flash cartoons online, I came across one about a "horny toad" and of course I didn't understand the double entendre, or why I got in trouble for saying the word "horny" later. I just thought it meant, y'know, having horns or being hornlike. I think that, in a way, making this sort of update is a kind of direct acknowledgement. It's not talking down to kids so much as kneeling down to talk to them at eye level. Also, this isn't a new thing at all. It's a form of localization, which even modern media does to account for differences in parlance and culture, even within the same language, like between the UK and US.

[@Soilfood365]

"Is a child that doesn't have a parent to explain going to be given a Roald Dahl" - definitely not the words of an avid childhood reader. As a child growing up with no television, no internet and very few social connections, it didn't matter whether or not my parents wanted me reading a book, if I could access it, sooner or later I read it, and by the time I was twelve I had read every book in the house that wasn't actively locked away (including my mother's neurobiology textbook, which meant nothing to me but it was there, and I was desperate), whether I understood it or not. Anyone who thinks that children only read when supervised or forced... has sampled a very limited group of children.

[@SuziQ.]

I read the encyclopedias, after finishing the stories.

[@pinkbuninja6536]

So, funny side note; I saw the description of witches as inaccurate, not because of the bald women being witches thing, but because my grandmother is Wiccan, told me outright she’s a witch while I was growing up, and she didn’t match the description at all. My grandma was super nice, so the book saying witches are ugly and evil was strange to me. I assumed there must be different kinds of witches, but the book was only talking about the bad ones.

[@citrinedragonfly]

Speaking strictly to Roald Dahl's books, and to my own experience with them: I loved them as a child. I read The BFG more times than I can count. I read The Witches more times than I can count (and the movie with Angelica Houston was and still is a fun watch). But looking at that list of quotes in the video: I don't remember a lot of them. I remember the overall stories and how they made me feel. I don't have those books memorized. If I picked up a 2023 edition of the book, and no one had told me it had been edited, I likely would never have realized it wasn't the exact same prose from reading it as a girl in the late 80s/early 90s. I wonder how many of the pundits who got all up in arms about the edits had recently read a Dahl book, and whether they would have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out to them that edits were made. The bigger crime, to me, would be to say that the books were going to be illustrated by an entirely new artist, and that all of Quentin Blake's drawings were being removed from the books. Dahl's writing and Blake's art go together, and I can't think of a Dahl book without picturing Blake's drawings of the story.

[@corinnamattison]

My mom read my siblings and me so many good and valuable but now 'canceled' books growing up. She would just stop and tell us when there was an "old-fashioned and not very nice" name for a people group or outdated term and that's how we learned.

[@technopoptart]

a fair few of the ones you didnt understand are ones where those words mean something else to a non-uk english-speaking person, for example "he was pissed" has hugely different meanings between the uk and canada (drunk and angry respectively) if an author uses a sentence that can accidentality confuse or change a reader's understanding of the context then changing it when the book it is in is globally distributed improves the story for the majority while cutting down costs since you only need the one version of the book. it is about making the words more universally understandable

[@books_ncats]

Ah thanks for this, useful to know - Rosie

[@Rynewulf]

Thats silly, pissed has meant angry as well as drunk here in the UK for decades and decades. Maybe homoginising local language for maximum global profit isnt the best thing for culture (because I bet most things considering too Latin or African or Asian would absolutely get obliterated by that process)

[@storageheater]

@@Rynewulf "Pissed off" has definitely always been a context in which "pissed" meant "angry" but "He was pissed" is absolutely not as universal

[@B.E.N_]

As a kid I couldn't get enough of Dahl and I still love how great and witty the writing is with a fairytale sort of feeling and a focus on clever and brave children that find a way to effect the big world and fight big threats. It did feel kind of strange though.... and when I grew up I got kind of upset at the Witches and that these ladies hiding in plain sight printing money and killing children with their grotesque looks and their big noses... yes this was written a long long time ago but it felt scary to me as a little Jewish child seeing this and then seeing what people call us on the news, not to mention that as I read Matilda I felt a bit self conscious of my more masculine interests in fear of becoming Trunchbull and I didn't dare touch makeup in fear of ever seeming like Mrs Wormwood....the books were good and must be preserved but I can see how they could've caused many other kids harm, publishing a classic version and an edited one seems pretty good

[@storageheater]

there's a weird bit of backpedalling he does in one of his books where he tries to explain that if you have the right kind of thoughts, even ugly people are lovely, and I think that disturbed me most of all, the idea that my face was my *fault* and that if I didn't think the right things I'd have a face everyone knew was evil... and that we were right to treat ugly people poorly because they deserved it. I mean, he's fun and all but who are we preserving that for?

[@anne-zh2kd]

Those of us that this bigoted language targets had to sit through a lesson where it was presented as normal by the teacher. We, eager to read, had to see ourselves presented as inhuman, grotesque, evil, and wrong. We internalized that. Those of us who were bullied just saw it as acknowledgement that the bullies were right. We were inhuman, grotesque, ridiculous and wrong. You never stop hating yourself a little bit. You never stop believing, just a little bit, that they were right. It sits with you forever. This adult, this author must be showing the truth, he wouldn't lie. Dahl was a bigot, a racist, a sexist. And he hurt people when he wrote the books. The targets existed then and were hurt then. When kids are old enough to analyze literature, maybe do a critical review of the bigoted views he held. But racism hurt people in 1961, sexism nurt people in 1961, fatphobia hurt people in 1961, DAHL hurt people in 1961. Different time doesn't mean that the bigotry was fine then. It still hurt people. People were criticizing someone like Kipling in his own time, too.

