Rewriting of books. (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc.)

[kilésengati]

The rewriting of books continues as allegedly offensive sections of books by Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) are changed in future editions to take contemporary sensitivities into account:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-woke-overhaul-offensive-words-removed/

For instance, among other changes, Oompa Loompas are now gender-neutral.
Let's completely forget Oompa Loompas are a fictional African tribe effectively enslaved by Wonka.

What do you think?
Is rewriting allegedly offensive material the proper way to deal with it?
Is rewriting worse than banning?
Should historic context be taken into account?
Or do you think other measures are more appropriate, if necessary at all?

Do you know any folks keeping track of censorship and modifications made to already released works for political or commercial reasons?

Please keep it civil. :)

[TwisterCat]

Humans can't decide whether children are stupid, or whether or not they're capable of being offended by the gender of a fictional character.

The people supporting these changes tend to believe they're both stupid, and capable of being offended over a very complex concept, that some adults fail to understand.

[Othobrithol]

I think it is certainly within the rights of whoever controls the copyright to make any changes they want to a new edition in order to make it more marketable. These alterations do not magically make any pre-existing copies suddenly change! If the alterations prove negative in the long run, you can be assured somebody will market a version closer to the originals.

[MistuhG]

This kind of thing always reminds me of the song Zombified by Falling in Reverse.

[Your_White_Knight]

Originally posted by kilésengati:

Rewriting of books. (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc.)

The rewriting of books continues as allegedly offensive sections of books by Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) are changed in future editions to take contemporary sensitivities into account:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-woke-overhaul-offensive-words-removed/

For instance, among other changes, Oompa Loompas are now gender-neutral.
Let's completely forget Oompa Loompas are a fictional African tribe effectively enslaved by Wonka.

What do you think?
Is rewriting allegedly offensive material the proper way to deal with it?
Is rewriting worse than banning?
Should historic context be taken into account?
Or do you think other measures are more appropriate, if necessary at all?

Do you know any folks keeping track of censorship and modifications made to already released works for political or commercial reasons?

Please keep it civil. :)

It starts with fiction book and then the history books...

Welcome to the dismantling of history to appease a few snowflakes... the second "Dark Ages"

[ṼṏẌṏḭḊ]

It's pretty funny.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Othobrithol:

I think it is certainly within the rights of whoever controls the copyright to make any changes they want to a new edition in order to make it more marketable. These alterations do not magically make any pre-existing copies suddenly change! If the alterations prove negative in the long run, you can be assured somebody will market a version closer to the originals.

The issue is they will stop printing the previous editions. This will cause them to become more scarce(more-so depending on if they do a recall for them) which will eventually remove that version. As well as books being digital now and DRM locked, if you bought a copy before the revision, they can just send an update and erase the copy you have with the revised one.

[Rio]

The james bond books are being edited now

[Under there]

rewrite mein kampf pls its very antisemitic

[kilésengati]

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

Humans can't decide whether children are stupid, or whether or not they're capable of being offended by the gender of a fictional character.

The people supporting these changes tend to believe they're both stupid, and capable of being offended over a very complex concept, that some adults fail to understand.

As a kid, I loved watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and have never ever thought about the gender of Oompa Loompas. Neither did Augustus Gloop offended me or made others bully me more. If anything, the character taught me that I wasn't on the right path. Removing the exaggerated characteristics not only makes the character less interesting, but also makes the failures of these characters difficult to comprehend for children and the entire story and its meaning less intelligible.

It's adults with adult problems not understanding children and children's books.

I think instead of censoring media, it's better to discuss them - especially in their historic and social context. Even with pre-schoolers, you can have a discussion about these topics, adjusted to their knowledge and cognitive abilities.

Originally posted by Othobrithol:

I think it is certainly within the rights of whoever controls the copyright to make any changes they want to a new edition in order to make it more marketable. These alterations do not magically make any pre-existing copies suddenly change! If the alterations prove negative in the long run, you can be assured somebody will market a version closer to the originals.

I think copyright terms as they exist now extend for far too long. As they stand now, works that are effectively regarded as a common good (for instance, Lord of the Rings) or are otherwise completely forgotten about are still not in the public domain and thus can't be treated as a common good. They are practically useless to the general public as a cultural basis and can't give rise to new works based on those novel folktales independently from elite control. As upon the death of an author, the copyrights often eventually land in the hands of corporations (if they were not created by corporations in the first place), which gives few control over the cultural domain of many - often for many generations.
Every extension of copyright terms were a severe consolidation of power within the cultural space and through that, society.

[Raelic]

They can't rewrite the original. If they are doing a re-release, that's their money to spend it how they see fit.

However, I heard something really interesting from some intellectuals I engage with and they say a lot of the classics are just manufactured to be classics. For example, there are a lot of contemporary authors and books that probably put Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to shame. People ignore them for these classics.

If you find a classic conflicts with contemporary values, stop thinking of them as classics at all. Just find another book to read.

This person was speaking about the Harry Potter books, but I think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is almost as overrated. And I enjoy the Harry Potter books.

Read more. This will only matter to people who don't read a lot anyways.

[HyacinthColocynth]

THEY'RE DOING WHAt

[Scurrybt]

Rewrite the Communist Manifesto while your at it, it’s very offensive to the bourgeoisie.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Pretty much every Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons would need to be wiped completely.

Or just keep remaking them in live action until the original stuff is no longer considered lore by the general public.

[Othobrithol]

Originally posted by kilésengati:

They are practically useless to the general public as a cultural basis and can't give rise to new works based on those novel folktales independently from elite control. As upon the death of an author, the copyrights often eventually land in the hands of corporations, which gives few control over the cultural domain of many.

The bolded part is hyperbolic. You are free to write your charlie fanfic and post it online. All you can't do is make money from it.

Works under copyright inspire new creators that will go on to make their own works. The life work of Seth McFarlane is a good example of just how egregiously you can borrow from copyrighted material and still be considered original, if highly derivative.

It only gets legally restraining when you start making money by plagiarizing.

[trousers]

Capitalism is at it again? Damn. Maybe someday we'll regulate it.

Edit: maybe we will also ask ourselves why Telegraph journalists were invited to Netflix (owner of the Dahl estate) press soirées, because I'm pretty sure it wasn't just to be nice to them and give them free drinks