OK fine I'm talking about the Roald Dahl book changes 

I wonder if the concern and backlash had not been so vocal, if the publisher would have continued the published the original editions alongside the revised editions. Tangentially, the three works were brought to my mind as I was watching this video: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. Firstly, we have (as you mentioned in the video), living authors making revisions to their own works. Mary Shelley, less than fifteen years after the original publication, revised and republished Frankenstein to align it to her worldview at it had changed personally and socially, impacting the backstory of Elizabeth Lavenza, the culpability of Victor Frankenstein, and expanded upon the beginning of the novel. The revised 1831 edition seems to be the more widely read edition, which would make for an interesting discussion between readers who read the original versus the revised. Secondly, we have abridged editions of works. The Count of Monte Cristo is the massive 19th-century French revenge novel that, had I not realized it many years later, I had read an abridged version of in high school. While digging into it, it looks like the abridgments seems to have stemmed from the translation from French to English back in the mid-19th century. Finally, we have The Picture of Dorian Gray: a work that, only recently, was published with the "uncensored" version in 2011 that includes text and scenes that were deleted by Wilde's editor at the time that were deemed too risqué. All that said, I agree that having conversations, whether with your children or even with other adults, about the complexities and challenges of literature (or art in general) is the best way forward and to improve. Unfortunately, in relation to the Roald Dahl revisions, it seems to be reflective of society's at-large tendency to take everything at surface level rather than diving into and exploring the nuance.

Imagine if Shakespeare was revised every 25 years to conform to the social mores of each successive generation.

Censorship will never be the right thing to do. Perhaps putting warning labels on content that actually deserves it may be warranted, but censoring is never good. Censorship is the same as cowardice; it is for people who are afraid of being challenged. We need to allow history to be learned, rather than be non-existent. Content should always be experienced as it was initially intended. People should be able to learn without that education being forced fed or edited. Doesn't matter if you are progressive or conservative or whatever. Allow people the freedom of choice and at most just warn them, not restrict.

When I die, I will be leaving an imperative for my family and estate. If they ever change a word of my published texts, they are to remove my name from the work and replace it with their own. Posthumous changes to works of art make that work not the author's. If a work of art loses relevance, or is just plain offensive, then let that art fade from existence.

Cleaning up offensive books is actually harmful in my opinion because it's important to realize that these opinions existed and to understand how they came to be. How else are you ready to recognize signs of opinions drifting into a similar direction? Censoring the bad parts of history is a sure way of having it repeat itself

I think there's also a bit of "now" bias-i.e., this idea that we've finally evolved; we're able to see things clearly and revise these older books to reflect a certain universally appropriate standard. However, it's a moving target. We're blind to things that may greatly offend in the years to come. Do we continually update the language of every significant work every 40 years or so? I think sensitivity editors are a great thing, but I'm leary about the people who assume they're uniquely qualified for such a monumental task. "I see the world as it is. I'm more empathetic than thou." We all have our blind spots. And the biggest blind spot we have (in my opinion) is the time we live in.

I love that you do this kind of deep dive into important topics. I follow a lot of BookTubers, but your channel is special as it's the only one that tackles this kind of topic, and with this kind of depth. Thank you for what you do!

I hated the changes made by Penguin / Puffin. For one, it is extremely unethical to impose such drastic changes on an author's work (who is deceased and can't object) while still retaining copyright and the author's name. That should be illegal - it's a clear breach of the editing standards. Two, those who bought e-books of Dahl found their versions were updated to the new versions. That's unacceptable. Three, so what if literature is offensive? It's truly not the end of the world. The fact sensitivity reading has been so mainstreamed is extremely concerning. Dahl had a peculiar tone, but overall, his books are not Mein Kampf.

It reminds me of the old saw 'If you want to have a heart problem, see a cardiologist.' If you hire a company based on inclusiveness thay will find all kinds of anti-ist-isms. On a similar note, they decided just not to publish several Dr. Seuss books with questionable artwork rather than try to edit it.

You can burn books, put them on banned-books lists or rewrite them. It's all bad because censorship is bad. "I tell you what to think" is bad. Greetings from Berlin Andy 💁🏼‍♀️💞

Excellent presentation! We are forgetting the essential art of critical thinking and even taking it away. Who will make the decision what and where to censor? An ongoing topic for sure. Thank-you!

There used to be a tradition where classic books were shortened - (Readers Digest) where classics were changed and to some degreed sanetized (censored). The difference was that it was cleared that this was stated that it was a chanhed/shorted and as such indeed a large clif note version - it is not the orginal.

I like that take about them not accomplishing anything. The problem is the metaphor - body shape standing in for some moral meaning, character flaw etc - and metaphors are elaborate architectures in a story that can't be undone by removing "fat." That's probably even worse, because then the metaphor becomes even more covert, wheres, "fat," can serve as a red flag for a whole worldview. We're still being fed this questionable use of metaphors, but we don't have to really examine what underlies that because we can feel good about ourselves for reading a book with the word fat removed for our own comfort ..... Random plug for the Neverending story, by Michael Ende - When bastion goes to fantasia, he's able to make wishes and almost immediately wishes away his fat body. When he finally finds his way out of fantasia, there's a fountain that turns him back into himself, and it's this cute image of a fat kid splashing around in a fountain, finally happy to be himself. That book is amazing. My personal pet peeve is teeth. For a number of reasons - access socioeconomics etc etc - a few people in my family have needed a bit of dental work later in life. And that equating of imperfect teeth with flawed character is literally a medieval worldview.

The problem with changes of historical work is that they are changed according to our current understanding of morality. There are more complicated questions like "who even decides what is moral", but I want to ask slightly a different question: "Are we that arrogant to assume that our current moral landscape is the pinnacle of human species ?" Maybe in 100 years, people will look back and label us some kind of "-ist" , because we do something that we think is progressive, but not accepted in the future. In 200 years something else would need editing. Keep editing historical works until they basically become unrecognisable to the original. I am really worried that if I get to decide to read an old work to get a feel how it was like to live in the past, I am out of luck. It might be possible to dive into history with specific history books (that's a different conversation along the lines that history is written by the victors), but the censorship culture does not help for sure. What about the famous "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" ? I am okay when authors themselves greenlight the changes. But leave history to be the history please. If you want to fix our current social issues, promote the relevant works instead of changing the existing. You can always, you know, give children the books you think are good and safe. P.S. I love your videos. You always make me think carefully. You are the only youtuber I know who actually compiled the changes instead of blindly saying "changes are bad"

Revised books should have warnings on the cover to make it clear the words have been changed from what the author intended (let's assume a case where the author has died). It's weird to sell both versions in a bookstore and not be able to easily tell which is which...

