[dagmx]

Yeah. Prior to their statement, there was basically no public discourse about the books being offensive.

Then the PR statement came out, and anti-woke people are up in arms about it, and everyone else is going “huh that’s just weird to do”.

I feel like it surely has to be just a push to get the books back in the public mindshare if sales were slipping.

[rsynnott]

Yeah, I’m not sure peoples’ primary concern with Dahl was with the _books_.

[bluescrn]

It's not about the specific books, it's about the principle of people other than the author rewriting books, whether fiction or non-fiction, to fit with present-day politics and sensitivities.

Should we edit Shakespeare to remove all that hard-to-read 'olde English'? Maybe edit Romeo and Juliet to give it a happier ending, and get rid of that nasty violence with daggers and poison? (that's much worse than Roald Dahl describing characters as 'fat' or 'female' isn't it?)

[tstrimple]

> Should we edit Shakespeare to remove all that hard-to-read 'olde english'?

It's been done. Multiple times. Yet somehow we didn't have the same sort of performative outrage.

[dagmx]

Not only has Shakespeare been rewritten many times, many of the rewrites are used academically. Many are even better received.

Hell, even the bible has been rewritten multiple times with lots of infighting about what the right version is.

[giraffe_lady]

Even if it is it's not the sort of thing you can remove by changing a few words.

I liked his books quite a lot as a kid, and haven't prevented any children in my care from accessing them. But on revisiting as an adult there is a kind of... meanspiritedness to them. It's hard to describe but almost like, spiritual viciousness or a deep nasty pessimism about people.

Part of this may be why they appeal to children anyway. I didn't consciously notice as a kid but I suspect they registered as slightly transgressive in some way, and were alluring for that reason. Anyway none of the edits really address that, or could. To a significant extent that feeling is a fundamental part of the books and can't be removed.

[cld8483]

> there is a kind of... meanspiritedness to them. It's hard to describe but almost like, spiritual viciousness or a deep nasty pessimism about people.

Yes, I felt this way about his books when I was a kid. I did like the books despite it, but there was always an element of grotesque cruelty to his books that I didn't particularly care for.

Still, removing that from the books is wrong. Read different books, or write your own books. Editing his books to remove the author's distinctive style is just plain wrong. What's the objective, to trick kids into thinking Roald Dahl was a different sort of man? To what end? Whatever the problem, deception is not the answer.

[rsynnott]

> Part of this may be why they appeal to children anyway. I didn't consciously notice as a kid but I suspect they registered as slightly transgressive in some way, and were alluring for that reason.

Oh, yeah, that is absolutely why they were so popular. This is arguably an example of what TVTropes calls "Seinfeld is unfunny" (the inventor of a new style of media seems derivative or at least uninteresting to modern audiences); today it maybe doesn't stand out so much, but Dahl was probably the first modern childrens' writer to write stuff like this.

[dagmx]

Yeah even his biographical books (Boy and Going Solo) had that style of writing.

Personally I didn’t mind it. A lot of British comedic writing and entertainment was similar in vein. There’s a lot of emphasis places on barbed wit in a lot of their media (even as far back as Shakespeare), and I think Dahl essentially took that and formed it into a kids book.

Even when I was a child though, I felt any mean spritidness was always directed in a way towards the antagonist or received from a bully. It was largely in adversarial relationships. Maybe I misremember though.

Either way, I think his overall stories are almost always so incredibly charming , coupled with Quentin Blake’s wonderful art, that they’re a must read for children.

[wara23arish]

Kind of a tangent, but is it fair to define ppl up in arms about this as “anti-woke”?

Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc

Whereas nobody I talked to who opposed these changes would consider themselves “anti-woke”.

Im not trying to pick a bone with you, but I’ve been lately thinking about a common trope where if someone opposes a change/policy , they get labeled “anti-this” or the worst is they get hit with a question of “why do you care” Where the goal isn’t to debate the merits of the change but simply shun the other person.

(also it definitely happens from both sides)

[yamazakiwi]

Anyone that uses terminology like "woke" or "anti-woke" to label others is not concerned with what a fair definition of a person is until they themselves are targeted. I would go further to say most people don't consider what is fair when defining people in general. 99% of people who get called "woke" don't consider themselves "woke" or even use the word so I assume the same to be true of whatever the hell "anti-woke" is supposed to mean.

Maybe the problem you're trying to point out is that, like most labels, anti-thing leaves no nuance. To what level is a person against something? Are they questioning that thing to gain better understanding? Or are they trying to justify their bias?

[nemo44x]

> Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc

Maybe in your mind but not mine. Good liberals are anti-woke because woke is anti-liberal. It's a coercive force that any decent person should be against. At least anyone who critically examines it and the methods it uses to manipulate and gain unjust and unearned power over others.

[wara23arish]

I think societally, at least from popular media that’s what I understand.

