<story><title>Roald Dahl: Original books to be kept in print following criticism</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64759118</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>nineplay</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m normally sympathetic to &amp;#x27;wokeisms&amp;#x27; but this sickens me.  A lot of the value of reading is in learning to expand your mind, expand your perceptive.  Take in the book, read it, make your own decisions on how to process it and how to feel about it.  This is flat-out reducing stories so that nobody learns anything more than what they already know.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve got plenty of issues with modern literature written to  confirm the readers opinions rather than challenge them.  Reducing books from the past to fit the same modern views just history-washing.  Let us all naively believe that all authors in the past have our same identical values so we are never challenged to look beyond them.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s revolting and frightening. No one is ever going to learn anything outside of their narrow world view if this trend continues, and I have a bad feeling that it will.  Who&amp;#x27;s next?   C.S. Lewis?  Tolkien?  I wouldn&amp;#x27;t be a bit surprised.&lt;p&gt;I would truly be happier if these books got censored.  Let them remain on the list of corrupting literature because at least then the bold reader can seek them out.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Blackstrat</author><text>There is absolutely no reason to ever revise any books this way.  If your delicate sensibilities are offended by the language, don&amp;#x27;t read the books.  Wokeness is a long walk down a short plank.  It leads to tyranny.  Read Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 while you still can.  That&amp;#x27;s the road we&amp;#x27;re on.</text></comment>
<story><title>Roald Dahl: Original books to be kept in print following criticism</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64759118</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>nineplay</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m normally sympathetic to &amp;#x27;wokeisms&amp;#x27; but this sickens me.  A lot of the value of reading is in learning to expand your mind, expand your perceptive.  Take in the book, read it, make your own decisions on how to process it and how to feel about it.  This is flat-out reducing stories so that nobody learns anything more than what they already know.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve got plenty of issues with modern literature written to  confirm the readers opinions rather than challenge them.  Reducing books from the past to fit the same modern views just history-washing.  Let us all naively believe that all authors in the past have our same identical values so we are never challenged to look beyond them.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s revolting and frightening. No one is ever going to learn anything outside of their narrow world view if this trend continues, and I have a bad feeling that it will.  Who&amp;#x27;s next?   C.S. Lewis?  Tolkien?  I wouldn&amp;#x27;t be a bit surprised.&lt;p&gt;I would truly be happier if these books got censored.  Let them remain on the list of corrupting literature because at least then the bold reader can seek them out.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>schwartzworld</author><text>While I don&amp;#x27;t agree with all the specifics of what terms they censored out, I do think there&amp;#x27;s something to be said for updating outdated &amp;#x2F; offensive terminology. Language changes, acceptable terminology changes. Kids books are chosen for kids by their parents. If research showed that parents didn&amp;#x27;t want to buy their kids books with the word &amp;quot;fat&amp;quot;, doesn&amp;#x27;t it make perfect sense to update it?&lt;p&gt;If Dahl was writing today, and his editor said they had to change some phrasing, of course he would have done it. The important thing is getting kids to read his marvelous stories, not insisting on some form of literary purity.</text></comment>