You think the child is responsible for being fat?
Even Augustus Gloop ain't safe (Dahl being censored)
- Thread starter hyperseven
- Start date
![[Death]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,893
edit. deleted, not worth it.
Last edited:
You think a child remains a child forever? They grow up. The lessons learned during formative years stay with them for the rest of their life however.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Teaching your children to be kind and mindful of others is absolutely important. However, banning the word fat, or enormous or ugly in children books is frankly ridiculous - if they can learn how the words can be used in the right context, and then in the wrong context, it provides them with a better understanding of the world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Wow this thread is like the slave traders threads.
You seem to think that children are all from middle class families that teach them right from wrong. Or that even all parents are good decent people.
Nasty things, words and saying have to be removed or a certain type of nasty person will use them to be nasty like: I know I will name my dog after the dog from Dambusters. Its historic.
You seem to think that children are all from middle class families that teach them right from wrong. Or that even all parents are good decent people.
Nasty things, words and saying have to be removed or a certain type of nasty person will use them to be nasty like: I know I will name my dog after the dog from Dambusters. Its historic.
Last edited:
No. Gloop was called fat because he ate too much, which made him... fat. Maybe Dahl should have used the phrase "clinically obese", but it doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well, not to mention most kids won't have a clue what it means. Do you have a suggestion of a better word he could have used?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Maybe it could have been a learning moment. So instead of having to explain to children what the N word is you could instead be explaing what clinically obese means.
Although that isnt really appropriate for a childrens book.
Last edited:
Enormous works.
Yeah cause that’s so much better
You are either indifferent (in which case, what is your problem?) or have a better idea (in which case, what is it?)Yeah cause that’s so much better
"Enormous" doesn't mean the same thing as "fat" (that's why it's a different word... derp) it just means something (or in this case someone) is really big. It's possible to be "enormous" and not "fat", just as it's possible to be "fat", and quite small. If someone said to me "jeez, that guy's enormous!", I'd be thinking 190cm+ & muscle bound. I'd call Schwarzenegger "enormous" in his body-building days. Not sure that was quite the mental image Dahl was going for, otherwise gloop could have just smashed his way out of that pipe!
To quote Puffin books: "“Words matter”. That's why we have different ones which mean different things. The English language is great because certain words have certain nuances which give certain meanings in certain situations, that no other word will quite convey in exactly the same way.
Alternatively we just dumb everything down to "My First Reader" level, and replace every instance of a word which suggest size with either "small", "medium" or "big"
I'm not entirely sure what's actually wrong with the word "fat"? Problem is that when you change the words you use to describe something (because the original was used as an insult), people aren't going to magically stop insulting each other, they'll just use the new word instead. Remember when everyone used to insult kids with learning difficulties by calling them the word beginning with "r" (which means slow), or the word beginning with "sp" and rhymes with plastic? Society decided that instead they would be called "special needs". So now the same people who used the "r" and "sp" words instead use the word "special".
It's not the word which is important - it's the intent behind it, which is entirely the point being missed here.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Ultimately it's the parent's responsibility regardless of "class" (whatever that is).
Removing words from a book is not going to stop delinquents being delinquent. If your class system you talk about means money, well those with little money are no more immune to those with loads as to how to bring up your children rightly or wrongly. If your class statement is about education - early years and primary schools are all topped up by parent's time and responsibility - we spend an hour every evening with the kids going through their homework, and exploring some of what they've learned, as well as spending time reading with them. Nearly every single night - it's an effort, but it's our responsibility.
You could cast aspersions that the "poor" won't ever read books so what does it matter since their parents are likely to just be swearing at them and in front of them etc...*
In reality a book with diverse and broad language will help develop a child's creativity and imagination - they are explanatory and expressive words - they are far less damaging than giving children access to social media, overparenting and not engaging and being present with your children. Ultimately, children will read a broad range of books so having more colourful expressions and different use of language can really help stimulate that critical thinking.
Using descriptive language is so important. Treading around things all the time adds no value - we are losing resilience in people, and frankly pandering to sensitivities that aren't really there. If a person is fat, they're fat - using 100 words to describe that they are not "thin" makes no odds.
* note: this was an exaggeration / purposely used bias just to make a point.
Last edited:
Why change it in the first place?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,893
its a good point..... and despite the fact that i still think it is ok to update books where times have changed, funnily enough i just remembered my lads favourite book from a few years ago that he read out in school.
Beastly pirates....... and captain Blimp, who would fall foul of the above. No one had a problem with that book and (AFAIK) its still in his school now.
So, yeah perhaps i was being over sensitive. ...... The thing is i have seen what it is like to have kids be mercilessly bullied for either how they look or their mannerisms... i was bullied myself, and i am not proud to admit there was 1 lad at school i was one of the gang who bullied him (mostly because if he was the butt of the jokes i dodged it). eventually i had enough and learned to push back - but i doubt that would go down well these days. (I threw one kid throw a (open) window when i finally snapped, cut the pony tail off another and massaged a cheese pasty into the head of a 3rd - it was that or hit him and i didnt want to hurt him).
Last edited:
There are always going to be kids (and adults) who pick on others for their looks. Changing the word for "fat" to "chubby", "porker", "Spluing", "f'l;ugh" or "dfeyaah" isn't going to change that. They'll just use the new word.
Because they are re-releasing the books to cream off of RD name; so tweaking some wording is what happens.
So you're now claiming that they're not actually doing this for any noble reason (however misplaced that may be), and is simply a case of someone in marketing deciding that "any publicity is good publicity"?
I don't believe someone sat there and thought "let's re-write RD". I believe they were due to re-release the RD books and they decided that was a good opportunity to remove any unnecessary colonial/slavery themes and some obvious annoying words for parents. The sheeple have been fully engaged as fighting wokeism is a good distraction from the real problems (cost of living etc.).So you're now claiming that they're not actually doing this for any noble reason (however misplaced that may be), and is simply a case of someone in marketing deciding that "any publicity is good publicity"?