Jacob Sammon
A
#RoaldDahl books are being edited to remove offensive language and be more inclusive, sparking censorship backlash.

UK PM Sunak: “We shouldn’t gobblefunk around with words.”
Salmon Rushdie: “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”
12:21 PM - Feb 21, 2023 (Edited)
Avatar Avatar Avatar
0
9
3
Antonio Robinson
A
In response to Jacob Sammon.
I’m not a fan of this type of censorship whatsoever. Language and its usage teaches us where we were and are as a society. Changing it to appease modern times or to make it more palatable is disingenuous and only obscures the writer.
01:28 PM - Feb 21, 2023
1
1
Jacob Sammon
A
In response to Antonio Robinson.
It’s a bad look, and potentially sets up a dangerous precedent moving forward. I don’t want books to bring people harm, but it’s important to be able to reflect on what was/was not acceptable versus what is/is not acceptable now.
04:25 PM - Feb 21, 2023
1
1
Carla Reid + Chilla
A
In response to Jacob Sammon.
I read a lot. I have read many older books that make me cringe and rail at the language and the racism, the way people are treated in some stories. But that is just it, those words make me think, and they make me not want to be that way. What advantage is gained by changing older fictional books?
12:35 PM - Feb 21, 2023
1
1
Jacob Sammon
A
In response to Carla Reid + Chilla.
This is what I keep coming back to. In a way, cringe can be good bc it’s a marker of growth (hopefully). It’s important to reflect how things were at one point in time to prevent it from recurring. It sets a scary precedent for censorship in the future. I’d never want a book to hurt someone, though
04:23 PM - Feb 21, 2023
1
1
Jacob Sammon
A
In response to Jacob Sammon.
*Salman Rushdie; many apologies for the typo. My last name (Sammon) also loves to get autocorrected to Salmon :( ‘Tis a curse.
12:32 PM - Feb 21, 2023
0
0

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}