"Goldie Pinklesweet" by Roald Dahl - Mr. P. Reads Stuff - Ep. 03

Back in sixth grade, my teacher, Mrs. Hamilton (if you'rereading this, hi!), took time just about every day to read stories to us. Partially this was to get us exposed to different famous children's books, but also to give us time to relax and maybe even take a quick nap. Either way, I recall at one point her reading to us the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which was none other than Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. I don't recall too much about the story other than the Vermicious Knids (which were also little enemies that you had to fight in some of the online Willie Wonka flash games on their website at the time) and the poem here, "Goldie Pinklesweet". If I remember correctly, the grandparents had all taken a bunch of pills that made them younger and to the point that they were all newborns again. One blipped out of existence because while all the rest were 80 years old, she was only 79 and thus took one too many. Thus was the stage for the Oompa Loompas to come give a brief talk about drug abuse.

Of course, nowadays Dahl's works among others are getting revised for a "modern audience" (one of the worst things to ever hear about an adaptation). Numerous changes were made and words were censored in favor of slightly less "offensive" terms. When one asks "who are these words offensive to," the answer is the people on the editorial board. Just who was on the board?

https://nypost.com/2023/03/01/roald-dahl-books-editors-woke-consultants-all-under-30/

From the article:

The company hired to revise Roald Dahl’s books only uses “woke” consultants under the age of 30 and once employed a project manager who describes themselves as a “non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist.”

What!? You mean to tell me that the people who were doing this were a bunch of activists whose descriptions read like something an edgy teenager was putting in their bio on Tumblr almost a decade ago? You mean they read like the description of someone who is "chronically online" and doesn't have a firm grasp of objective reality!? Who would have ever guessed!?

Among the progressive editors tasked with revisiting classics such as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Matilda” and “The Witches” was a staffer who described themselves as a “non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum,” according to National Review.

Further down, we have this statement as well:

A spokesperson for Inclusive Minds told National Review its ambassadors don’t make direct edits, but that young people with “lived experience” have valuable inputs to make when it comes to “reviewing language that can be damaging and perpetuate harmful stereotypes”. They also noted publishers have the final say at to what changes they want to make.

Having a bunch of out-of-touch, progressive, chronically online autists determining what's offensive based on their "lived experience" is a surefire way to turn a book into a steaming turd. To be quite honest, someone's "lived experience" should also be the experience of getting over words that they deem offensive. Part of that "lived experience" needs to be understanding that just because they're offended by a word doesn't mean the word is actually offensive to the vast majority of people. Of course, the reverse is also true and there needs to be empathy. However, examples of words being changed are words like "fat" and "ugly". Those are now deemed too offensive for kids to read. What words would they rather use? "Brave and courageous at every size" and "non-conforming to oppressive white cis-hetero patriarchal beauty standards"? An edit in Witches includes a caveat about the witches being bald. From another article (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/roald-dahl-edits-books-censored-witches-b2288252.html).

In The Witches (where witches wear wigs) Dahl had written: “You can’t go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just you try it and see what happens.” Puffin’s new version reads: “Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

There is no reason to include that disclaimer in the first place. As though a child was going to read the description and thing that all women who wear wigs are either witches or have something wrong with them. Never once when reading any of Dahl's works did any such thing pop into my head and I can almost assure you with 99.9% certainty nobody else has either. These are activists looking for a reason to be offended and justify their perceived victim status. They then use that status as a reason to force changes on everybody else. The stories are fine as they are and aside from maybe updating older language that never gets used anymore. In "Goldie Pinklesweet", the term "w.c". meaning "water closet" is used. In American editions part of the poem is changed to "and so she sits and dreams of glory alone inside the lavatory", because most Americans used that term instead of "w.c.". So I can understand updating certain things like that. But beyond that, no. If someone is described as fat and ugly, then that's the term they should use. Words have meaning and just because people have become too thin-skinned these days doesn't mean that those words are offensive in themselves. If you want to be offended by them, that's a you problem.

To their credit (what little they deserve) the publisher says that they'll keep releasing the original versions under the Penguin label, but the Puffin label will have the edited ones. Cool. At least I know which version not to buy for the kids.

So, to the activists: get offline, get some therapy, kick rocks, pound sand, and touch some grass.