[@SPofSaturnProduction]

Agreed

[@emmagrace8938]

Literally 5 seconds into the video and “those snoke whoa-flakes” absolutely sent me into orbit 😂🤣😭

[@JDKelleherMusic]

"We'll never dance to another song" lol. What a brilliant show.! Thank you sooo much. Brava!! Applause!! Cutting to the office is fantastic. I have learnt so much I need to lie down now!

[@books_ncats]

Haha so pleased you enjoyed it!! Thank you 🙏 Have a good lie down!

[@SalemSingsStuff]

The world would truly be a better place if these people expended the same energy that they spend defending Dahl’s work, on fighting against the vile antisemitism and anti-Blackness that his words perpetuate in their daily lives as well.

[@catboy_official]

Of course that'll never happen because these people adore bigotry to the point they will fight tooth and nail to protect it from criticism until it's seen as sacrosanct.

[@lizzie31]

👏👏👏

[@rachelhansen2417]

I would have never read my favorite Agatha Christie book-And Then There Were None-had it been under its original title, as it included a well-known slur against the black community. Sometimes changes are helpful.

[@dancing-lawn]

Same!

[@imadethisaccountjusttocomm8064]

I read it in middle school under its original title, and, though I enjoyed it, was very uncomfortable with the name. I was pleasantly surprised later, when I saw it a library under the newer name. Now I can actually recommend it to people.

[@stuckbetweenfandoms5138]

i was looking into this book for a trivia club i'm in. i knew it "And Then There Were None (Ten Little Indians), so when i opened the wikipedia page and saw the original title my jaw DROPPED

[@SuziQ.]

@@stuckbetweenfandoms5138, Originally, the story was made into a movie called “The 13th Guest” (1932). Another, very similar movie called “The 9th Guest” was released in 1934. Agatha Christie had to have seen at least one of them, or the play made before “The 9th Guest” was filmed as a movie, or read the books that the movies were based on. Her version was first published in 1939.

[@stuckbetweenfandoms5138]

@@SuziQ. that's really interesting!

[@celloafterdark4173]

Diana wynn jones could use a couple of subtle edits to correct her fatphobia that really doesnt fit with her fantastical world.

[@BrookhousianNightmare]

Castle In The Air treads such a thin line... Jones isn't explicitly condemning, but the protagonist clearly doesn't see fatness as desirable and there isn't a lot of nuance around it. I really love how she expands on the concept of "princess" but I am so conflicted about the way fatness is presented.

[@cafeAmericano]

Fat phobia is such an incredibly stupid word. Nobody is afraid of fat people. We just don't like looking at them because they're grotesque

[@cafeAmericano]

Fatphobia is easily one of the stupidest words that exists in the modern lexicon. I assure you nobody is afraid of fat people. Just thoroughly disgusted by their inability to not put down a fork and take up three seats at a go

[@justadude2807]

​​@@cafeAmericano Oh you're so wrong. Phobias can be caused for many different reasons, they're not only based around fear, they can result because of trauma, bad experiences, being unable to understand, disgust or simply ignorance. Many people are as disgusting as you're when it comes to talk about fatness because the phobia (they refuse to look at or look like fat people) is usually rooted in some of the reasons I mentioned earlier. Keep blaming a stupid word that shows you the hard truth you're trying to denied: that you should grow as a person and educate yourself in why being fat isn't just about not being able to put down a fork.

[@storageheater]

@@cafeAmericano I think I'd agree to an extent (though I'd argue that "fear of becoming fat" is definitely real, it's why rail thin women spend millions on diets) but we haven't really got a word that describes the specific level of cruelty that fat people endure, and heaven knows it's a useful word for bringing it out of the woodwork

[@23ahndra]

Hi, resident Black American here. Growing up with every negative attribute being attached to the adjectives “black” & “dark” was hard. (See “black market, black soul, black magic, dark mood, etc. etc.) That ish really adds up over time. Avoiding equating “dark” and “black” with negativity is just good practice.

[@cafeAmericano]

Make sure to never watch Black Mirror then.🙄

[@xwngdrvr]

I agree with you. Yet I must go further. A person should not be assigned a color. Reductive at best, racist at worst. Language is a weapon, can be used for great good or unconscionable evil. Racism, in America anyway, wasn't satisfied with darker skin pigment just being darker. Racism had to make that 'appearance' into a 'sign' of inferiority. Which is a deception. Language can lie, but it doesn't have to. It can also sing truth. When Dr King spoke of a person's 'character' he understood that humanity goes beyond appearance. But I digress. Grok on.

[@smrodan]

Somehow I missed this particular moral panic so I really appreciate your contextualization! I usually find myself overwhelmed when some culture war idiot throws an absolute shit fit over nothing though I know that just ignoring the screaming tantrums means I've missed something, unfortunately, culturally relevant.

[@books_ncats]

Glad it was useful! - Rosie

[@CarisiCreates]

Sign of the Beaver: I love this book. I had to tell my daughter that we didn’t use certain words anymore because they are mean (she’s 7). She told me to just not say them when reading to her. Sometimes kids are more critical of thinkers than we give them credit for. (That was a big proud mommie moment for me.)