Incredible video as alwasy! One thing I think about within this conversation is how fairytales and fables changed ALL the time. My mum read me rumplestilskin when I was a kid and when she got to the part where he tears himself in two, she changed it a loud to "aannnnddd he ran away and was never seen again..." Later versions of these stories DID sensitize them to make them less brutal, scary, racist, etc. And I think thats okay (So long as the original is accessible for historical research, curiosity, or for those parents who feel like their kids can handle it/want to use it as a teaching tool.) To completely get rid of one version in favour of another is where I draw the line. Humans have to be able to choose for themselves the kinds of media they digest and let their kids digest. Some parents are perfectly fine letter their kids watch The Simpsons, other parents think its too mature. Similarly, some parents withhold reading scary stories for their kids, others believe kids can handle it. Similar, some parents will prefer the "censored" versions of books over the original, and other parents won't mind reading the original. And at the end of it all, I think this is a decision the parent needs to make, not the publisher, not the government, and not "society." Again I think about Grimm's fairytales. They printed 4 versions of the stories. The first was censored, then the people outcried and a 2nd edition put the stories back to their original brutal forms. Later versions have changed and softened aspects. Then of coarse there's the Disney adaptations that changed even more elements (some for good; some for not so good). My point is this is that changing children's stories to reflect the society times is a very common, centuries old practice. Having it happen to Dahl, tells me he's "made it" from children's author to modern fairytale storyteller.. and thats kinda neat when you think about it!

Pandora's Box burst open. Protect and hide your "old" books!!!! Being a history buff...I've seen this before. Over re-action? We'll see...🤔 You can also include all the re-imaginings that are so popular today. I agree with you (from a previous video), why not just write a NEW story!!! If they want a more inclusive story, why not write it? Find a clean page, go fill it! is there a such a thing as sneaky (soft) censorship?

Such a great discussion in your video! It really rubs me the wrong way that those works are being altered, it's like changing history. I personally always found Roald Dahl's works quite weird and even as a kid made me uncomfortable, but to just change stuff like that without the consent of the author feels like a weird form of sheltering, and it is definitely a form of censorship

The fact that we believe that we know enough in our time to change the past is a major point to make against the censorship. We, as humans will change our way of thinking often and changing the books of dead authors to fit our current world-view is very pretentious .

I have been offended. I too have been hurt by words. Today even; but then I work on getting the funk over it and moving on with my day

Bravo! Spot on! You deserve a bigger platform (in general 😉) so more people could hear and consider what you have to say about this. You absolutely express the emotional sentiments of a great many of us, whilst to acknowledge disparate perspectives, and arrive at a place of sense, or wisdom so cohesively is masterful. Cheers!

You articulated your feelings on this well! I couldn’t have said it better myself, and you said things that I couldn’t articulate! I think this is a great topic of discussion and absolutely needs to be discussed. Censorship is a dangerous slope. Some things I do agree need to be censored, especially for children, but I feel there is a line. The author’s intent should be brought into consideration and considering he is not here to approve the changes, it’s hard to know what he would have wanted. But here I think they do go too far, and it feels like something they did in order to be “woke”, possibly?

Wow. Thanks for this video. I knew the general story about the changes, but had not seen the details, and…wow. They are, in large part, stupid. I get the underlying premise - the overall picture of people and society in books is subconsciously teaching children what is normal, acceptable, and to some extent true. This really speaks to the point you made about needing to talk to our children about things as you read them to provide context and to teach values. I think of myself as a young reader, though, and I didn’t just accept what I read as correct. I grew up in the 70s, so there was much written that would be considered offensive, now. I didn’t just take that and internalize it as how things should be. The values instilled in me by my parents informed how I reacted to what I read. that is the main truth for me. The problems of stigmatizing, labeling, discrimination, etc. come more from parents teaching reprehensible views to their children, not from books. Changing “offensive” books won’t fix that. In the end, our children are more resilient and discerning than we credit. There are two things that particularly offend me about these changes. First, how poorly done they are. Seriously, any change to an author’s work is fraught with risk that the editor isn’t understanding what they are editing. Humor, sarcasm, shaded meanings, and many other complexities and nuances of any written work may not be understood by the person editing and changes can destroy the intent of the author. The changes that you showed are awkward, stilted, and lack Dahl’s irreverent voice. They exude politically correct insincerity that I think most kids will see right through. The text reads as if written by a committee. These are not sensitive changes that retain the character of the original. Second, how does a publisher have a legal right to do this to a deceased author’s works? How can they make changes and retain his name as the author making it look like he wrote those words? Are they in the public domain, now? I find it unethical. If there is a book that by it’s nature is unacceptably offensive (yeah, don’t ask me to define that, but I mean something like, promoting the holocaust as good, or a how-to on rape) then don’t publish it. For other books, like Dahl’s, if there is concern, then maybe include a forward providing context and some discussion. Beyond that, books should be allowed to succeed or fail based on readers’ opinions. If a publisher wants to keep making money off an author’s work, then publish it as written. If people find it offensive, they can choose not to buy it. That is the worry driving these changes, in my cynical view, worry of controversy or negative press leading to decreased sales, and they don’t want to lose sales. They are treating a work of creation/art as a commodity. The worst part is the ham-handed changes seriously lessen the work without doing anything substantial to address the purported concerns.

11:07 - I feel the new version is actually more likely to potentially cast a negative light or subconscious bias on women as a whole, because it removes the clarification that - despite the fact that all witches are women - not all women are witches. The whole point of the original passage[ at least as far as I can tell without reading it in more context] was to make it clear that you really can't suspect a woman of being a witch just for being a woman, even though if you ever do encounter a witch then that witch will undoubtedly be female. And if you're worried about the word "lovely" being taken to mean 'physically pretty to look at' and not 'perfectly wonderful/respectable people to be around' or such... _^sighs^_ I can't even begin to dig into that one with a ten foot pole. ((And, as far as I can tell, that's much the same with the later passage about gloves or wigs or such too-like the original version is saying that you can't just target any random person, because if you treat people this way without any actual reason and are wrong about them there will[ quite rightly] be negative consequences for having targeted them so unjustly.))

This is such a well written and clearly presented discussion of the topic. Much appreciated. Thank you!💕

1. What is with the librarian thinking it's her job to protect the world from "oppression?" That's a censorious mindset. 2. Sensitivity reading is TOTALLY different from authors doing research. Authors choose to do research for the benefit of their characters. Sensitivity readers are forced on authors by publishers trying to cover their asses. 3. The idea that only people who are in a particular group can judge "sensitivity" gives outsized power to people who aren't authors or editors. All sensitivity readers do is push their own political agendas. If they want to do that, they should write their own material, not use others' work as an avenue for their ideas.