I personally agree with you wholeheartedly but I think your opinion is in the minority

[giraffe_lady]

Conflating liberalism with moral decency is why we oppose y'all to begin with, btw.

[nemo44x]

Woke's are completely morally incoherent and no better than the Catholic inquisitors. Just a godless and soulless version of it suited to the modern day as it's people that think they are an authority on morality and decency and have some special insight into it that legitimizes their coercive methods to assume a better perch, without merit, in the social hierarchy they claim to hate.

People like you have always existed, suited in different skins, based on whatever gullible plebs could fall for or cowards could be frightened into.

[giraffe_lady]

Well you definitely have that certainty of your own righteousness we all know and love.

It's funny that you mention religion, because yes I am a christian and so I understand that one day I will stand before god in judgement of my actions. I have no certainty that I am able to do what is required of me, only that I must try and this is what drives me to fight for "the least of these." Why do you lick the boot?

[dagmx]

you reversed my sentence. I didn’t say everyone who was up in arms was anti-woke, I said anti-woke people were up in arms.

That’s not a label I’m applying to them without their consent. It’s a term they use themselves as a matter of pride.

I did also mention that other people found it odd too, which was meant to imply that nobody was really for this change.

[wara23arish]

I guess the crux of what Im saying is

can you be up in arms but not be considered anti-woke?

I get what you’re trying to say, I just wonder how many people decided not to be up in arms about this and other subjects similar to this and decided to keep quiet so they would not be considered anti-woke.

I say this cause in my work env, people are heavily pushing language shift recommendations and it seems like nobody dares speak up about it (me included) to stay polite/be considered part of the good ones. But in reality most people are not for the change at all.

And it’s usually a minority of people pushing for changes like this.

[yamazakiwi]

At the end of the day it sounds like you're trying to do what you think is right but are worried about becoming a pariah. These conversations can be hard because they're built upon core feelings about human behavior and what is "better" for us.

If the problem is that you want to have a thoughtful conversation about an issue but are worried about being labelled, first identify if being thoughtful or critical is the what the group wants or has the propensity to do. If you're lucky then you will be around people willing to have a discussion and can frame a lot of the conversation around you filling in your understanding (when in fact you're trying to get others to start thinking critically). Asking a lot of questions about the results of outcomes is also a great way to stop people from auto-piloting into popular opinions.

[dagmx]

“Up in Arms” implies a furor about the response. The definition is “protesting vigorously”.

It seems like you’re conflating objecting to something with being up in arms about it.

A reasoned objection is very different than the over the top reaction from some people, even on here, saying “wokeness is the end of literary freedom etc”. Analyzing it on a case by case basis vs jumping to extreme conclusions based on one’s biases.

[cld8483]

> Kind of a tangent, but is it fair to define ppl up in arms about this as “anti-woke”? Im basing this on the fact that anti-woke usually is considered right-wing/libertarian etc

You're right that one of these is unfair, but it is the latter not the former. "Woke" is the progressive fringe, not the mainstream. Opposition to woke is a set that includes both the moderate mainstream and the right fringe. Liberal enlightenment values, which represent the moderate majority today, are distinctly "anti-woke".

[petsfed]

I wonder if part of the problem is a confusion of meaning for "woke", coupled with a tendency to misuse moderate criticism as full-throated support for the extreme opposition.

The classic liberal stance is "don't be shitty to people", and, in turn, "call out people for being shitty". But "shitty" is pretty subjective, and it runs the gamut from "going out of your way to be specifically, personally aggressive and hurtful" to "using a word that in a different context might potentially be understood as critical to someone". It seems like the most vocally anti-woke people clutch their pearls in equal dismay for any attempt at avoiding either case.

I think there is a performative element to a lot of "woke" efforts, but I have to be very careful about saying that, lest I inadvertently carry water for someone who wants to use my words to justify racial slurs or deliberate mis-gendering or any number of other things that I think are shitty. It should not be "this self-described liberal said that 'woke' is performative, therefore there's no real objection to me calling black people [racial slur]".

[jonathanlb]

> Liberal enlightenment values [...] are distinctly "anti-woke".

How so? Enlightenment values include the commitment to universal human dignity and the rejection of prejudice and discrimination. This is consistent with the goals of social justice movements.

[cld8483]

There is nothing liberal about censoring books. Stripping the word "fat" out of children's books is progressive, but certainly not liberal, and certainly not mainstream.

[PeterisP]

Enlightenment values place rejection of prejudice and discrimination far lower than the ability to express things freely even if these things contain prejudice and discrimination - e.g. "The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech." by Voltaire.

[lern_too_spel]

The changes were meaningless. Things like "fat" to "enormous." If you called a obese person "enormous," they would find it more offensive, not less. The only people who would care are culture warriors, and they predictably made enough of a stink to make this marketing campaign work out just fine.