[@jannetteberends8730]

Unchanged book would also loose their appeal on children. As a kid I remember reading books of my grandmother with certain ideas about Jews that made me uncomfortable. (I’m 70). In the late nineties a popular Dutch comic, Sjors and Sjimmy, was updated. Sjimmie was black, and super stereotypical. Nobody complained because the original Sjimmie felt uncomfortable. Leaving him unchanged would made the strip unreadable. Last year I found that the online library had books of van de Wetering. Immediately borrowed one, I loved those books in the seventies. The book was unreadable. It was full of stereotypes about gay people, and other stereotypes. Didn’t read the rest of the series. The changing of the books of Dahl wasn’t wokeness, it was a business decision to keep the books in print. Dahl wasn’t a great author. He was an author of children books. That’s his legacy.

[@marsay82]

And yet, the Right and their moms for liberty constantly want to censor and ban books in schools. Cluck their pearls

[@OddE.Anderson]

I know you meant clutch but I immediately thought of an offended chicken clutching their pearls and I loved that

[@lyndsaybrown8471]

I heard there are about 100 bills in Red states that would allow for jail time and fines for librarians who provide banned books.

[@thequai6056]

I have mixed feelings about the edits, but I would offer this anecdote. So, as a kid growing up in Nowheresville, USA, in the 1990s, I read a metric fuckton of Dahl. I was one of those kids who was very rural and sheltered, and read more words than I knew how to use. So I started using 'queer' to mean 'strange,' like it was in Dahl books and other books in my school library. No one corrected me, as such, because that would mean someone would have to talk to a 3rd-grade girl about The Gays, and in the '90s, no one wanted to. But eventually, my older sister told me what that issue was, and I had to stop, even though I quite liked the word 'queer.' As it so happened, I turned out extremely queer in every sense, so it worked out, because I still get to use it. But, if other kids are spared the baffled and spiteful bullying I got for having a wider vocabulary, I can't be all that mad about the edits.

[@honeyLXIX]

My favorite part of this video is the part about it being more about "Capitalism," or the desire for the Dahl estate to continue making money from these works. they piggy-back on a valid movement to make themselves more money and more relevance.

[@koolkel00]

You know I'm usually a first edition purist sort of reader, but even I have to admit, some archaic language in certain stories can take one out of the moment, like kids giggling at the word queer, especially in a moment that is supposed to be building tension in the Story, can be an unintentional negative consequence that can be a detriment to the story, and actually alter the story from the way it was originally intended to be read, just because the cultural context as shifted the meaning of that word. Personally, after begining my foray into the works of H.P. lovecraft, I've had a similar issue, to the extent that i even censor certain names or words in my head as i read it. For example , in one story it features a the name of a cat, N***erman, over and over is just so absolutely horrible and outrageously distracting it acts as an inarguable detriment to the story, destroys the tension its trying to build, and changing the name to "Nightshade" in my head changes nothing about the core story itself, and makes it actually readable the way that ir was intended to be read, as a suspenseful scary story. I think original editions have an undeniable value, and context, and by reading the works as written by the author we can get a more authentic look into who this person was and how they actually meant this story to go, and more insight into what it was like to live in the period that it was written. Thats why I think originally authentic editions should always be kept easily available. But i can also agree there is always special exceptions to the rule and valid reasons for changes, just purely based on the fact that language is constantly evolving, and the actual intended meaning of stories can be lost, misinterpreted, or even outright go unread altogether if there isn't any room at all for small updates here and there.

[@euthymialy]

Lovecraft’s an excellent comparison case, I love his writing style but often find myself being torn away from “the horror” and the actual story specifically because of the way he wrote, it was a constant reminder of my understanding that the sources of his terror and horror are literally just the unknown, the ocean, sexuality, and anything and anyone that isn’t a New England WASP with skin tone tanner than mayonnaise.

[@RogueT-Rex8468]

Couldn’t have said better myself. I thought to myself, “if these entirely replace and erase the originals, it’s a step into low key erasing history. The actual window of the times by the hand of people of those times.” So I like the idea of books like this having a movie type listing- in the sense of if you went to a library or online “would you like the children’s edit or the adult edit?” Do not take away the choice to see the history.

[@jupitersnoot4915]

I think its hilarious that the book banning crowd have a little cry over a few words being RIGHTLY changed.

[@kateburt1454]

I refuse to accept as valid any concerns about the erasure of history from people who actively seek to erase horrific historical truths from public education.

[@Pratchettgaiman]

I shouldn't make fun of a person's physical appearance (especially given that some of the Dahl edits revolve around removing instances of Dahl doing the same) but I just have to note that the "we'll never dance to another song" guy looks so much like a teenager wearing old age makeup that it's distracting whenever he comes on screen

[@fiona9891]

if you shouldn't, then don't! don't get why so many people insist on commenting on people's appearances right after talking about how bad and unhelpful it is

[@lizzie31]

​@@fiona9891 completely agree, good to see someone else who thinks this kind of thing isn't okay

[@isabellegrimshaw4378]

Such a layered and eloquent breakdown of a complex topic 👏 really eye-opening stuff!

[@books_ncats]

Thank you so much! ❤ glad you enjoyed it! - Rosie

[@smiley_face2872]

On the topic of how fat was used in his books, there’s one quote that I love so dearly from The Twits “A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.” Obviously this doesn’t make the issue better, but I think it lends a little perspective to the books.

[@Sparkling34]

before watching the video I've got to say, printing both the edited and classic version seems to be the best option, printing new versions making them enjoyable, and not offensive for kids today, but keeping the orginal available for archival and historical purposes

[@Sparkling34]

I think parenting-wise, this gives the parents the choice to read the classic version to their kids and explain the historic offensive content, making it a educational opportunity, or the parent can choose to just get the edited version and having it as a lighthearted book for their child

[@AllunaWhispers]

When I was a little girl my grandma censored a dress up David magnet on her file cabinet by painting tighty whities on him with nail polish! 😂

[@SuziQ.]