Fantastic content as always. I'm so glad you addressed this topic, and you handled it extremely well. btw the comment section is reflective of the quality of your videos. It's always such a great discussion here and I always read all the comments. My general take on this kind of topic is usually, if you don't like a piece of art, make your own. We need more creators, not more editing of other creators' work. I can see some nuance in some situations, but in this particular example? I find it hard to believe anyone who takes history and literature seriously would engage in this type of nonsense. And being against this type of editing is in no way supportive of any kind of attack on inclusiveness. There are simply far, far better ways to achieve that worthy goal.

This is a fantastic video. The two books you dropped I have to read. “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria” I need

You made an interesting statement about writers use experts when it comes to science and biology for example. I agree with you nothing wrong with also using experts about culture and people when you are creating a NEW book. I totally in favour of more inclusion of all kinds of people in tv series, films, books and society in general. However I want it to feel natural and not to be politically correct. So if people want TV series that are more inclusive create them, make your own world with your own story and have inclusion in it from the bottom up. Do not take an old story and change it just so it is more inclusive. I personally find it cheap that they rebooted Charmed and now made the story about three black sisters. You take something that has proven itself and now recycle it so you can say: "look how inclusive we are". If you think a tv series about three black sisters has potential than it also deserves its own original story instead of it being based or inspired by an other series. If something you desire to depict is not in your source material. Create your own new source that takes into account what you want there to be depicted. That is what writers do today, they are making books where kids have two mothers or fathers, there are books about gender, there are books with more racial inclusion and there are books where the disability is also positively displayed. Writers saw the gaps and started to fill them in. That is in my opinion the answer to wanting to be inclusive. With the news about the changes to Roald Dahl's story reaching the Netherlands there were also some examples of how publishers changed books. A very famous series from the 1950's for example is still very popular to this day. However certain things like a coal storage/cellar do not exist anymore so they changed it to cellar since that is something that kids still understand. They did not change the premise they just made sure kids are still able to understand the story. I think that such changes are okay since they allow for stories to last. However you should not do it with every book since reading older books is also a nice way to understand how society was and has changed over the years. Especially if you talk about it wigh your children you can help them understand what is written in those books and how it relates to today.

While I agree we should do better in terms of representation and not perpetuating stereotypes, we shouldn't do it by erasure, but by writing new, better books. But here's the kicker, they've 1984'ed: 1. the james bond books (which are for adults), 2. the goosebumps books (without alerting the author, who's alive and well), 3. the entire catalogue of ladybird fairytales, Those are just the ones we know about. Just saying, this slope is beginning to feel real slippery.

I grew up with Dahl, Tolkien, Blyton and patrick o'brian- two of whom are now being edited and one of whom is criticised. I think we should take note of how we have evolved as a society but- censorship is not the way to do that. If reading a book with children that has language that is no longer appropriate then have the discussion afterwards with the child about why that language would no longer be used?

With the Roald Dahl books I feel the whole thing was also a publicity stunt. They were very quick to say they will release both editions and even had covers ready to show for both of them. On another note: I think there are indeed problems with some of the tropes of Dahl books but these are in the core of the books so they can not be changed without completely rewriting the book. (which they might have tried to do based on your examples. 🙂) I think as long as you talk to your kids and also let them read more modern books with other takes on these issues they will be fine. And I also agree: I've been reading quite some of the Roald Dahl books as bedtime stories the last year or so and the very outrageous parts are what my son really likes. (Oh my god, the principal used someones braid to catapult them into the air.)

Imo, the bottom line is very clear. When an artist creates art, that is their artistic expression. If a person doesn’t like that art, they are free to not consume it. Other people ethically should not touch that work. I don’t think you should even be able to change things that you are “morally” right about. A writer carefully chooses the words they use to express not only their opinions, but the opinions of the characters they are attempting to portray. Kurt Vonnegut describes one of his characters as fat “as big as a house” in slaughterhouse five. That observation later made the book so much more powerful when the character talks about how much he loves his wife (the fat woman) be cause you realize with the character that what’s inside a person is so much more important than what’s on the outside. He describes their relationship as mostly happy their entire life, and for that he loves her. Cut the offending words, the human words and you steal the power of the book. That example aside, if it isn’t your art, keep your damn hands off it.

The worst thing you do with censorship is taking away agency from the reader. Not always an update is bad, but currently we seem to be forcing a certain worldview into everything. And at that point it's, in my opinion at least, well, the opinion of the person rewriting the story. I would rather have them write a commentary on the book, adding footnotes and what not, instead of determining what it is that you are allowed to read. And what opinions you should have. Besides, if you want to avoid hurting anyone's feeling you will have an extremely dull book.

Just write new books that don't have those issues.

Your points are cogent and trenchant. Brava. Regarding censorship and bowdlerizing older books etc. - Correcting errors is necessary to present a better book and is not censorship or bowdlerizing. Copyediting is entirely ethical, and improves the work. It is not ethical to change published work. If you don't like a given book, don't read it. Better yet, try to write a better one. Altering past work to conform to contemporary mores is ridiculous. It's akin to the hare-brained plan to remove all the scenes with smoking from 1940s Noir movies. To what end? To protect people from seeing others smoking? Absurd. Also, be it noted that showing an old film with lots of smoking in it in no way whatsoever promotes or condones such a practice. It's simply a record of how things were. Further, worse, as Orwell’s 1984 depicted, rewriting history and expunging any fact not approved hourly by a fascist regime is how they steal from us our heritage, replacing it with their ideology. You don’t expunge racist hate by removing all mention of the KKK. Quite the contrary, as disgusting and infuriating as it may be, only the open acknowledgement of all the facts, appalling and despicable, can keep us from being led by haters into repeating the crimes and horrors of the past. We must remember the bad and own the past taints in order to avoid them in the future, in order to do better. There is no such things as Positive Censorship. Education, context, cognizance is necessary. When I was in fourth grade our teacher brought in a town cop dressed in full KKK regalia. He stood silently in front of us for five minutes, then left. We were told, “I just wanted you to know they’re still out there, protecting us.” Most of the kids didn’t know what had just happened, but I’d recognized both the KKK costume and the cop inside it - I spotted his voice trousers, which had a dark stripe down the outside of the leg, and his shoes. I knew the guy. Anyway, I trudged to the public library after school let out and borrowed books on the KKK, to confirm that what we’d been shown was in fact evil, or at least dark. When the librarian tried to tell me I was too young to borrow such material, my mother marched in later that evening and read her the riot act, defending my right to read any book I wished and to inform myself on any topic that interested me. Brava for her, a great person, small as she was. That's where books come in. Yes, you'll find asides, passages, and full-book attitudes that strike modern readers as racist, misogynist, and hateful. In some cases, the writers were bigots, yes. In other books, received wisdom and unexamined social stances seeped into the work without malice on the part of the writer, who might be characterized as unaware. Again, if a work, any kind of art, offends you, avoid it. Suppressing it only makes YOU into the fascist. Censorship is always futile and repugnant to cultured people. To defy and counter negative words, positive words are required. Shouting down or muzzling only creates higher pressure that builds until it explodes in a backlash. Words are water and water doesn't compress. To bowdlerize any work, be it removing words, rewriting passages, or hiding the penises and pubic hair on statues behind a carved fig leaf, is philistine thuggery. Burning books and destroying art carries such anti-intellectual hatred of art and culture to the logical extremes of pure madness. The Fig Leaf Campaign arose from the Council of Trent in 1563 C.E., with each succeeding Pope joining in the defacing of art on homophobic and anti-sex grounds, until Pope Pius IX in 1857 ordered all statues of nudes destroyed, which led to statue penises being broken off and, strangely, not destroyed but hoarded in the Vatican. A room few would want to enter … A state of mindless dismissal of human values few would wish to experience, the sort of actions only tyrants engage in. Seems I stand foursquare against censorship and bowdlerizing in favor of tolerance, rational avoidance of what bothers, and assessments of art and literature based on long-term cultural context, not the strident shrieking of phony moral crusaders from this or that era.

