Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nsnyder t1_j9znjoi wrote

Except he did make changes to the Oompa-Loompas in the second edition. As always, it depends on the changes, some changes he was ok with, and some he didn’t want.

64

tman37 t1_ja07ush wrote

>he did make changes to the Oompa-Loompas

The key idea here is he made changes, which is his prerogative as the author. He had a problem with someone else changing his words. This leads me to believe that he would be appalled at what the publisher did but might have agreed to make changes if they were presented to him.

The big problem isn't the change (although the reasoning is stupid) it the fact that you don't get to change the author's words and pretend it is still written by the author. Some of the changes completely change the imagery in the book and we can't know if Dahl would been ok with changing those images.

61

nsnyder t1_ja0d27i wrote

If I had my way, then Dahl's books would be in the public domain by now and anyone could publish any version they wanted. But if we're going to have copyright extend for decades after the author's death then the copyright holders are going to be the ones deciding whether to make edits. Maybe they make good decisions, or maybe they make dumb ones (I think some of the edits here are pretty clumsy and pointless, and it seems likely if Dahl were alive he'd object to at least some of them), but since Dahl is dead the people who he left the rights to are going to have to make these calls much as Dahl did when he was alive. It's totally fine to criticize them, but the idea that books never get changed or that Dahl's books never got changed when he was alive is just not true.

−8

tman37 t1_ja0pqr1 wrote

I think we have to make a distinction between legally entitled to do something and whether they should do something. Based on current copyright laws, the copywriter holders are absolutely entitled to change the work. As the owners of art, they shouldn't change it from what the artist did. If I owned the Mona Lisa, I would be able to draw a mustache on her but it would be disrespectful to Di Vinci and all his fans.

16

bonglicc420 t1_ja0u1d5 wrote

Unless we find out Mona Lisa had a moustache all along.....

2

bill4365 t1_ja2pfzy wrote

Was this a da vinci code reference?? If so I approve

2

Jampine t1_j9zpvfw wrote

Well that's because the publishers pointed out it was racist, so he agreed and changed it.

Nowadays it's busybodies with too much spare time doctoring anything that might cause minor offences, long after his death, and the books have been in print for decades.

​

As a left wing person, it feels exactly like "wokescolds", people who are too busy trying to score the most progressive points by pointing out flaws of people on the left, and trying to drive them off, meanwhile right wing hate groups are just gathering more power.

54

CurseofLono88 t1_ja00xsm wrote

I’d honestly prefer it if instead of changing the words they’d just put an editor’s warning at the start of the book like some streaming services do for old outdated child’s shows and movies with harmful depictions

15

stomach t1_j9zxq60 wrote

the worst part is these MF's have spent absolutely zero time thinking about what their tiny portion of 'perfect', 'moral', perpetually online people are suppose to do to change anything once the dust settles and they've banished 95% of their own party from their ranks. i'd bet good money their voting participation records are well below average, too

13

cooldods t1_ja1zdv9 wrote

As a "leftist" it sure is weird that you're blaming this on the left.

It's a large corporation that disrespected a dead author because they wanted to increase their profits. How can you get any more capitalist than that?

−4

GreenCarnation404 t1_ja2shbt wrote

Keep spiraling

1

cooldods t1_ja33egu wrote

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Although if you had much of a point I'm sure you would have made it.

1

starfox_priebe t1_ja32qda wrote

People have difficulty differentiating liberal from left. Also there are plenty of leftists that would happily condemn Dahl's works for these reasons, but it seems more likely they would just advocate for books not written by a racist, rather than amending the works of a long dead person.

1

cooldods t1_ja339or wrote

That's arguing semantics.

The decision to rewrite these works was made by a profit driven corporation who didn't give a shit about the author's intentions, only their profits.

It's the very definition of right wing capitalism.

0

starfox_priebe t1_ja33qwo wrote

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm explaining to you that people don't differentiate between left and liberal, especially in the US.

1

cooldods t1_ja34mdf wrote

Thanks for that, I'm not from the US.

1

Mod_Accountability t1_j9zr5mc wrote

Dahl's bigotry is no secret. I don't know if that showed in his work, what of his has been "doctored"?

−15