😂

[@thegeekinpink6135]

There's also a difference between government censorship and a private entity deciding what they do or do not want to endorse

[@JaredGriffiths2000]

15:11 Interesting hearing Ben Shapiro talk about Matilda. Since his cousin, who he doesn't get along with, actually played Matilda.

[@Clau-chauNicol]

that last point on nostalgia I think is really the central point. I think we as adults often project our own childhoods onto what we think is best for children today, without really considering their needs. We're like "Roald Dahl was an important, positive part of my childhood" without remembering that, uh, maybe today's children aren't you in the 90s. This was a great video, gave me a lot to think about. I think it reminds me of my thoughts around the time I started reading a proper bible for the first time and realised how wildly different they were from the censored children's bibles I grew up with.

[@lyndsaybrown8471]

... Cinderella has been censored from it's original. That's Disney's whole thing.

[@reecechaplincartoons1506]

I agree with you when you say things accepted nowadays will become problematic, I think they already are - to be human is to be problematic. Even the most spotless radiant seemingly perfect person is problematic. What is "problematic" changes with time - what is deemed "problematic" is a function of power, not truth. In the 1800s Baudelaire's lesbian poems were deemed monsterous and "problematic". I think as an adult you should break free of all imposed morality and decide what is moral and not on your own, that is how the gays got their rights because if they just accepted common morality they would hate themselves but instead of hating themselves they had to live for themselves, they had to risk being "monsterous" and "problematic" in the eyes of their society and that is what makes gay people great, and also what makes transgender people great, especially trans people, because it seems like everyone hates trans people and regardless of that trans people still are true to themselves and live for themselves and not other people and even get called monsterous all the time but they dont care! I admire that. I think there is a common human strain in us all whether we are jesus christ or some irredeemable monster, I think everyone has a connection to eachother. We are all just variations of eachother, if you look at a man walking down the street you could be exactly like him, you could be that person: james baldwin said that. I think that is why people love art by murderers or other evil people because even if you are some good, really good person then you still have a connection because you are both human. That's not me defending murderers though! I'm just saying that we tend to seperate the ourselves completely from evil people when they are a lot like us! I think we seperate ourselves from evil people because we are scared to be like them. I think it's good to accept your capacity for evil because then you can say "ok I wont be doing any evil things" then.

[@cafeAmericano]

The only intelligent comment on here. People are going to look back at this era of fragility and be revolted and think of it as a very very low phase in human intellect. The word problematic gets dropped nowadays like the word "the".

[@beteljuice6629]

Thank you I didn't comment until I heard what you were going to say about the oompa loompas and how they used to just be Africans. When anyone talks about censorship and Dahl that is my first thought.

[@SuziQ.]

Really? When were they just Africans? I only remember the orange little men.

[@beteljuice6629]

@@SuziQ. It's included in the video. You can find copies before the change where they were a tribe of pygmy Africans. I have never looked at his work the same way since. Look up 1964 Charlie and the chocolate factory.

[@SuziQ.]

@@beteljuice6629 , I couldn’t find it here, but I’ve only seen the 1971 movie and the Johnny Depp remake. I typed in “1964,” but only saw a drawing (of the book cover?). Addit: I found enough. Euw. We never that book. I remember reading James and the Giant Peach, though, and not feeling any weirdness about the description of the aunts or anything.

[@RogueT-Rex8468]

I kinda grew up on my own- in the sense I didn’t have any friends that would hang out with me outside the school playground or cafeteria. Books were my passion for a long time. And one of my favorite things was to run into a word I didn’t understand, pull out an old Websters dictionary I’d found at some point and look up their meanings, often looking into anything in relation to it. Which broadened my vocabulary in a fun manner (especially when I’d apply them to my “head scripts” with characters from my favorite tv shows and the like) Already looking at what’s been taken away I do feel a great loss to kids like me as, all they’d been replaced with is so standard and common there’s nothing of interest to make that sentence stand apart from another of the same liking. Someone made mention that yes some words like “horny” or “queer” should be changed entirely due to the fact that, yes, these days they hold an entirely different meaning- but that’s apart of the adventure. Though- the used words personally I don’t mind being changed because even as a kid “horny” sounded too childish ((for even me, a child😂)) But if they were to change a word/sentence could you at least attempt to be a touch more artful with it? “Strange”…. How about “weird” or “bizarre”. A problem I have about today’s “woke” culture is the fact that it has no culture to it. No art, no finesse, no personality. The all inclusion is a nice idea at first, but when they take things like the parents ((mother and father)) and lump them together they strip away their individual importances. The same can be said of any way wile culture tries to all include, it then becomes a “you are included, but not special enough to be spoken of separately”. I’m picky- so already looking at the changes ((and I’ve never read these books)) honestly looks like I’d for the most part ignore them. If they want to go along with this- I’d think the BEST action is to make a type of movie listing availability- as in if you were to go to a library or online to purchase these books, it should automatically be asked “child’s version or Adult/OG format” that comes with appropriate warnings about what may be encountered. Of the issue is a school setting. Go ahead. Whatever. My family is homeschool so that will do nothing for my care- TLDR- I think availability is entirely key and the options of og to new print should entirely be available and not revoked in any way. Censoring is a slippery slope, and things will inevitably be lost. And the loss of insight to who we once were to this day in history makes us pull out our hair wondering “why/how did they think”. Ex: every anthro/archeologist to date.