One if the author is no longer with us then their work should be left alone. Two changing things in books from the past to make it “ politically correct” misses teaching and learning opportunities that could be used to discuss the topics. Third they can always make a disclaimer at the front of the book with warnings if needed. If we start to censure things we don’t like eventually the things we like will be censured. I am also a believer that if a parent has a concern with a book then he/she should read the book either before allowing their child to read it or read it together and use that time as a window to discuss the hard topics that might be brought up.

Those who forget history...

I prefer the idea of promoting new material over altering existing work for children and schoolwork, theres so many books published every year theres no need for static reading lists. I liked your point about patent/ teacher to student discussion about problomatic material and rhink that is a better approach than sanitization. In terms of the mainstream I think the orginal text of the book is important in recognizing its message and context which needn't be agreed with or promoted by th he reader, I think santising books inhibits facing diffcult questions about past attitudes and behaviors. Almost like removing a consequence and theregore the lesson attached. Trigger warnings can also be effectively used to prevent harm to people who may experoence trauma with the attached material but then again I think all media ahould warn of triggering content.

Great video as always Hillary. I don't have much else to say, except that censorship is malefic and shouldn't even be a thing.

Imagine writing some of the most popular books in the world. Exciting, risk taking, story telling genius for the publishing company that printed the books to edit that writing. Rohl Dahl wrote those books. End of. The ridiculous and strong virtue signalling for sole business profit making reasons is insane. How anyone can be for this is insane.

Hopefully they will clearly label the cover of something. Like .. *_book title_* _revised edition_ / *_book title_* _original edition_ (Or something along those lines) ..so, that way, even people not already in the know can be aware that there is a difference and be alerted that they may need to ask a bookstore employee or look into it themselves before making a purchase choice themself.

These changes don't feel just like censorship , these changes feel more like an attack on the character or style of these books. Generally any change after the writers death is wrong. If you wanted to add current day values/ historical context there are so many other options. There is always the appendixes or addendums or even an index at the end! Then there is Princess Bride type style. Where a book is "rewritten" in the style of a loving grandparent reading the book and "skipping to the good parts". Knowing that they choose to ignore all those options, only to change the weirdest things, then to put minimal writing effort into the changes made, just makes it feel like an attack on the work. I wish I knew other books this company worked on to "update" so I could buy the originals and protect them.

In my view, this changing of the author’s words without their consent (the family or trust don’t count, imo) is wrong for several reasons. A much better approach would be to add a forward that explains the context of the book and how it is viewed at the time the book was printed. That would preserve both time periods’ ideas without distorting the historical record that books (even children’s books) are. By the way, a great example of an author revising their text to make it tamer (4:54) is Frankenstein. The original 1818 text was later edited by the author and most copies now available are the later version, with a forward by Mary Shelley explaining her changes. Thanks for a well done video on this topic!

One more comment. Came up in a discussion. What about places like Amazon who stealth editing ebooks, even those already purchased? That's been going on for a while.

I am against censorship, bannings, burnings and what have you, regardless of supposed justification. As to older titles, one of the pleasures of reading older material is being exposed to different wordings and perspectives than what we encounter today. Translations of non-English titles can be a bit more lax, since many "foreign" words and phrases can have multiple legit English equivalents. But even there the author's original intent should not be altered. Besides, foreign titles, especially "classics", often have multiple translations, allowing us to pick and choose what suits us.

This is completely pathetic. If it is already public domain, they could do it as long as the author's name is not there and they explain that they did that because they are a bunch of sensitive people who can't handle something written on a piece of paper.

Progressive towards what? What’s the end destination?

It’s easy to find fault in the past. I imagine that in 20 years from now that there will be media made today that we will find cringeworthy and offensive but today we don’t. I think it’s more important to have discussions about how our perspectives changed rather than change the media itself. On random side note, for those who are concerned about what their kids are reading in the library maybe they should be more concerned about the media their child is accessing on their phone, because I can guarantee it’s probably more explicit than what’s in the school library.

I know a little late to this, but overall my view is is the change changing something central to the text itself or is it about updating with times. Similar to how Goose Bumbs is updating verbage. Descriptions of characters being changed isnt harming the text. But if it is central to text or character development than i would say it needs to stay.

Nancy Drew, Roald Dahl, and now James Bond novels.

Couldn't they have hired an author to write a new book based on the character and make it more modern in tone? I think that would be preferable. They could have changed the name and enough other elements to still be a viable book.

I’m completely against changing the language used in an existing work. Sensitivity reading is fine and can be helpful but the time to address these issues is during the editing process or, in the case of an older book where the author is no longer living, in the preface or forward. You’re absolutely right about it being a slippery slope. Where does it end? And who gets to decide? I am the daughter of a librarian so censorship was a frequently discussed topic in our house. My mother was firmly against it. History can be instructive, she said. There is value in seeing what we came from and how we have evolved. There is value in reading something and asking oneself, “Do I agree with this?” I myself am frequently appalled and outraged by the misogyny present within fantasy and sci books but I would not for one minute advocate editing the already published text. It would be much better to include a forward or an author Q&A at the end in which they are asked about any issues present in the book. If the author has problems with gender, ethnicity, weight, etc. it’s far better for the reader to know that about them. Know who you’re supporting, in other words. I’m very late in commenting so I don’t know if you will even see this, but in any case, great video!

