Ooh, what a stinging put down! I'm not sure I'll ever get over it.

He's been dead since 1990. If you're so exercised about his work being changed, you'd want to take that up with his literary estate, which has approved these changes (quite possibly in the interests of profit).

I teach literature to college students that was published 100s of years ago, so I'm very familiar with the fact that norms constantly change and that reading literature that reflects different worldviews and different mentalities is enriching and intellectually challenging. I'm also aware of the fact that texts go through multiple editions for different reasons and we need access to all of those editions in order to understand them fully from a scholarly perspective. The changes that are being made to these Dahl editions are being made with the permission of the copyright holder, so that's their decision - it's not been made by a committee of the politically correct. It's therefore more accurately described as revision, rather than censorship. It may well be of interest to future researchers on children's literature, but I don't understand why it's been seen as indicative of the downfall of civilization.

I can't see myself why reading books that make fun of fat people or bald people is vital to the psychological formation of the young. There are much more important things to concern ourselves with, both in terms of "censorship" (how about the banning of books in schools that include LGBTQ characters and themes, for example?) and in terms of making the world a less awful place for future generations.

I'd see it just a pragmatic response from the publisher to changing social attitudes. Personally, I don't think it's cool to use fatness for example as a short hand for laziness, greed or stupidity and I might not choose to give books to kids that do make that association. I think that the rates of depression and anxiety among young adults have a lot more to do with climate collapse and economic conditions that are making it increasingly difficult to aspire towards independence (e.g. getting a job that enables you to pay for your own place to live) than with a culture that emphasizes inclusion and diversity.

There's an important context that hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far, which is that Dahl's books are for children. Adults play a huge role in selecting what books children read (teachers, librarians, parents) and if I were a school librarian, although I might not drop Dahl from a library because of his quite cruel fatphobia, for example, it would give me some concern. If I were a parent I'd probably raise it as an issue to discuss with a child reading the book. There is a possibility that if these relatively small changes weren't made, then some people might choose not to stock Dahl's books, or to recommend them to kids. In this context, it's in the publisher's interest to make the changes because they reflect a change in general attitudes about certain things, especially when it comes to books aimed at children. The alternative would potentially be Dahl gradually falling out of favour and being read far less widely.

Charming! 😍

Yes, I've seen The Field. It's grand but not one of my favourite films. I think that the John B Keane play on which it's based is very good. I don't think there are lots of great examples of "period" films set in Ireland, but I haven't seen Black 47 and I heard that it's very good so I must check it out. (I still think that thinking of TBOI as primarily (?) a period film is fundamentally misguided by the way). I live in Ireland but not rural Ireland so I'm as familiar with rural Ireland as anyone else who lives in Ireland but not rural Ireland is. Answered all your questions now?

It wasn't me who started defending/ describing the film as a period piece. It's a dead end way of approaching it. Yes, you could compare it to a western in terms of settings and characters being archetypes as opposed to realistic - that's certainly closer to what McD is doing. But for me, they were less archetypes than really hollow and uninteresting stereotypes. I found the film incredibly shallow and dull. Much and all as I love Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, I also didn't think much of their performances, which were both very one note (but not really their fault because the characters were one note). Bottom line, I hate McDonagh's shtick, and I think it is just shtick, and it's well discussed in the article. I know other people like the film and that's fine.

When you say life may have been "like that" what do you mean? People in picturesque tweeds strolling around spectacular landscapes accompanied by "miniature donkeys" and spending their disposable income in a cute "Irish pub"? Plenty of people know what life was like in the 1920s in remote parts of the west of Ireland - my father, for one. McDonagh would never claim to be offering an accurate depiction so it's pretty pointless to "defend" the film on that score. The author of the article refers to John Hinde postcards, and that is a pretty good visual reference for the film, which is not in any sense realistic.

Well, if you insist that it's a period piece then it's a really sad excuse for one because it makes no attempt to communicate anything about said period (especially if, as you appear to agree, the references to the Civil War make no difference to the story).

Agree 100%.

Far from trying "to give meaning to every possible little thing" I think his main complaint is that the film ultimately means very little. I found it completely tedious. I'm Irish so I should be thrilled that it's nominated for so many awards, but I'm not excited at all because I don't think it deserves the acclaim it's received.

But in what sense is the film a "period piece"? Making occasional off hand references to the Civil War doesn't make it a period piece. The film didn't set out to depict the period of the early 1920s and it certainly didn't reflect anything of the reality of life at that time. It is instead a collection of clichés. I've read the whole article and think the author is spot on.

I've been meaning to try it again, so this makes me think I didn't give it long enough and I should try again. Thanks!

My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante. Most of my friends talk about those novels like they had a religious experience, but I really didn't click with them and I'm sorry, because obviously when you do, they're amazing.

Moby Dick. Started reading it in college then got too busy with other work - but I'd actually been really enjoying it. I must try it again.

I was a total wreck after seeing it. It was so emotionally intense, but because the whole premise was that Callum was concealing any distress from his daughter and focusing on making it a great holiday for her, all my emotions remained suppressed and held in as well. It was such a different experience from watching a more conventional film that winds you up for a big emotional pay off It was fascinating but uncomfortable - I can't think of another film that made me feel that way.