Save Roald Dahl Books From the Dreaded Sensitivity Readers
Let Augustus Gloop be fat.

The sensitivity readers have come for beloved children's author Roald Dahl. A recent report in The Telegraph notes that Puffin, publisher of classics such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Witches, will soon release new editions of the books, sans problematic phrasing and terminology.
"When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it's not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book's cover and page layout," said Rick Behari, a spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company. "Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the story lines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text."
Readers will have to decide for themselves whether deference to the spirit of the text is actually a guiding principle: New editions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, for instance, have removed references to Augustus Gloop as "fat." While the child-killing villains of The Witches were previously identified by their bald heads, the book now contains the disclaimer that "there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."
Indeed, it's impossible not to wonder whether these tweaks are subtly changing the message of the books. The Twits contains an excellent summary of Dahl's outlook: "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." For some reason, the new version omits the "double-chin" part, which is coming perilously close to negating the entire point.
Puffin says the text should change to reflect modern sensitivities, although one wonders who exactly is so bothered by double-chins and an extra-fat Augustus Gloop.
Dahl books are hardly the first to get such a makeover. Dr. Seuss Enterprises canceled six of the famed children's author's books for dubious reasons.
These are private companies, of course: Publishers making business decisions. If they really think they'll sell more Dahls and Seusses this way, they're free to proceed. But maybe the publishers should think harder about whether a small handful of activists really speak for the book-reading masses. As Kat Rosenfield has observed, "Sensitivity readers are the new literary gatekeepers" and "reflect an obsession with policing language in service of a hypothetical person who is not only maximally sensitive but also not very smart."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
With two movie adaptations available, who reads the book?
who reads the book?
Fagz.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
The second one was colorized
Colorized? That's racist!
Is this the slow and inevitable spiked-onlineification of Reason? Let's hope!
Just a few more demonetized videos, facebook 'fact-checks' and maybe a good canceling away from a return to liberty, freedom of speech and other sundry libertarian concepts.
I have more hope for Robby than I do for most of them other than Stossel (who is the most libertarian person writing articles here).
You are an optimist.
Because Rico is an opportunist and nothing more.
I said "more hope". Anything is a greater number than the zero hope I have for the others. It's a tiny hope, slightly greater than zero.
They're all progressives, to the extent that the soulless clumps of cancer have any inherent beliefs at all.
When will they be coming for the Quran?
Surely you jest. The Woke know they can go after their Western prey easily. But if they go after some others, they may lose their heads.
As Penn Jillette once remarked, he can make fun of Christianity, but he's too afraid to make fun of Islam. Christians tend not to issue fatwahs calling for the execution of stage magicians and childrens authors.
Which means Penn is a bit of a pussy.
I've politically correct Bibles out there so its certainly possible to do a Quran.
The difference between book like the Bible and the Quran though is they aren't protected by copyright, so if you don't like one publisher's version you can buy one from a different publisher. Dahl and Seuss are still under copyright, so whatever publisher owns the rights get to publish only the version(s) they want, or stop publishing them altogether.
That said, if you publish a Woke Bible, you won't lose your head. A Woke Quran is a different issue in that regard. One might want to watch for a fatwa in that case.
Technically speaking, it's not the Quran if it's not in Arabic. So while there are English translations, they are not considered the Quran. Any creative interpretations of the Quran are similarly discouraged. So no Children's First Quran and things like that.
My understanding is that the bloody bits have been removed from translations.
IOW, a typical wokeist. Shit like this is why having physical media is becoming more and more important. In the case of books, preferably first editions.
My Companion mother makes 50 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal Computer). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time red however last month her check was 11k bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal Computer) for 9 hours per day.
For more detail visit this article......………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
I'm waiting for the inevitable edit of Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf says, "Actually, wielding massive power is good, if you target the right people," then takes the ring and goes to kill Sauron and everyone apologizes to the orcs and spends the next 20 years paying reparations for defending themselves against them.
Genuine LOL
Worst. Fanfic. Ever.
Well played!
Honestly... taking a great, iconic story that everyone knows and going full woke with it could be fun. Let's get some suggestions going:
I don't think "The Taming of the Shrew" can be staged without whole passages of vagina monologues inserted, plus it would have to be an all lesbian cast eventually replaced by an all trannie one.
Alright, so we've got Taming of the Shrew and LOTR as candidates.
Need some more.