_"Your daughter Vanessa, judging by what she's learnt this term, has no hearing-organs at all"_ ....uhhmm, as far as I can tell, this entire sentence is trying to say that Venessa has seemingly learned nothing all term(..in a way that should only be true if she completely lacked the ability to hear what was being taught at all). It has literally nothing to do with anything being "interesting" or not.🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️ And, at least without a lot more surrounding context, the newer version is bordering on completely nonsensical and basically doesn't even say anything at all-I mean, *"Judging by what your daughter Vanessa has learnt this term, this fact alone is more interesting than anything I have taught in the classroom"* ? ..like. . What exactly does it mean by using the words 'this fact' there? WHICH 'fact', exactly, does it refer to? I mean, if we had said 'Judging by what Venessa _hasn't_ learnt this term', maybe *then* we could actually infer that the fact she's learned nothing is itself the 'fact' which is of interest[ or note] here-but how did what is or isn't being taught in class get brought into it!? Did we mention something previously that the student clearly cared more about in their distraction than learning whatever was or wasn't actually being taught?? 🤔 Or, perhaps if we had said only 'this' and not 'this fact', maybe that fact would make it clear that whatever ambiguously can or can't be judged of what Venessa has or hasn't learnt this term is itself the "this" which is somehow of relevant interest to them here[ /in general].?🤔🤔 I dunno!. 🙃😅 🤷 🤣 There is definitely something odd about some of these newer versions, and about what exactly these newer sentences are or aren't actually saying; and it's not just that it's being articulated with archaic phrasing or attemptedly archaic sensibilities, or such. BUT - that being said - I actually kind of disagree about the newer versions you specifically pointed out as "clunky" shortly before this. At least, to me, 'clunky' refers to how well or sensibly something does or doesn't "flow" grammatically-speaking .. OR how well it does or doesn't "flow" when actually delivering/speaking the words, either silently or out loud. I personally find the archaic style of articulation found in most of the originals far clunkier and far more awkward to wrap both my mind and my mouth around than those particular newer versions which you specifically pointed out as allegedly being clunky and awkward[ to you]; like, the guy definitely has a way of going about wording things which is not so typical of more current times, I think!!. (But I'm not saying that's automatically a bad thing, just observing that it takes me personally some deliberate adjusting to it before I can read or understand it very smoothly myself.) However, I still agree with you that some of the meanings of the newer versions definitely say something not remotely similar to what was said in the original, and often not in a particularly sensible or logical way or not for any especially or clearly discernible reason; and shying away from certain things for fear of how they might be misconstrued really isn't particularly helpful nor always even relevant at all to what those things actually did or didn't do to begin with, kinda like how overcorrecting when hydroplaning or when driving across a patch of black ice can actually make a vehicle spin even more out of control rather than making the vehicle become less out of control. Like, I get not wanting to shame students for not achieving as academically highly as some other students might-but there's a difference between shaming someone for not doing better in school than however they personally did or didn't do, or shaming them for doing worse in school than some other student did, versus rightly calling a student out for it when that student has actually not even applied themself or their attention or effort to anything in the class or lessons at all. Like.. saying that a student needs to actually listen to what the teacher is saying while in class and/or that a student needs to actually make some legitimate attempt to do their actual schoolwork is hardly the same thing as saying "Shame on X-student for getting a grade *_B_* while Z-student has gotten *_A_* grades!" or slandering one student for not being smarter, or for not being as smart as another student is,[ or picking on students who find reading (&/or holding absolutely-still) to be a more difficult task or skill to master than other students do] or whatever. But maybe I'm missing something, without reading these sentences in the greater context of the rest of the text or story surrounding them-rather than reading them just as isolated instances, all by themselves. I have no idea😁

Btw, of course, letting a child read what they want is not the best course. You will not let a child watch what they want. It is the same thing. That is why books are being taken away from schools. It is completely different than banning them completely. No book should ever be banned.

I understand removing racial/homophobic/ethnic slurs from books. However, that could lead to the question of what counts as a slur or not? I remember reading a book in 4th grade that used the word "gay". My teacher pointed it out; we had a brief discussion and moved on. I think that is a much better approach. There are a lot of new children's books that have the same language they are removing from the Dahl books, so it feels strange. I think it comes down to the fact that children pick up a lot more from their parents and the others around them than books. Kids know how to deal with these topics more than most parents or teachers give credit for. How do you justify not teaching about violence or race when the news tells everyone about the latest shooting? Harry Potter is basically tortured (violence, isolation, forced servitude) by his aunt/uncle/cousin but so many kids read that. Song of the Lioness/Alanna has lengthy descriptions of a girl's first period. Animorphs ends with a war crimes trial and PTSD. These are all read by 1st-4th graders. Kids can deal with these topics when they are presented in books, and, if necessary, talk with parents. I haven't reread anything younger recently enough to give examples for those, but I hope my point is clear. (Though I remember a lot of racist language in Peter Pan which could be updated)

I’m not a fan. Definitely way too far. Censorship/content modification has always been a slippery slope and conceptually I oppose it. It all comes down to who has the power to modify things like this and that will always be shifting with each situation. Like you stated early on, this is not that different to modifications most of us would call oppressive in other cases.

Thanks for another thoughtful chat about this topic and sharing the link to the Telegraph! I agree that the writing of the changes was really poor. Part of what made so many of the changes so bad is injecting affirmative bias when a neutral one would do. For instead instead of replacing cashier and typist with top scientist and running a business, it could be “… working as a researcher in a lab or writing press releases for companies” - STEM being a place where women work but don’t dominate and the other in public relations where women have a stronger foothold. The original turn of phrase had an everyday feeling to it - jobs kids could see something tangible (a cash register) or someone doing something (typing). Not honoring the premise of the original writing undoes some of the textual quality. I’d rather they kept the premise and updated the gender associations. I fully support eliminating language about fat mice - I’m a mouse of girth and my fellow mice and I were offended by that statement because we weren’t allowed to play any raindeer games with the emaciated mice growing up. 🙃

Well it was censorship, there’s no ambiguity here whatsoever. If you want books to be inclusive write your own don’t edit ones you aren’t talented enough to write. This one is an interesting example as he’s one of the biggest children’s authors in the world and here in The UK he’s easily the biggest so it was always gonna create a lot of hullabaloo.

