Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-01-30 02:19:56)
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-01-30 02:57:53)
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-02-24 09:13:33)
I probably have seen the book around but why the hell would I take an interest in it? He wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Wow!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
More alarming to me are reports of Florida stripping entire school libraries and firing teachers who post photos of empty bookshelves online.
I agree with updating and annotating older books to be readable or more accessible. I don't agree with altering Dahl to the extent I've seen absurd examples of, though. In his 1983 book The Witches, he writes that witches are bald beneath their wigs. According to The Telegraph, an added line in new editions says, "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that." Sure, there's nothing wrong with that, but why not just put that commentary in a secondary position like footnote, margins, index, companion, or a teacher's copy for class discussion? Wiping out dated or 'insensitive' language whitewashes or outright precludes conversation.
At least Dahl didn't do it to his own books, unlike George Lucas and the Han dodging edit fiasco. Making Vader go 'NOOOO' because how else could we stupids realize that he was upset. /s
How have you not at least seen a copy of James and the Giant Peach lying around? I couldn't escape it. Willy Wonka sparked so many memes it's hard to imagine you wouldn't have seen the name in passing.
