The Dahl Affair

[BoldonLad]

I don't remember this much fuss being made when they changed the Richard Scarry books, and I loved those books. In fact according to this website it took an eagle eyed father who had a copy of the original.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voice...-books-now-reflect-contemporary-social-values

Aren't they children's books?

 

[winjim]

Aren't they children's books?

I used to be a child.

 

[BoldonLad]

I used to be a child.

But, presumably, not in 2016, ie at the time of the associated link?

If you meant that you read said books as a child, doesn't seem to have damaged you, does it?

 

[winjim]

But, presumably, not in 2016, ie at the time of the associated link?

If you meant that you read said books as a child, doesn't seem to have damaged you, does it?

I was a child in 1991 when the revised edition was published, although the versions I remember will have been from earlier in my childhood, likely the late 70s or very early 80s.

The point is, and I don't know if there's an earlier reference than 2016 as it's just the first thing that came up on a search, that it took 25 years for anyone to even notice the changes and make a photo blog about it. There was less internet based outlet for outrage back in the early 90s of course.

I haven't seen a therapist specifically about the effect of Richard Scarry books on my emotional wellbeing.

 

[BoldonLad]

I was a child in 1991 when the revised edition was published, although the versions I remember will have been from earlier in my childhood, likely the late 70s or very early 80s.

The point is, and I don't know if there's an earlier reference than 2016 as it's just the first thing that came up on a search, that it took 25 years for anyone to even notice the changes and make a photo blog about it. There was less internet based outlet for outrage back in the early 90s of course.

I haven't seen a therapist specifically about the effect of Richard Scarry books on my emotional wellbeing.

Pleased to hear it.

 

[icowden]

No, the boll*x about changing men to 'people' and who knows what else you 'protect' them from.

No-one has done this.

Why you reading a book with a sex scene in it to 5 year old anyway?

Sometimes you want to read a story to a child and you forget that it has an unfortunate section in it. If you haven't read Neil Gaiman I really recommend it.

The building site was metaphorical obviously as we all know birds a crap at laying bricks.

Yes, they tend to lay eggs.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I started Gaiman's American Gods book but couldn't get on with it. I did see the play of Ocean at the End of the Lane, which was good.

 

[Unkraut]

Why is there an assumption that modern sensitivities need to be catered for?

Is using a euphemism for fat controller a sign of enlightenment or unnecessary pandering to feelings?

 

[Deleted member 121]

Why is there an assumption that modern sensitivities need to be catered for?

Is using a euphemism for fat controller a sign of enlightenment or unnecessary pandering to feelings?

Didn't realise they had written Boris into it...

 

[icowden]

Why is there an assumption that modern sensitivities need to be catered for?

This is a good question.

Let's take Augustus Gloop:-

The picture showed a nine-year-old boy who was so enormously fat he looked as though he had been blown up with a powerful pump. Great flabby folds of fat bulged out from every part of his body, and his face was like a monstrous ball of dough with two small greedy curranty eyes peering out upon the world.

To me, this doesn't read like fat shaming. It's a very quick graphic description. Taking the word fat out doesn't achieve much. He is also described as repulsive.

'That's even worse than the fat boy,' said Grandma Josephine.

That seems to me how a grandma might speak. Or in fact most people. It would sound odd to substitute enormous or bigger boned. It wouldn't fit with Josephine's character.

A bit further on Dahl uses "fat" again to describe the shopkeeper:

The man behind the counter looked fat and well-fed. He had big lips and fat cheeks and a very fat neck. The fat around his neck bulged out all around the top of his collar like a rubber ring. He turned and reached behind him for the chocolate bar, then he turned back again and handed it to Charlie.

Again, this isn't a particularly pejorative description. Having set it up the shopkeeper is then always referred to as the fat shopkeeper.

Who's the big fat boy?' 'That's Augustus Gloop!' 'So it is!' 'Enormous, isn't he!' 'Fantastic!'

These are unattributed crowd comments.

A good insight into the word fat is that later on:-

'Oh, to blazes with that!' said Violet, and suddenly, before Mr Wonka could stop her, she shot out a fat hand and grabbed the stick of gum out of the little drawer and popped it into her mouth.

So, fat gets used in multiple ways. Finally we have it used again as a descriptive so we get an immediate impression of Mrs Salt:-

. Mrs Salt was a great fat creature with short legs, and she was blowing like a rhinoceros. '

Again, I personally don't feel that it is particularly pejorative. This leads onto the second question. Why is it bad to use the word "fat". It will upset people who are larger and might make them feel bad. It isn't supportive. But being fat is intrinsically bad. It's bad for you. I'm fat, and trying to lose weight. I have to face up to that and do something about it. I have a real issue with the idea that "some people are just bigger boned", "you can be healthy and plus sized". I agree that the culture of stick thin is also bad, but both are extremes.