This pisses me off. I read Gone With The Wind last year. The only profanity consistently used in the whole book was the n-word. Chapters of racist rants about the fear of black men r-wording white women. But it was published in the 30s about Georgia in the 1860s-1870s. You can contextualize and move forward from there. But I don’t see Gone With The Wind being put on these ban book lists, let alone getting edited. I think it’s very selective because of the target demographic. In this case, children. But I’m against censorship as a whole.

This is basically the same thing as what was happening during the 80's when the psycho Christian mothers wanted books banned because it didn't align with how they feel the world should be. I guess it's a good thing now?

If we change things to suit our own personal world views, are we not raping the original creator's work, since writers are typically very careful with their words and choose them to precisely invoke particular emotions and imagery? An artist's work should never be altered. Ever.

Also.. it's ridiculous to think that it is bad to acknowledge differences in body types. Observing or talking about people's differences is NOT the bad thing: judging certain differences as if these differences somehow make someone of lesser worth or lesser value than any other persons is the bad thing. (OR judging people _with_ certain differences as actually being somehow *_better_* than anyone else just because of that difference.) Especially IF that particular difference does not at all pertain directly to who they actual are as an individual person and how positively[ or negatively] they do or don't actually treat other things &/or persons around themself, and/or to what they do or don't actually contribute beneficially or detrimentally to society as a group/whole or to their specific line of work or such whenever they are in such group or work settings. I could understand switching it to a word with more positive connotations(or at least with less of a strong history of being used specifically as a slur/insult in general), like using "plump" or something[ instead of "fat"], maybe.... but it isn't the word 'fat' itself OR the actual fact of some persons simply not being as thin or small as other persons that is actually a negative thing-it's looking down on that fact with a negative perception against them as people because of it that is wrong. It isn't not being thin, or not being small, that is a bad thing-it's thinking of not being thin or not being small as if it's an inherently negative thing that shouldn't be done. (Also, not having a realistic grasp on the difference between just not being the thinnest or smallest person ever versus actually being an exceptionally or dangerously unhealthy person in some way or another; and/or being worried about it just because of how visually appealing it does or doesn't look to some people personally, rather than based on what is or isn't actually necessary to keep people's bodies as alive and properly functioning as possible. That is also bad.) But if you just completely refuse to even talk or think about that thing at all, this is way more likely to-even entirely unintentionally-give off an impression like this particular thing is somehow bad and that's why we don't talk about it. Talking about things is how we normalize it, by making it familiar and not-strange[ no matter how typical or common it actually is or isn't], rather than treating it as if simply mentioning it at all is itself a bad thing and/or is itself somehow automatically treating it negatively; at least so long as we are not talking about it in a specifically negative way.

on your last point about sensitivity readers, I think it just has a bad connotation because sensitivity has overreached in general. It is obviously a good idea for authors to go to professionals in their field or people who may have more insight because that is just getting the right facts. But this idea of sensitivity readers or the need for more sensitivity has never sat right with me because it is mostly subjective on what people consider insensitive. There are a few base lines that everyone can agree upon but most of the time one person who thinks something is insensitive will have no reaction to another person and so I just find it pointless in a way. overall a very interesting video.

Yes, that's what troubles me. Why is it always Literature big brother goes after. I'm sorry I can't trust it.

Great video. I love Roald Dahl and all of the irreverent-ness. The one book I'd be curious to read edited would be the Great Glass Elevator, which is absolutely stuffed with pointless racism

I hate this so much. Are we forgetting the most famous proverb of history? Those who forget it are doomed to repeat it. Contrary to making this better this "sanitization" actively makes it **worse**.

It really disgusts me that the meaning of racism has shifted from connotations of eugenics and systemic injustice and the like to something as innocuous as "Ha, ha, foreign people are funny" juvenile humor. The two connotations are not comparable at all.

You did a great job explaining why the Dahl edits were very misguided in what they were trying to accomplish. I'm all for creating and promoting work that's inclusive but this just seems arbitrary and surface level.

It wasn’t censorship; it’s a money grab. The changes were approved by the copyright owner, and did not come from either the government or outside pressure. Netflix is coming out with a new adaptation. Doing this was a way for the publisher to get lots of free publicity. Cheap at the price. It does make me wonder however whether we are headed toward different versions of books depending on which political bubble you are in. Here, Conrad was excised, while Hemingway was left in and Steinbeck was added. Would the right-wing version excise Steinbeck as a labor sympathizing pinko? And what makes Hemingway better than Conrad? Would the animal rights people agree, or do we just get rid of the bullfighting?

Do sensitivity readers count as a "vulnerable group"? Because it's a job.. it's really weird to say that about a job, esp when its a grift that's perpetuating big brother like censorship that major companies have decided is necessary because some diversity and inclusion corp was bored and saw far left tiktok writers have people sensitivity read their books and then revised them accordingly. I'm fine with people having others read over their book. I do not think it's that necessary other than for authenticity over "sensitivity". We wouldn't have things like the first law series if sensitivity readers start dictating what's ok or not. A diverse set of beta readers sure. "sensitivity readers"? Books are not meant to cuddle you!

You were in STEM? What happened?

Just let his books die since they aren’t appropriate. Don’t try to edit it and try save his books; actually publish good, fitting books instead. They just want to profit from it. Face the facts: his books have not stood the test of time, you can’t edit that.

I also just assumed they were removing the N word since that appears shockingly often in old literature, even for children. And I’m 100% ok with that if it’s aimed towards a younger audience and the majority of the time even the good guys use the word. But hearing you go through the changes…well, it got a big eye roll from me. Unsurprisingly the censorship has made an irreverent comedy completely lifeless. I can imagine reading one of these updated books with my daughter in 5 years and saying “well, in the old version this was actually kind of funny”

The changes you showed are completely ridiculous. It's not even offensive and even if it were it would be pathetic

One complaint for each change is how it was done.. it seems that the statement you posted is a nothing-burger.

This is not controversial: censorship is wrong, period. There used to be severe censorship in books and on TV, 60 years ago, and people fought to make it stop, for good reason. I'm not American, but I can freely admit that the US used to stand for free speech if nothing else. It looks like this moral standard is gradually disappearing, and it's a shame. Either you don't like the book and you don't publish it, or you like it and you publish it as is (barring minor editing for syntax or grammar purposes). There's no in-between, as long as you pretend to publish a book as it was written by its author. Or another option is to publish the book in an abridged version, and to market it openly so. I strongly dislike abridged versions of books, but at least they do make books more accessible to, say, people for whom reading is usually a chore. But you can't present a censored version as an unabridged book, it's highly unethical. The end doesn't justify the means, even more so when the end is extremely debatable. How did the people who fought censorship turn into the people who enforce censorship? This is insane.