"Then Little Black Sambo said, “If you want them, say so, or I’ll take them away.” But the Tigers would not let go of each other’s tails, and so they could only say “Gr-r-r-rrrrrr!”
So Little Black Sambo put on all his fine clothes again and walked off.
And the Tigers were very, very angry, but still they would not let go of each other’s tails. And they were so angry, that they ran round the tree, trying to eat each other up, and they ran faster and faster, till they were whirling round so fast that you couldn’t see their legs at all.
And they still ran faster and faster and faster, till they all just melted away, and there was nothing left but a great big pool of melted polyunsaturated vegetable oil spread round the foot of the tree."
See what I did there?
Worst. Fanfic. Ever.
Amazon's might still be worse.
When they changed Galadriel's name to Mary Sue, you know you were in for a ride.
Isn't that the Rings of Power in a nutshell?
Pretty much.
While the child-killing villains of The Witches were previously identified by their bald heads, the book now contains the disclaimer that "there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."
Those poor people were obviously suffering from brain-cancer-induced mental illness and the effects of chemo and radiation treatments.
"She's got alopecia so... not a happy homelife."
Puffin says the text should change to reflect modern sensitivities
Exactly! The text needs a *lot* more profanity.
Here’s the “libertarian angle” – copyright terms are too long, so an author’s estate can choose to suppress any commerically-viable edition of the original works which made the author successful in the first place.
If we went back to reasonable copyright terms, these classics would already be public domain, and anyone who wanted to make the original, raw, uncensored stuff available could do so.
"But they could always get the original from the library!" - well, shh, don't discuss Phase 2.
Ya, good point. Books written 50-60 years ago should be public domain anyway. No reason why an authors' heirs should be able to keep making money off it for generations.
Even if you let it for the author's life plus some number of years, Roald Dahl died in 1990. There has to be a limit, and I won't say specifically what that limit is, it can be debated, but if the author hasn't exploited his property 50 years after it was published and 35 years after his death, I don't think he's going to get around to it.
The endless Disney extensions of copyright have really porked the notion of common culture.
50 years is about the limit for me, yeah. The stuff that's popular when you're in high school becomes public domain right around when you retire. Don't base it on the author's death; then you have to try to figure out whether some guy counts as a co-author or whether something was a work for hire.
I have no problem with copyright going to the immediate heirs, but that's it. No setting up companies or foundations or passing rights down through the generations.
I also believe that copyright should disappear if a book remains unpublished for a certain length of time. Haven't published a new edition in 10 years? Fine, someone else can.
Why not? That is what I would if I authored popular books? Where is the line drawn? Do place control limits on other forms of property?
Are the original versions being withdrawn from sale? Or is this a new version that will exist side-by-side with the original? If it's the former, then yeah, that is a problem. But if it's the latter, then I don't see what the problem is. It's no different really than having a different version of a book published in a different language. Only this time the language is "extra-sensitivity English".
One can only hope that when people purchase the new or the old ones, and they're side-by-side, it won't be clear which one is which. This way, within a generation or so...
If the new eventually supplants the old, then that is the result of consumer choices in the market, no?
Why do you constantly defend this garbage?
Because he's "chemjeff progressive collectivist".
I understand there's a new version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears in Trunks and two of them are momma bears.
Keep up the stupid bears in trunks thing. The more you continue to harp on this one admittedly dumb analogy, the more you prove that you are just a bunch of schoolchildren with nothing meaningful to say.
So it's Goldilocks and the Bears Menage-a-trios in a trunk.
Lol.
What do you want me to say?
"The property owner shouldn't use his own property in a way that I don't approve of"? Is that what you want me to say?
No. What you should say is the property owner has all the right to do this, but it is playing to a terrible precedent and concept and you don’t like it. That art from previous shouldn’t be edited to fit terrible new narratives, offenses, and beliefs. Why can’t you say editing books to make sure modern people don’t have icky feelings about what was said is the same a banning and burning books?
You're free to say something is a bad idea.
“What do you want me to say?
“The property owner shouldn’t use his own property in a way that I don’t approve of”? Is that what you want me to say?”
The federal government has constitutional authority to regulate immigration and the border. Does that stop you from making MORAL argument for open borders? What, we can’t manage our borders in a way if YOU don’t want to?
If a publisher altered text to suggest that someone like John Henry was white, most of us here would join the woke brigade in howling against the move. Reasonable people would be disturbed by the notion of private companies (or maybe even the estate) deconstructing cultural legacies to fit their own moral and personal agenda. And their misgivings would not be not quelled if these “new editions” might be sold alongside the original ones.
