And now for what you've all been waiting for. I am going to indirectly weigh in on this Roald Dahl drama with a loose analogy and allow you to draw as many or as few parallels as you want. This topic has been exhaustively covered by now and I don't have any strong attachment to his books, so I will just say a few things about it up front. I think the revisions that were made range from slightly less descriptive insults ("enormously fat" becomes "enormous"), to patronizing cliches of the day (regarding a woman in the story, "cashier in a supermarket" becomes "top scientist"). Yes, we all know that women are and can continue becoming top scientists. And I love the implication that either you aren't capable of teaching your own kids that women can be both cashiers and scientists, or that being a cashier is such a lowly position to hold that you have to wipe it from the page. Funny either way.
In my case, it was those "Strange But True" collections, with UFOs and spontaneous combustion and the Mary Celeste. Those cost me some sleep...helped build my skeptical side, though. And got me into trouble at my (Christian) school when I shared them around and some fundy parent found out I'd been telling "ghost stories." (The Satanic Panic had mostly faded, but fear of "the occult" never dies out in the superstitious.)
What I hate about the Dahl hackjob is that it wasn't for any reason; just some pre-emptive blandening of their IP, so when they roll out the next round of adaptations, there's less chance of "controversy." Who cares about complexity and shades of grey; we have CONTENT to sell.
I have no idea how I found this substack but this is great -- SStTitD was a great intro to horror fiction, and was better-written per word than many so-called masters of the genre. How is it that the simple reveal that someone has a rat for a pet can be so horrifying, even if it has rabies? Or spiders hatching out of a boil on your face? Something about the combination of writing and art gave the horror an existential feeling, as if we were seeing child-sized versions of what made Lovecraft's narrators run mad.
However, as to the larger point I believe that we wrong everyone in the debate by taking it at face value. All such erasures and disembowelings appear motivated by something simpler and older -- the same impulse that makes conquerors in every age tear down the statues of the conquered gods and heroes. Nobody serious believes that black folk are so fragile that a statue of Robert E Lee will strike them blind, or that children (who learn active shooter drills) can't handle language about flea medicine making your dog explode. No, it is a simple desire to desecrate the vanquished -- an ugly old racist like Dahl and the defeated racists who love him should see his statues torn down, his books burned, his bones exhumed and scattered. When people respond with anger, we should not think them so attached to a few enormously fat characters or unpleasant turns of phrase, but rather see in them the rage of the beaten, those whose temples have been torn down and whose gods now are without home or name.
In my case, it was those "Strange But True" collections, with UFOs and spontaneous combustion and the Mary Celeste. Those cost me some sleep...helped build my skeptical side, though. And got me into trouble at my (Christian) school when I shared them around and some fundy parent found out I'd been telling "ghost stories." (The Satanic Panic had mostly faded, but fear of "the occult" never dies out in the superstitious.)
What I hate about the Dahl hackjob is that it wasn't for any reason; just some pre-emptive blandening of their IP, so when they roll out the next round of adaptations, there's less chance of "controversy." Who cares about complexity and shades of grey; we have CONTENT to sell.
I have no idea how I found this substack but this is great -- SStTitD was a great intro to horror fiction, and was better-written per word than many so-called masters of the genre. How is it that the simple reveal that someone has a rat for a pet can be so horrifying, even if it has rabies? Or spiders hatching out of a boil on your face? Something about the combination of writing and art gave the horror an existential feeling, as if we were seeing child-sized versions of what made Lovecraft's narrators run mad.
However, as to the larger point I believe that we wrong everyone in the debate by taking it at face value. All such erasures and disembowelings appear motivated by something simpler and older -- the same impulse that makes conquerors in every age tear down the statues of the conquered gods and heroes. Nobody serious believes that black folk are so fragile that a statue of Robert E Lee will strike them blind, or that children (who learn active shooter drills) can't handle language about flea medicine making your dog explode. No, it is a simple desire to desecrate the vanquished -- an ugly old racist like Dahl and the defeated racists who love him should see his statues torn down, his books burned, his bones exhumed and scattered. When people respond with anger, we should not think them so attached to a few enormously fat characters or unpleasant turns of phrase, but rather see in them the rage of the beaten, those whose temples have been torn down and whose gods now are without home or name.