I think that Puffin reviewed/whitewashed the books because of the expected attention from the upcoming Netflix Dahl stuff.
Either way, sales have got to be through the roof right now. Good day for the Dahl estate.
3 Likes
So, nobody demanded it of them? There was no mob on the street requiring that this happen?
It was a business making a business decision right? Can we dispense with the idea that every time a company makes a change to âappease the woke mobâ its really just a business trying to capitalize on market trends and not some evil cabalist empire screeching at said company until they get their way?
2 Likes
I mean I never claimed any of those things? Sure, dispense away. But censorship is still censorship if itâs being done at the behest of a corporation to try to maximize profit rather than the government trying to suppress dissent or some other motivation.
Im pretty sure the way we use censorship requires an authority to demand the censoring. Self censorship is not the same as the way you are using the word.
1 Like
So if Rushdie took this route itâs not censorship? The Ayatollah didnât have any authority over Rushdie.
1 Like
Thats at behest of an authority (in this case the Ayatohla) in order to receive safety. You cant point to the same thing in the Dahl case or the Seuss case. Its the owner making a voluntary change that they make because they feel it will make the work better.
1 Like
OK letâs say the Dahl estate acquiesced to the changes at the behest of Puffin in order to receive money. The stakes arenât the same but itâs pressuring to alter the work of an artist at the behest of an authority. Rushdie agrees and has some experience in this area.
Thatâs called selling out
1 Like
Right. Censoring your dead relativeâs art against his artistic intent to get a bit more money. As Rushdie says, they should be ashamed of themselves.
2 Likes
Maybe they should be ashamed but itâs not censorship
Because the Dahl estate agreed to it? Theyâre not the ones being censored.
1 Like
No one in this situation is being censored.
I agree with Phillip Pullman
Lets get some new kids books on the go.
âThatâs what Iâd say. Read Phil Earle, SF Said, Frances Hardinge, Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman. Read Mini Grey, Helen Cooper, Jaqueline Wilson, Beverley Naidoo.
âRead all these wonderful authors who are writing today who donât get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl.â
Webb asked Pullman whether the books should still exist âin their original formâ and be âallowed to fade away in peopleâs reading habits because they no longer reflect the modern worldâ.
âTheyâre not going to vanish because theyâre still going to be around for years and years,â said Pullman. âThey should be allowed to fade away. Let him go out of print.â
Is taking down confederate statues censorship?
2 Likes
Heritagenothate
Oh, good
Not sure if censorship, but editing the plaques on the statues to rewrite history would be weird and wrong, especially if the point was to sell more museum tickets or whatever.
2 Likes
Heâs got a very creepy large age gap/grooming situation in his latest books that all the characters are totally cool with (professor and student, who have known each other since student was a toddler). Ruins them for me, and Iâm a huge His Dark Materials fan
1 Like