Why do you bother criticizing Donald Trump or anyone else of racism? Oh well, they have 1A rights? Should workers not be concerned if Walmart imposed 20 different dress codes and made them dress like a circus clown per week? You play dutiful libertarian when it presents you the opportunity to become contrarian, but seem to have no problem resorting to your own morality otherwise.
Withdrawn from sale? Probably not. No more copies being made? Probably.
Which is the normal way with books: when you publish a new edition, you don't ask sellers to stop selling the previous edition†, you just stop printing the older version and only print the new. Older editions become more difficult to find over time, and eventually you only see the new edition in bookstores that sell new books (as opposed to used bookstores).
Which is to say, while you might see "Bram Stoker's Dracula" side-by-side with "Bram Stoker's Dracula (new Icelandic translation!)"‡ side by side at a theorical bookstore, you won't see "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" side-by-side with "Charlie and the Culutrally Sensitive Chocolate Factory" for very long.
______
†Academic textbooks are, of course, the exception to this statement.
‡Which is hilarious all on it's own. Seriously, look into the Iceland translation of Dracula sometime.
Sure and if the sales of the new edition tank, then they will have learned their lesson via the marketplace.
And part of the free market means we should criticize the fuck out of this stupid decision if we think it's stupid. So why do you care what people are saying about it?
Why would you think that? Disney has been making woke garbage for years now, it always tanks, and they keep making it.
These are private companies, of course: Publishers making business decisions. If they really think they'll sell more Dahls and Seusses this way, they're free to proceed.
They have the legal right, but there's a reasonable question about whether editing an author's work posthumously is unethical.
It's absolutely unethical.
100%
And other than the contrublicity (copyright pending) there's no business reason for this woke shit. That's an excuse and thin veil used by progressives to try to hide that the motive is pure, fanatic social engineering and power.
King James hardest hit.
Translating ancient documents from one language to another language is not editing an author's works posthumously you absolutely retarded faggot. Maybe you ought to stick to something you can actually understand like bug chasing and leave this discussion to your intellectual superiors.
Hey there. Are you OK?
Just checking in. Seems like you need a hug or someone to talk to.
Izzat chu, Rev. Artie...or maybe a methed-up Mister Hyde version thereof?
If you look at a sample of the changes they made, it is a crime against literary aesthetics and wit. The edits are bland, intellectually dull and unamusing. They have no moral right to present this as the fruit of Dahl's authorship.
This is the equivalent of a bunch of church-ladies re-rewriting the classics because they aren't christian enough.
Are you thinking of Dr. Thomas Bowdler as an example of a church lady?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler
Of course Bowdler was 19th century and I believe he confined his expurgations to Shakespeare's public-domain works, and Gibbons' expired or soon-to expire copyrighted work. Thus, Bowdler didn't stop other publishers from publishing raw, uncensored versions.
So two alternate sets of books were in circulation - the Bowdlerized and the Original Recipe. The Original Recipe versions seem to have prevailed in the marketplace.
Unless the "church-ladies" own the copyright to the original work, the comparison fails pretty hard.
This is rather hilarious since you just embarrassingly tried to make that exact comparison vis a vis translating ancient religious texts. Which is it, faggot?
Ol' Rev. Artie must have sustained a concussion when he tripped over his flourishing cape.
😉
You're mixed up, rak would be in support of censorious actions and any sophistry in arguments defending it. Rak is always in favor of authoritarian policies, as long as they make 'him' feel superior. Wilmer is crass and against this, a whole different animal.
Like I said above,Wilmer is Rev. Artie's Mister Hyde.
Cool story bro. Your failure to understand nuance is not my problem.
uffin says the text should change to reflect modern sensitivities, although one wonders who exactly is so bothered by double-chins and an extra-fat Augustus Gloop.
Iron Law: When something is "updated for modern audiences" it's automatic shit.
Who knew that capitalism would have been the most efficient way of delivering newspeak and highly targeted censorship to the masses?
Marx and Engels are looking more and more like idiots, the Frankfurt School people are the one's to blame for all of this.
"The Capitalists Will Sell Us the Rope with Which We Will Hang Them."
The Capitalists will sell themselves the rope in which they will trip over.
How long until Willy Wonka cuts off Violets tits and goes trans for competing in competitions?
Robby, this is why KULTURE WARZ are important.