It doesn't seem to be an awful thing to instil the idea that being fat and greedy is bad. Surely it's more problematic that Wonka has enslaved an indigenous tribe or people and made them work in his factory for payment in cacao beans?!

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think there's times where he is associating fat with greedy and unpleasant, and times where it's just descriptive. There's a long history of it in fiction though - from ugly old women being evil witches in fairy tales to the trope of facial scars on Bond villains. It's a shorthand for establishing character and if you remove it altogether it could leave books rather bland and boring.

Perhaps part of the appeal of Dahl is that he shows kids the darker side of life - horrendous parents for example - but in an over the top way that makes them cartoony not scary.

 

[winjim]

Everybody being fat is central to the point of the book. The Bucket family survive on cabbage soup, that's literally a faddy weight loss crash diet food.

I guess most of the secondary characters could be well fed and healthy as a counterpoint to Charlie's malnourishment, but the reason for Augustus Gloop even existing as a character is to make a point about gluttony. He's not supposed to be healthy.

I think the Oompa-Loompas are a bit more complicit in their own servitude in the new revisions.

I think scars on villains are an example of lazy writing and I know women who object very strongly and with good reason to the wicked stepmother trope.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I agree, they are often lazy tropes and I think Disney princess films up to Brave have quite a lot to answer for. I don't object to some of the Dahl changes but I think you could end up with bland fiction if we erase too much characterful writing.

I'm old enough to remember cartoons where Tom and Jerry smoked though so perhaps I'm too indoctrinated already.

 

[Electric_Andy]

I'd propose that the books remain unchanged, but there would have to be a far more stringent censorship process of what gets printed today, especially in children's books. And maybe rethink what is used in schools, or at least integrate some of Dahl's non-PC wording to illustrate that yes it's a good story but no we shouldn't use phrases like that anymore.

If ever[y] one of them ends up on a building site with the Foreman calling them a 'useless cu*t' they'll be running home to pappa in tears!

That's exactly my point. Perhaps if the imbeciles who use such language would stop doing it, the problem might be solved. Then we wouldn't have to "toughen up" our kids, and we could instead concentrate on supporting them in their chosen field. Or at least we can try to educate a younger generation who won't grow up like that, and help them realise that using adjectives like fat/ugly/girlie is not very nice or productive.

True story: I worked with a young lad who was very bright and very enthusiastic. He did an electrcian apprenticeship with a local firm, and was subject to the type of thing that @shep is portraying to be normal. He got so fed up with the foul language, piss-taking, general immature uneducated twattery, that he quit. He reported it to the college but they did nothing. So that's one electrician that the country has lost, all because of some bloke who thinks he's hard by picking on teenagers.

So, use these words to explain why we shouldn't talk about others like that, but don't use them as shining examples of how we should write and address each other

 

[Deleted member 28]

I'd propose that the books remain unchanged, but there would have to be a far more stringent censorship process of what gets printed today, especially in children's books. And maybe rethink what is used in schools, or at least integrate some of Dahl's non-PC wording to illustrate that yes it's a good story but no we shouldn't use phrases like that anymore.



That's exactly my point. Perhaps if the imbeciles who use such language would stop doing it, the problem might be solved. Then we wouldn't have to "toughen up" our kids, and we could instead concentrate on supporting them in their chosen field. Or at least we can try to educate a younger generation who won't grow up like that, and help them realise that using adjectives like fat/ugly/girlie is not very nice or productive.

True story: I worked with a young lad who was very bright and very enthusiastic. He did an electrcian apprenticeship with a local firm, and was subject to the type of thing that @shep is portraying to be normal. He got so fed up with the foul language, piss-taking, general immature uneducated twattery, that he quit. He reported it to the college but they did nothing. So that's one electrician that the country has lost, all because of some bloke who thinks he's hard by picking on teenagers.

So, use these words to explain why we shouldn't talk about others like that, but don't use them as shining examples of how we should write and address each other

You may well be right but do you think that's going to happen any time soon?

With regards to the lad in your tale perhaps if he had been subjected to a more 'rounded' up bringing from his parents instead of the over protected limp wristed approach people on here seem to favour maybe he would have been able to stand up for himself, it works both ways.

My Daughter first started work at TUI when she was only 16 and was subjected to some of the most lewd comments from grown ups you could imagine, thankfully due to her being able to 'hold her own' she wasn't too traumatised, equally my son became a prison officer at 19, again took it in his stride.

My point is however much you want to change the world and turn it into a scene from 'demolition man' there's always going to be scumbags out there and people need to realise this.