They are changing the James Bond books too. Censorship in all forms is bad and this is censorship. Updating media for "modern audiences" is horseshit. If modern audiences wanted it, woke films and tv shows would be popular and they just aren't. This can become a slippery slope and censorship can run amock.

One word for this Disgusting how about this you have the right to be offended but it doesn't mean laws and changes need to be made that destroy and directly contradict freedom of speech because this is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and still happens in North Korea they change things to what they want and it is obscenely disgusting to me to go and rewrite anybody's work how dare anyone do this and why can't tell people your feelings are valid don't matter it can't be changed cause you don't like it or are offended

I seems to me that sensitivity reading is censorship before publishing. I have heard form authors that they are being forced to add specific characters or imagery in order to be published. This is propaganda to support a particular viewpoint (left, right, or center. it does not matter). All Authors should be able to express their story/work how they see it. Ask yourself this...if a person you disagree with on a subject is in power, would you like them to make changes to remove the groups/words/ideas you like in a book? if this does not appeal to you, then, people you support should not change texts to reflect your world view either. As adults, the best way to reduce the influence of a book is to ignore it. Let me be clear, I do not consider research into a subject as sensitivity readers, I consider that doing ones due diligence. But, if and author has completed a book and then it must pass muster to get published, that is censorship and wrong.

*Ain’t surprised these wokies have a started a book burning.* 🔥📚🔥

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." -- George Orwell, 1984.

The first time I ever was confronted with censorship was a comic book. The Adventures of Tintin in Congo. I was around 12 or 13 when I read it and my teacher saw the book in my backpack and called my parents. In my country (I'm Swiss) we had the original in french as well as a translated german version. Both where published in the 1930's and some of the language used as well as the settings and story was 'problematic' to say the least. My father and the teacher got into a huge argument and I was in danger of being suspended from school simply by reading that comic. I didn't really understand what the argument was (I was too young I think to really understand the discussion, or at that point the shouting match). In the end, my father had to take me to a hearing with several teachers and school board members. At first they argued amongst themselves while I was sitting there, watching my father defending that is daughter can read whatever she wants as long as he approves (my Father is a big bookworm himself) and it felt like an eternity of back and forth and I got scared. Finally they asked me about the comic. Honestly I can't really remember it that well, but I said something about it was okay but not really a good book but that I really loved the little dog. That made them all chuckle.. and after that they started asking me about races and belgium (I learned that belgium was a country from school but other than that not much at that point in my education) and about Congo (same issue there). It ended in an understanding that I wouldn't take that book to school anymore and the issue would be settled with that (which didn't really affect me since I already was several books ahead and if it wasn't for the whole incident I would have forgotten all about it. I later learned later in life that that said comic had a censorship discussion already in the 1950's and 60's during the french and belgian decolonisation. Some argued they should rewrite the story completely, other wanted to simply ban the book. What my father did instead was he sat me down and we read the comic together and he pointed things out, like certain words, attitudes of the characters and description and drawings of the congolese and why everyone was so upset wit it. I think he did a way better job by preparing me for my life than any censorship could have. Censorship is harmful, not only does it hide the pasts mistakes, it also can be used against its original meaning. Politics are constantly shifting. By making a law about something to be published, who says the next person in charge won't use said law against something else? Also, and that's just my opinion, by understanding how people thought at a certain time, like in the 1930, kinda shows us the progress we made. And, let's be realistic.. the fact that I even remember about that Comic book was not because it left an impression, it was the whole theater around it that made me remember, even almost 35 years later. The best way to let a teenager or a child want to read something is by simply telling them it's not allowed. Which, with no guidance like I had from my father, can be even more dangerous. If a school seems a text problematic, discuss it with the students why. Include them. Or replace them with another text but don't banish it from the library if the first option is to intense for you. But again, that is simply my view. Sorry for the long post, and I apologize for the typos. English isn't my first language

Roald Dahl got me into reading! I hated reading so bad when I was young! I got so bored, I couldn't pay attention, and felt like I was a slow reader. Then I found his books!!! I binged them all! He started my love of fantasy. In addition, all his books have incredible messages!!! I am against every part of these changes! TBH he was very open forward thinking for his time! I think this makes me upset because people get the idea that Roald Dahl was like a raging racist when I (a black guy) have always admired Dahl and studied and read about his life. Dahl was literally a WW2 vet, fighter pilot, diplomat, spy, and of course an author to name a few. I just don't think we should hold people in the past to our standards, but instead try to have empathy and judge them for situation they were in.

This seems to be another instance of a company deciding that people wanted something that they didn't actually ask for and doing it in secret then launching it on the public and expecting them to love the thing they didn't want and had no input into.

I could easily write you a long, 10 paragraph comment, but I'll just keep it short 😄 I feel that we live in a time where folks are more sensitive than they should be, and I feel that sometimes people do things (like editing past publications) to avoid potential backlash and/or unwanted attention. However, I, myself, feel that a) these changes are unnecessary and b) published works should just be left alone (unless authors themselves initiated). As you stated, they contain teachable moments, and reflect a history/culture that we cannot nor should attempt to hide or erase. And besides, the examples you show are awful changes!! The books will lose their humor and charm! What's next? Editing Loony Toons? Censoring Roadrunner / coyote because of "violence "? If editing older works become a new thing, then okay, edit them for those who want it... some parents may just feel more comfortable having "clean" versions of kid stories. But let's also keep the originals intact and available, as well. I look at this like Grimm's Fairytales... we watch the Disney version as kids, but grow up wanting to read the darker original versions.

We live in a very soft generation. I appreciate our modern sensibility’s, but think in a lot of cases it’s taken too far. It’s all so surface level. I understand censoring harmful ideas, but the truth? If somethings black, call it black. If someone’s fat, call it fat. If someone needs a dam stool, they need a dam stool. It’s the truth. It’s the character. It’s the narrators voice. I think sheltering children is more harmful than the texts themselves imo.

Wow, these changes are worse than I thought. I thought they were just removing one word here or there (which I still think is unnecessary, but I understand), but did not expect this! I'm baffled.

It's like they made an excessive attempt to take the humour and Britishness out of the sentences. It was a horrible idea. Also as a kid reading witches I always felt like he used the cashier woman as a reference because kids see cashiers everywhere, its sort of written as like it could be a woman you have met or seen and you wouldn't even know. Contextually not many kids have seen top scientists, every kid has seen a cashier.