+1
Y'all are trying to frame this as a "woke" thing, but it's just a capitalism thing.
Be as outraged as you want, but this is only possible because both of the following are true:
(1) estates can keep a copyright alive long after the author is dead
(2) the estates see profit in editing the work.
Knock out either of those two, and this becomes a non-issue.
But if you're unwilling to take an anti-capitalist stance on this, there is another action you can take: buy more books. If estates like Dahl's perceive that "anti-woke" folk (like y'all) are a significant part of their target demographic (as determined by folks who actually buy books) then they become much less likely to take steps that they know will offend you.
But as their decision shows, they just don't think y'all are buying very many books to start with, and your anger is an acceptable price.
Are you familiar with debates over copyright? What makes a longer term "capitalist" and a shorter term "anti-capitalist," except your fiat?
Are you?
Whatever argument you would have made fifty years ago was mooted by the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Copyright law, in America, has been bent to serve the corporation.
Deny that if you want.
Libertarians and free market economists and analysts vehemently opposed every expansion of copyright in the last century you historically illiterate stupid faggot. Hope that helps.
Is there something you want to tell us all, Rev. Artie, er, Wilmer?
😉
I'm not totally sure anymore the decisions like these are made because they think it will be good for business. But let's say they are. I still think they are being stupid and unethical. Dahl's books can be dark and cruel. That's part of what's great about them. Trying to sanitize the language misses the point.
It's not anti-capitalist to be annoyed at a publisher modifying classic works of children's literature for dumb reasons.
I’m not totally sure anymore the decisions like these are made because they think it will be good for business.
Disney is proving this week by week.
Cool story bro, but like I said, if you aren't willing to be anti-capitalist about this, you've got two options: impotent outrage, and buying more books to skew the capitalist calculus.
You seem to have chosen impotent outrage.
That presumes your thesis is correct. It might be correct, but I don't think it is.
There are all kinds of ways that copyright can be kept alive using the methods you suggest, and Disney is a good example of that.
Producing NEW works with a 'character' or storyline from the original IP. Mulan is an example of that. The live action version was likely produced to keep the Mulan copyright alive.
While this might be an attempt to be an attempt to keep the copyright going, it appears to be more a vain attempt to pander to "modern audiences" (ie, a few green-hairs on twitter) to generate interest). They could have done that without the woke angle.
"They could have done that without the woke angle."
No they couldn't. Woke literature is fucking terrible and no one wants to read it, even woke people. That's why they keep reading Harry Potter. They just rip the covers off and pretend they're rebelling.
Coming from a psychotic faggot who goes into fits of apoplexy when the wrong pronouns are used to refer to a tranny or when teachers are prevented from showing 6 year old children cartoon illustrations of grown men getting their cock sucked by little boys, your opposition to impotent outrage is duly noted, faggot.
2nd reminder that libertarians and free market analysts have opposed every expansion of copyright terms in the last century, and a lot of them don’t even believe intellectual property should be afforded legal protection like natural property. But then you can’t expect an AIDS-riddled bug-chasing stupid faggot to let a silly thing like facts interfere with his argument. Even if your idiotic ahistorical retardation had any basis in reality, it’s fully possible to express outrage about shitty behavior AND participate in the marketplace at the exact same time. What you’ve constructed here is called a “false dilemma”, faggot. Since you’re such a voracious reader you should swing by your local book store (not the one with the gloryhole booths, the one that actually sells books) and participate in the education market by buying a book on the subject of logical fallacies. And then have a non-retarded faggot explain it to you.
You sure speak with some authority about all this, Rev., er, Wilmer.
🙂
I love it when faggots like you appropriate black language for allyship. Please include ya'll and folk in literally every sentence you write, it totally makes you a cool negro!
Funny, I thought "Y'all" was for all Southerners and I notice ENB from Ohio uses "folks" a lot.
Sounds like you need to get out more...after they give you enough meds to let you out.
🙂
Gee, you sure seem awful triggered by my language.
The criticism is that the publisher is kowtowing to the worst sort of Wokism, despite the Woke NOT being their target audience or even a substantial segment of any audience for these works. They're doing it to curry favor with a rather small but noisy crowd of prudes.
This should not be against the law, but neither should their actions be immune from criticism.
I agree that copyright terms are too long. In a better world TOR or some other right of far left publisher would step in and publish the original unexpurgated and unbowdlerized version.
