Rewriting History. Literally.
Roald Dahl classics are being written because they're of course wildly offensive. (Eye roll)
It was announced last week that the works of Roald Dahl are being partially rewritten to reduce any offence being caused to those reading it.
I don’t agree with it. There’s nothing overtly offensive in these children’s books. So many of us grew up reading them and didn’t find them offensive.
Why is this current generation so obsessed with offence and doing everything they can to rewrite history so they can live in a fluffy world full of candy floss and rainbows?
The world isn’t like that, get used to it.
There’s a bit in The Witches where the wig is ripped from the Grand High Witch, exposing her witch-iness.
Call me old fashioned, but I’d rather have a witch exposed for what she is - but no, it could offend someone that has to wear wigs.
You can’t rewrite history. Simple as that.
Even if historical books contain stuff that by today’s standards isn’t quite deemed acceptable, you can’t just pretend that it didn’t exist. It was a product of its time, something that was deemed fine when it was published.
I’m all for warnings in books, telling readers that there is certain language contained within that by today’s standards isn’t acceptable, like removing some overtly offensive language (deemed offensive by anyone with a rational mind) in some of Fleming’s James Bond books, which are also being revised.
But Dahl’s books are children’s classics - designed for children. There is nothing overtly offensive in them. Countless generations grew up on them and we turned out fine. As an adult, I’m sure we could all look back on things we’ve read with a far more critical eye, but we accept that it was a product of its time, and things do move on. It provides the opportunity for dialogue, to talk about these kinds of things with your kids. To show how times change, and why things were written in certain ways in the past.
If they were being written from scratch today, would bits change? I’m sure they would. But you can’t just pretend that pre-existing material doesn’t exist, and have it rewritten by committee. It just doesn’t work.
You’re changing the creative vision of the original creator. Would you want your work being changed down the line because some random person thinks it’s offensive? All this will do is stilt creativity and take away the creative freedom of any creator, in all media.
It’s akin to book burning without the bonfire.
The publishers have now slightly backtracked due to public outrage and confirmed that the original books will still be published and available, along with their rewritten counterparts.
But what could be next? Lady Chatterley’s ‘Special Friend’?
Will The BFG become The Big Friendly (but not in a creepy way) person who is distinctly taller than average, but not enough to make him feel like he’s a freak of nature?
The Alright-I-Suppose-But-Let’s-Not-Give-Him-A-Big-Head Gatsby?
Moby Richard?
To Snuggle A Mockingbird?
The Grapes Of Loveliness?
Where does it stop?
Will Harry Potter be rewritten due to offensive wand-waggling, where it could be deemed he was walking through city streets carrying an offensive weapon?
How would stop and search work with a wizard, anyway?
Should we retrospectively change everything in history so that it couldn’t possibly offend anyone? Where are the limits? Who decides?
Are we to put boxer shorts on the statue of David in Florence due to his stony wang being on full view?
Who gets to decide what is offensive? Why does it matter? Should we just keep pandering to every single fucking person who deems something offensive?
Personally, I’m very much in the Stephen Fry camp when it comes to offence.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”
Well, that’s today’s rant sorted.
In other news…
Zuck Has News
Meta, the owners of Facebook and Instagram have predictably copied Twitter launched plans to encourage you to pay them money so your accounts can be verified. Because, why not? They’re a really struggling company and have literally nothing in the bank. Oh wait, no, they’ve got untold billions.
Anyhoo, they want you to give them more money, ‘kay?
LinkedIn Gets Fancy
LinkedIn are beginning to roll out some new features that’ll make your profile pages look far more snazzy in the Activity section, allowing you to show off far more rich media, giving you more control in what content you want to display. Anything from images, videos, newsletters or documents, your profiles are certainly going to get a lot smarter in the near future.
Stuff You Didn’t Know Your iPhone Could Do
Some of the stuff in this how-to video was even new to me. How about you?
Sounds Of a Pedestrian Crossing Feature In ‘Bad Guy’
Billie Eilish’s brother, who’s also her songwriting partner, Finneas, was interviewed on the Jimmy Fallon show. He talked about how his capturing of the noise that plays out on all of Australia’s pedestrian crossings features in their song ‘Bad Guy’.
It’s nuts, but really, really creative! Just goes to show what can be achieved with a little lateral and creative thinking.
I’m also on the hunt for any horror stories you may have experienced or heard about when it comes to business networking. More info will be forthcoming, but I’m writing a new book, and would love to feature different people’s stories. If you have a story, please do let me know! Caveat - by sending me a story, you are granting me permission to publish it in this new book. Anonymity is guaranteed. And if your story gets featured, I’ll send you a free copy of the book once published. Deal?