[@oliviascruggs7292]

I think it’s important to have a disclaimer in the book saying they’ve been updated to modern language is important so that no one reads it and gets confused as to why anyone would say the book is problematic, and that there is a place for edited texts. I also think the original texts are important for conversations about the past and current problems existing as consequences of historical viewpoints. But sometimes kids just want to read a fun story without digging into the nuances of historical prejudice.

[@kassassin_brahgawk]

I am all for getting rid of offensive and derogatory texts. I don't agree with changing words to update them. As a young reader, words I didn't understand the meaning of lead me to explore them and their previous meanings, which lead to my obsession with breaking words and literature down into pieces to understand the inner workings of them.

[@VitaA007]

The more intellectually dishonest rabble rousers couldn't pick out the changes without the list 9 times out of 10. But I would love to hear them try and argue that Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" should be changed back to the original title (the one they changed before it was printed in America, because even at the time, it was considered in bad taste - and no, it is not Indians)... The amount of white teachers and professors I had that used classic literature as an excuse to use words they would otherwise be fired for using, gleefully looking at me as they did, was ghoulish and the amount of psychic damage I took from that far outstrips what I would miss if the words where taken out.

[@theultimitelifeform8548]

The kids part is the sticking point of this argument. People are so quick to say “you can’t have gay people in kids movies think of the children!”. But at the same time throw a fit if children’s books with offensive and outdated content are edited for the new Ara. Make it make sense

[@SuziQ.]

Also, some of those children have gay parents. Shouldn’t they be accepted?

[@gleann_cuilinn]

I like the idea of having unchanged versions available with footnotes or a foreward that contextualizes dahl's hateful language, i think for slightly older kids it's valuable to read texts that they enjoy but don't totally agree with so they can practice critique. But for younger kids who are probably still being read to by their parents, I think an updated version does make sense. Unfortunately I think you're right that this culture war backlash might have been an intentional publicity attempt.

[@marnenotmarnie259]

imo as long as we're not burning the old versions of these books it's not a problem. and they literally released a collection of the old versions of the edited books so. not exactly 1984 lol

[@KatStribog]

"The Lottery" speaks very well about outdated traditions. As you say, our magic wouldn't vanish from our childhood memories, and our kids should build their own lives and their own magic.

[@jarrodanderson4825]

Really thrilled to have stumbled on your channel! I look forward to seeing your channel grow

[@books_ncats]

Thank you! - Rosie

[@PlutosTimeslot]

Losing my mind over people screaming about how censorship is a slippery slope and what you read is a personal choice, but when it's a book that written by anyone other than a (well off, able bodied, straight, cis, etc, etc) white man they scream about how the book's very existence is a crime. Edit Oh my god, I LOVE your cat

[@bogdiworksV2]

As someone who was in their 20s at the heyday of SATC, the show divided women even back then. Plenty thought it was silly, many loved it. As someone who has not grown up with RD books, i think books naturally go in and out of fashion bssed on whichever moral sensibility trends at any given time. We now live in a time of moral outrage, so whether these books should quietly slip into obscurity or be attentively edited becomes a big debate. Same with the Disney obsession with updating old school fairy tales. If you object to them, write other stories. Kids won't care one way or another, everything is new to them. But i think this isn't about kids at all, rather about either side of the debate hanging on to their power play over all areas of culture.

[@MD-hi9xy]

The words used by an author should not be changed by modern sensitivities.

[@canislupus4655]

When that man from the interview says, “would you censor the Quran?” all I can think is, “would you let a child read the Quran?” Like, I don’t think that’s inherently wrong but something tells me this milk toast man who decided to inexplicably to bring the Bible into this debate about Road Dahl might have some issues with that.

[@George_M_]

"You're attacking my childhood" is the underlying motivation. Dahl is a very particular flavor and the really ugly aspects of him feel uniquely inseparable. I'm against most of the edits but they ultimately don't matter. We have books everywhere. Online even. Spiteful, biased Dahl will always be there along with imaginative, empathetic Dahl.

[@gingermaniac5484]

i dont care bout the changes, i dont see why anyone would have a problem with updating a childrens book so more children can enjoy it rather than getting uncomfortable. its obscene anyone would take issue with it and at best i question their motives at worse im sure i already know them. one thing i do take issue with? is that they'd take a feverish ramble that was meant to, at the heart of it, convey whimsy and they'd replace that with a five word sentence. the oompaloompas are no longer slave coded? great! about time. Tell us more about what the oompaloompas do in their spare time, *Why* they love it here, go into a hyper-manic frenzy getting us giddy over thinking about oompaloompas going about life in their spare oompaloompa time and the type of pets they'd have. make us wonder or visualize willy wonka somehow not being breathless after speaking, at probable light speed to get his excitable longwinded point across. you're changing clouds men to clouds people and changing the narration so it doesnt have strict gender roles, cool, just please tell us what they're doing in their lives, maybe talk about the furnishing trends they'd be following, the shenanigans and tomfoolery the cloud-children would be getting up to, describe a game or a prank, and bring back the detail of at least someone frying a snowball that was delectable imagery, how do you even go about doing that, fucking love that frying snowball. it doesn't have to be a wife, just.. SomeOne. Please. i beg of you. fry the god damn snowball. the whimsical rambles in the narration and from the whacky characters are meant to get kids to imagine the world in a in a deeper level, to maybe teach them a new word or two since they ask their parents or from context clues.

[@Snakesnarl]

The word “explode” is too violent 😂

[@ViolentOrchid]

The connotation that dark colored and black means evil is pretty racist. Makes sense to remove it if it reenfocrces that system.