Prudes are responsible for pruning "fat" from a character? Only if you assume that there is significant overlap between prude and woke.
https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1628120956316024832?t=ilrZzirb1IpJl_hkD5pTAQ&s=19
It’s not normal to be discussing whether children should have sex changes or not.
It’s not normal to be discussing whether children should be sexualized or not.
None of this is normal.
https://newdiscourses.com/2023/02/woke-mao-and-the-american-cultural-revolution/
It’s time to be plain. Actually, it’s long past time. What’s happening in America today and throughout the West is a Maoist cultural revolution, just like happened in China under the CCP from 1966 to 1976. This is plain to see for those who know what to look for, from the struggle sessions, to the ideological totalism, to the separation of families, to the brainwashing in schools, to the destruction of statues, curriculum, and culture. If we are to have any hope of stopping this Maoist Cultural Revolution with American Characteristics, we have to begin by being honest about it. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay walks the listener through a speech given by Mao Zedong in February 1957 to make very clear and palpable that what’s happening here, now, is what was happening there, then. Mao gave this speech on the eve of the Great Leap Forward (into catastrophe), just as we’re living through our present tumult on the eve of the Great Reset. Join James for this must-listen podcast so you can understand clearly where we are and thus what we might do about it.
[Podcast]
My Companion mother makes 50 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal Computer). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time red however last month her check was 11k bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal Computer) for 9 hours per day.
For more detail visit this article......………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
I'm okay with the bowdlerization as a business decision. But I think it should be balanced by a countervailing right. If the bowdlerization is done by anyone other than the still-living original author, the copyright of the original unbowdlerized version should be immediately void.
Alternatively, we could return copyright to the original standard (14 years) and stop worrying about it. Let the market sort out whether there's a preference for the bowdlerized or unbowdlerized versions.
^ this is a reasonably libertarian take, not hyperventilating about OMG WOKENESS
You're weird conflation that libertarians can't have opinions about things because the "marketplace decides" has to be one of the strangest concepts I have ever heard.
Yes, the libertarian argument that government shouldn't interfere in the marketplace is proper. But claiming that a libertarian person can't have an opinion whether something is good or not in the marketplace is bizarre.
There are two kinds of libertarians in this world, tuco.
The aspy libertarian that believes everyone and everything are just neutral bits of carbon, randomly clacking into one another, generated "economic activity"
And
libertarians who do believe that the market should sort things out, but sometimes have an opinion on what we end up with on the other side of the sorting.
Oh, and further, the 14 year option IS the best option, but at this point, that's a bit like saying, "Don't legalize gay marriage, just get the government out of marriage."
While that's the correct libertarian take, it's the technically correct libertarian take, which is the best kind of correct.
> “Don’t legalize gay marriage, just get the government out of marriage.”
Problem is, every one of the rights that accrue through marriage would need to be enforced by the government. So government can't get out of marriage any more than it can get out of copyright.
We can imagine a different system, but getting there from here is difficult. So we let government legalize gay marriages as well as reasonable copyright terms.
It's especially funny considering that cytotoxic spends most of his life defending government interference in the marketplace, like defending the federal government paying Twitter to censor its users in a manner that pleases the federal government.
You forgot to call Cytotoxic an "ignorant faggot.". Did ya get healed, Rev. Artie?
😉
That's a weird tic you've developed. Artie must've touched you in a really special place.
Read Wilmer and then ask who has the weird tic.
In the 90s I had a friend named David Dahl I wonder if he's related.
What's the 90's have to do with relationship status?
You had friends?
I went to school with a whole family of Dahl's. It's a common enough surname, so no need to assume everyone named Dahl is related. Do you get out often? Maybe you should.
....and Han shot first!
Let's not forget P.T. Barnum, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
-1984
bUt tHE pArTY oWnEd ThE COpYRiGhT!!!!!!!!!!
Caps lock stuttering, Rev. Artie?
😉
These works are still under copyright, and the copyright holder is NOT Puffin, it's the Dahl estate. So only the Dahl estate can legally make these changes. The publisher can always ask, but it's Roald's heirs who are rolling over and exposing their belly to the Woke crowd.
The Dahl estate sold the rights to Netflix.
If Netflix wants to mutilate Dahl's books, why not? Private property!
This instant I heard about this, I went and bought a 1997 collection of Dahl’s fifteen best-known books. That same set of books has more than tripled in price in the last four days, and most similar collections are running anywhere from $60 to $120 now. So the market is definitely responding to this event with a big signal.