As someone who can easily be described as fat, enormous is way worse.

I think you are all over this one. It's really really hard to change things like this without unintentional consequences. For the record my gut reaction is usually to be against over censorship

What a great discussion and your arguments were very well articulated. I am always impressed by the level of effort you put into these videos and appreciate your willingness to state your opinions! Keep it up!

I'm in university studying Latin and ancient Greek and a part of that is translating original texts. We've had discussions about what word we use to translate a word in Latin/Greek. Where is the line between translating with modern sensibilities in mind and not upholding oppression/stereotypes in your translation vs. imposing modern ideas and values on the text. It's such a thin line to walk and so difficult to make the right descision. It's obviously not exactly the same as this discussions because when you're translating, you have to make those choices anyway, while with the Roald Dahl situation, they are already in English.

I can't remember where I read it, but the whole "not telling someone something for their own protection" You know historically always resulted in healthy relationships. Ha!

I think it is best to keep the book in its original form and add a foreword that addresses the issues. Changing the authors words without their consent changes their artistic intent. Honestly, if I read some of these rewrites I would question Roald Dahl's proficiency as an author more than I would judge him a racist, sexist, ableist, etc. with the original wording. It's just so clunky and unimaginative.

I did not realize the extent of the changes. This is starting to feel like 1984 where people in society can only say pre-approved words.

Yes, definitely want more nuanced deep-dives into controversial topics like this one! Thought this was very well researched and presented, extremely comprehensive (for an "only" 26 minute-long video!). I definitely was aware of the Dahl book changes in the UK, but didn't know much more than that they were making changes to be more inclusive. Appreciate you sharing examples. Agree that a lot of the replacements are simply poorly written. Also appreciate you talking about sensitivity readers as...I apparently have been living under a log, because I didn't even know they were a thing!! So thanks for the education there. My opinion - these types of wholesale changes to older books make me nervous. As a writer and reader, nothing makes me shudder more than the idea of censorship and modification of content to fit with the times. A bit Orwellian, to be sure, and though there can be many innocuous cases, I will ere on the side of leaving books unmodified every time. Yes, there will be books with problematic content and cringe-worthy scenes, especially older books! But these books are part of the history of humanity, and it makes me sick to think that we will virtuously erase the problematic parts of our history away to present a shinier, purer, falser image to our descendants. Let our history stand, warts and all. (oh wait, am I not supposed to talk about warts...?) I remember reading "Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry" when I was a kid, and that book shook me to my core. Ought we to edit that book now, to take out the disturbing passages? May it never be. For children's books, I do understand some of the impulses to sanitize. There certainly is content that may not be appropriate or helpful for children of certain ages to consume. And I do think it's important for the parents (primarily) and schools (secondarily) to curate the materials that children are exposed to. Again, I still ere on the side of allowing our children to read more rather than less. I would rather have to awkwardly explain some odd word choices or scenarios to kids rather than keep every potentially problematic text from them. But, there are choices to be made, hence the battles that rage in local communities, families and school boards. I have some librarian friends, and it's fascinating hearing the struggles they face trying to make the right choices in which books to shelve and/or promote. It's challenging! These conversations are necessary. But I go far afield. Obviously there are books where changes are made post-publication with full author approval, and I'm generally fine with that. There are often abridged copies of older books, and I'm fine with that too, because you generally know you are being an abridged copy and that thus there were editorial choices that had to be made! In this case with the Dahl books though, I think it went over the line. Clumsy, poorly-written replacements for original slightly-problematic lines? Please no. One other example before I end this far-too-long example. There's also been some talk in past years about the problematic parts of the "Little House" series, a book series that a lot of kids (myself included!) grew up reading. I recently re-read these and...well, I went into it expecting them to be shockingly racist and dated but...what did I find? A series of books written giving one person's perspective on a certain time period, the time period in which she grew up and lived. A few lines that might offend some (but give a very accurate picture into certain people's attitudes back then!) and a couple scenes that shock our modern sensibilities...but that also provide an accurate depiction of certain elements of small-town American life in the latter half of the 19th century. These books should not be textbooks of modern behavior, no. But as books that give kids of today a peek at our past? Invaluable. Also, as parents and teachers? Don't just stick to the old books that were written 50 or 100 years ago. Keep seeking out good new authors and books to introduce to your kids...you don't want to fall into the trap of thinking only the classics have anything to offer. Your kids might learn something new (and you might too!!) If anything though, parents and teachers should stay a part of the process - praise and encourage reading and provide kids plenty of good quality reading material and let them make choices on what to read! And then...be open and understanding and eager to have conversations with your kids on what they're reading. I know parents who read every book that their kid is reading so they can have those conversations. I love that so much. And sorry, I have written too much and too much off-topic. Apologies, but apparently this video provoked this type of response!!

That was a fair, even-handed treatment of a sensitive subject. I would be as subtle as a brick to the face. Having said that, you did not cover the most pernicious aspect of this movement. These "sensitivity" companies are carrying out a cloaked extortion campaign. They approach publishers and authors under the veil (WOT shout out) of offering a "necessary service." They say, "Let us scan your upcoming books. The last thing you want to deal with is a PR disaster from an 'unintentional' slight against a marginalized community." What is left unsaid is the threat of outing. If an author publishes a book without paying for their service, they publish the title and author's name and publicly ask what the author is hiding. They basically threaten individuals and companies with financial loss for refusing to let a group of self-appointed idealogues with no creative skill to become the gatekeepers of the publishing world. They are leeches, political apparatchiks who couldn't possibly craft a story people want to read. Let us be guided by Gandalf and "Throw them back into the abyss" (ROTK, movie not book).

I am in a similar boat to you, I read a few of Dahl's books when I was in elementary school, but never much beyond that. As a teacher I think there is a very delicate balance. Parents often worry about books in class, but let their children participate in unmonitored social media situations. I can tell you I haven't yet seen a child get in trouble from something they read, though I am sure some have. I see children get in trouble, get suspended, get expelled, and get arrested due to some really unfortunate decisions influenced by social media. As this relates to censorship I'm not saying there is a direct connection between the two, but I do think parents should be more involved all around. As a parent and teacher I am much more worried about the impact of social media than Roald Dahl. I'm on the fence when it comes to censorship or altering materials, it depends on too many factors to have a simple answer. Even better than censorship would be educating your children and helping them learn from the past and becoming better rather than pretend there was nothing wrong in the past. Family involvement and engagement would solve many more issues than changing some problematic wording from a different time.

I love your video essays. They are so interesting to listen to and well thought out. 👏❤️ Thanks 😊