[@kahkah1986]

Tbf, this comes from a traditional wariness of the night vs. daylight and of clean vs. dirty, it was racism that fed into these fears, which have been there for much longer. So you have the 'black cloak' they cut out, emphasising the frightening connection between the dangerous night. The character's cloak can hide them in the shadows. Without the wider context of the rest of the passage, that looks overly sensitive to the racist implications of the colour and glosses over the other implications of the colour, which are not in themselves racist. A 'blackboard', for example, is not intentionally racist.

[@Hercho22]

That's a little bit farfetched. People are tipically afraid of the dark since forever, children are afraid of the dark and it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that we can't see in the dark, the fear of something lurking in the dark is instictive... therefore the traditional association between darkness and the color black (wich is the "color" of total absence of light), with danger and evil. Much later on that associaton was used to suport racism, framing it as something natural.

[@keelanmaher3498]

I know I’m late to the post here, but thank you for this. This is the best explanation of this issue I have read or heard.

[@books_ncats]

Aw thanks very much ☺️ - Rosie

[@Momnpop98]

Discussion is key for reading literary classics. To read unaltered, and then having pros and cons regarding content. I have read a plethora of thriller/horror since middle school and died not end up as a serial killer nor an abusive parent. Even though this video is older, I feel it is an injustice to any author to "censor" language or mannerisms when referencing a specific time period. If humans do not have these types of discussion, the next "rewrite" will be for Anne Frank, Victor Hugo or Gaston Leroux. 😢

[@dana7340]

For myself, I prefer to read, watch, listen & consume art in its original form, warts and all. Whenever possible I purchase it in a format that is as close to the original as possible and in hard copy/physical format. I think putting out edited and original versions is a workable compromise.

[@TheFuzzyOfDoom]

I just wanted to comment how absolutely annoyed I was with that rude old man from GB News constantly interrupting the woman trying to explain. Shut up and wait your turn! That being said, I enjoyed the video. An interesting exploration of censorship.

[@akicelestek]

I only discovered this video and your channel a day or so ago (thanks YT algorithm!) but I am beyond impressed with how you've handled this particular sticky topic. I was a Dahl fan as a child, and remember having mixed feelings when I heard about the decisions made by his estate last year (although ultimately I agree that they probably just wanted to safeguard against future sale losses). But the main reason I'm commenting this late in the game is to respond to your question at 36:59 about making a video re: the ethics of editing authors posthumously: YES. Please. :)

[@reneegriffin8904]

Many of the vocal critics in the U.S were perfectly OK with censorship back in the 90's when a posthumously arranged showing of Robert Mapplethorpe's work was to be unveiled in NYC..

[@andriygriffin4782]

As a child, reading Danny the Champion and Dahl writing about a father happy to do the perceived “motherly” role was very eye opening for my dim 7 year old regarding perceived gender roles. While I was somewhat disheartened to see that all removed in the new edition, I can step back from that personal experience and see why that would be much less an eye opener to children of new generations. To have the choice is nothing but for me a positive as it opens discussion in the classrooms and such.

[@meikahidenori]

Honestly there are some books that just fall out of print and make room for new authors. There was this argument over Edith Blightn recently and frankly if you're editing the books to the point they're not her original work, just stop printing them. There's alot in her books that SHOULD be forgotten and some that just shouldn't get reprinted. If you're sanitising to the extreme then yeah... just don't give the book another print. We've ruined many Grims fairtales over the decades sanitising them so their original meanings and messages for kids have been forgotten. That being said, getting rid of all the older copies libaries might have or grandparents might own isn't going to change they were originally written and do hold some value in opening discussions with your kids if they do happen to come to you with the books because they've been given them by a great grandparent or found them in the library. Sometimes you can't avoid kids finding these books, you just need to be open to having a discussion when kids ask you questions about them. There will be many books from our time that will be considered offensive to people 20 to 50 years from now. You're never not going to offered someone out there. There are books like the works of HP love craft where we KNOW are problematic but we still have them around as some were the bases of modern horror fiction. It's a hard discussion to have, as one way erasing all the bad stuff prevents us learning why things have changed for the better and learning from our mistakes but many don't want to be reminded of the horrible things of the past and want to pretend it was never there. I read Olga masters in school. Everyone in my literature classes hated it - they'd had rather we read little woman. I loved Olga's work. The subject matter is indeed of its time but I had never read anyone with her style before. She started stories in the middle of some event and ended it before the event was over. It was like getting glimpses of Australian life good & bad in short observant bursts. Would I recommend everyone read her work? No. There was ALOT of stuff in her stories that would upset people with modern values and ideals. However if you wanted to know what post WW2 Australia was like then it's a good read as you're going into it aware of the context and subject matter. It's why I don't fully avocate removing access completely to controversial works because there is value in them, even if many just don't see it. I write alot of fan work. Some of it basic stuff, some delving into topics I could possibly never venture into these days if I wrote for a publisher. Do I think every controversial peice holds merit? Not particularly, but that's why these works and authors fall out of fashion. It's the same with fanworks. Eventually those writers you enjoyed will fade into obscurity and make way for new ones.

[@ninab9969]

Love the nuance in this video essay as in all of your work! I just hope that as a society, we can finally move towards no longer listening to people as biased and toxic as Piers Morgan at all and not taking them seriously. Taking away attention and airtime from someone like that completely and instead shifting it towards people who promote a more balanced view would do a world of good in my humble opinion.

[@CatOperated]

15:50 I spat out my drink at this; it’s bad when even the guest against this all has to pull the host back

[@lunab541]

I keep thinking about the original title and poem of Christie's "And then there were none". Even as adults we are sometimes better off not having to see blatant racism in our fiction. However it is interesting that the copy that I read at 13 had "originally published as ..." below the updated title. I think that kind of stuff can give better context to changes.

[@SuziQ.]

Would you feel better if I told you that it’s highly likely that she stole the story from a movie called “The 13th Guest” (1932), based on a book (1930) by Armitage Trail, the author of Scarface? Hers was published in 1939. “The 9th Guest” (1934) was a similar book/play/movie.

[@laurelanne5071]

I think your take on the overall outrage is spot on. It's irritating to me, though, to have things like this presented in such a bigot/woke dichotomy when some of the changes seem hasty, or change the tone. For example, "he said darkly," being changed to "he said mysteriously," Yes, there's merit to revising language that can be interpreted as anti-dark and anti-black, but those adverbs as speech modifiers have different connotations. "Darkly" implies menace or threat, while "mysteriously" implies intrigue and curiosity. In that case, can a better substitute for "darkly" be found? In any case, I wish there was room for more nuance in the discussion of HOW we make changes, when needed

[@flaskehrlenmeyer4349]

I loved Dahl as a child... until I noticed that these books seemed kinda racist and mean. I moved on. I'm glad his estate and his publisher have done this.

[@Elora445]

I personally think people have overreacted to the Roald Dahl edits because of all the banning of anything that can be connected to the horrible gays. (Yes, I am sarcastic there at the end.) People probably couldn't do anything about those, so they overreacted to "more of the same", so to speak. Edit: Not to say anything about the republican side of using this to create a distraction from what their side are doing to free speech in some states.

[@MrUndersolo]

The moment people say any artist is "cancelled" is the moment I dig my heels in and read even more deeply. I am what is called a visible minority and I do not need to be protected by anything offense in a book that I have already dealt with in real life. A Bowdlerized version of culture of art is no culture at all. Keep reading, keep thinking, and accept that there is a lot of ugliness out there.

[@keturahspencer]

When it comes to the historical revisionism argument, including new interpretations of history is not the same as changing the wording of source material. I do suspect that there's a bit of publicity involved in this decision, but it is a business. I'm glad the originals are still available. For me it's a form of evidence of what the world was like when I was growing up. People were meaner about things that would be considered abhorant today. There's a strange comfort in knowing that I'm not crazy by remembering such things. I am against the edits, but I'm also against the rudeness I've seen. It's nothing new, and acting like it is is simply dishonest.

[@SuziQ.]

For about 8 years, some people seem almost gleeful about being mean to others. It’s wearing me down. Some of those edits seem unnecessary, like changing “darkly” (as a mood) to “mysteriously”. Those are not synonymous.

[@ourrepublic8003]

This woman is exactly who Orwell was trying to warn against. 21st century update is Big Sister is Watching. 👀

[@FERAL_MECHANICAL_NOMATIC]

Calm down

[@nico-3663]

I’m all for a lot of these changes. I remember reading these as a kid and being upset at the author at the bald women section in “Witches” and the whole Oompa Loompa thing. Since I’ve read the books I’d probably let future children read the original and just point out where the distasteful stuff was one on one, but theres a lot of circumstances where just the updated story is good to have.

[@lizzie31]

Your channel is one of the best things on this website. So excited to see more from you!!!❤❤❤

[@books_ncats]

Aww thank you so much! How lovely! - Rosie

[@nine39_pm]

all im saying is there are children’s books from the 40s that are perfectly fine lol…. the whole “of their time” thing is silly to me

[@melloroom7510]

I think it‘s totally fine as long as the kids know they are updated and not the original, just for the purpose of not withholding information altogether.

[@Myself23512]

The ethics of censorship sounds interesting.

[@xwngdrvr]

Peaches are not giant. Nor do they fly. Lies!

[@ManSophia]

Brilliant, on every aspect, with nothing lacking and nothing superfluous. Your video made my day, thank you!

[@books_ncats]

Thanks so much, that's very kind of you to say! - Rosie

[@patmccarthy7907]

i think the change of ouch is ment to reflect how modern onomatopoeia is a lot more literal, yk like instead of saying a cat mowed you might type 'meeew' or 'mrrrep', it seems to be more of a younger thing tho

[@play-fool]

besides how thoroughly and carefully you handle this subject matter in particular, I have to say I absolutely love your video essays. the scripts are intelligent and presented engagingly, and I love how well cited they are. I really hope to see more from you!!!

[@snorlaxgender]

Let the kids read the abridged when they're little, and then when they're more capable of critical thinking, let them read the originals, *which are still being published.* I read Dahl before I could apply critical thinking and ended up not questioning hurtful depictions of certain people for a long time. The stories are still being told, so why does it matter that the language is updated? Even with adult books - imagine if Christie's "And Then There Were None" still had the original title 😬

[@SuziQ.]

She stole that story. I’m tired of typing it. Abridged: “The 13th Guest” (1930) by Armitage Trail, made into a movie in 1932.

[@snorlaxgender]

@@SuziQ. Sorry? It was high school curriculum for me 15 years ago and I just knew that it went through several nasty name changes; that was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for letting me know the original though, I'll check it out.

[@SuziQ.]

@@snorlaxgender , Cool username. I’m sorry. I was tired of typing it all out last night. I think it’s still mostly unknown. The original movies became public domain, and people noticed the similarities and the timeline. I’m surprised that an Agatha Christie book was required reading. I watched both movies last month on this platform. The second one is called “The 9th Guest” (1932). Both were based on books, but “The 13th Guest” seems to have been the first book with that story.

[@snorlaxgender]

@@SuziQ. it's okay, I understand frustration, and that is a frustrating discovery. Honestly I'm not sure why that book was on our curriculum, probably something to do with what they deemed critical thinking, though I did enjoy it so I will be pursuing the original. Really scummy move by Agatha there.

[@sharkcereal3445]

I recently found your channel and I just want to say, your work is amazing! I love hearing your thoughts on literature and I love how you do set dressing I'm definitely going to force your videos onto my friends

[@books_ncats]

Ah that's so kind, thanks so much! - Rosie

[@kagaminek]

wait until all those angry people hear what kinds of changes are being made in translation of english books into other languages lmao

[@PrisciladeMeloSilva]

We've passed trough something similar here in Brazil with new editions of Monteiro Lobato's books. He was a brazilian children's author from the firts half of the last century, very beloved, with books adapted for TV. People went crazy. In the end it wasn't that bad.

[@kristyrice3028]

I'm late to the party but, if we're considering children reading above their level and with appetite, footnotes are the obvious answer. Want the updated version? Buy it. Worried your bookworms will misunderstand? Allow them note of how language has changed. They'll embrace it. And...this whole mess is a testament to the longevity of Dahl's popularity. For good reason. Read with your kids. Read as an adult. Talk about what you're reading. Considering the percentage of kids that actually read, like nose in a book, I'm not 3:49 sure the right isn't just placing blame for empathy found through other people's points of view. It's fear mongering - how dare the left enlighten you to someone else's point of view.

[@kristyrice3028]

Dahl was always irreverent. It's why he's beloved.

[@jenanne31]

I'm a Boomer, so the thought of book burning, and book censorship, is abhorrent to me. Thanks for your channel! I love your content.

[@breamg11]

Just found your channel - love your content!!

[@ultramarinetoo]

I don't think your two main arguments really capture why people object (leaving aside culture-warmongers like Starkey and GBNews). It's more about the value of literature, especially literature we love. Slurs should definitely be removed. Replacing queer with strange and culling "ugly" is likely a good idea, though I'm less sure blanket removing "fat" - should we not have fat people in literature? And cutting out words like black-cloaked is simply ridiculous. But anyone who wants to add "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that" has absolutely not a literary bone in their body and needs to be banned from ever laying a finger on a book. Add a list of questions to the back, like in study editions? Even cutting the whole topic out would be better than adding this kind of language to a piece of literature. Not because the sentiment is wrong, but because it's incredibly bad writing and excruciatingly out of place to boot. A piece of literature is like a face. It ages, gets wrinkly over time. We can remove little growths when really necessary, but we need to do this carefully. Wholesale chopping and changing makes for a botched face-lift, and that is particularly painful to see if we loved the old familiar face, even with its imperfections. Maybe it is preferable to let the face fade out of the picture and make way for new faces.

[@DynamiteTrujillo]

I never read Dahl as a kid. I first picked up one of his books to read to my 5 year a couple years ago, trying to find a good first chapter book kinda thing. I read her the first few chapters, cringed a lot, changed a lot of words, left out paragraphs and ultimately was like, NOPE. No more. I haven't picked him up again. I think I related most to Pullman's addition. LOL.

[@hallievanoutryve3109]

I feel like Dahl's books are written for older kids, middle grades (3-6). I read and re-read 'Matilda' and 'The Witches' in those grades and loved them. I remember 'the Witches' including old fashioned, outdated ideas about women. But I knew they were written in a different time.

[@kinolibby6580]

When I was little my favourite book was one that had belonged to my mother which featured a teddy bear glove puppet who loved smoking, there was even an illistrations of a smoking bear glove puppet in it. I never became a smoker. Children don't grow up in a vacuum they are influenced more by the modern social values that they grow up in than something they read in some old book. That smoking teddy bear won't make any sense to my son when he's old enough to read it and that's a good thing. I'm with Pullman let these books fade away like the outdated attitudes in them. If my son does come across an old book when he is old enough to read it by himself I think I will be able to trust him to question the old fashioned views he comes across. I think they will feel very alian to him.

[@iniratagen9740]

The racism and 'horny' are bad obviously, but some of these are just kind of pointless, or take away from the characterization of the characters. This is just my opinion.

[@alesiamassey3801]

Love your videos! Just one thing: it’s MISS-CHEH-VUSS. There is no “i” after the “v,” and “ie” is not pronounced “ee.”

[@VioletKitUWU]

To be honest I think we should’ve phased Dahl’s work out by now, times are changing so we shouldn’t cling onto the past

[@blaake7892]

i also might not understand the value of all of the edits, but i definitely don't want my children reading the word "horny" in a book and using it in their everyday language lol

[@kahlilbt]

The way I see it, Dahl's books are made for children. Either they need to be updated as needed to keep being effective as children's books in changing times, or they'll need to be slowly discarded and disused. I agree with the argument that kids need exposure, guidance and education to these topics, but sadly a lot of folks aren't willing to or capable of doing that effectively. How many parents/teachers are honestly reading along with every kid and making sure they understand that this book was written was being racist/sexist/homophobic was more accepted? Certainly not most of the critics of the edits.

[@artapothecary53]

Many people could benefit from watching this if only to be reminded how to think

[@Esfeurell]

Bookmark 3:35

[@daneckabargas6690]

Another fantastic video! So glad i subscribed

[@books_ncats]

Thanks so much! - Rosie