I have this recurring thought with each instance of this neo-puritanism I come across. It feels like society is losing patience for all things human. I sense contempt, almost hatred for the very things that unite us as living beings and separate us from computers. We're not perfect. We live in both place and time. We are born prejudice and survive prejudice. We form opinions through experience. We're practical, functional. We look out for ourselves, our family, our tribe, our community. Rather than fight or deny these tendencies, how about we acknowledge them and make society better by working within our humanness.
It seems like in it's attempt to encourage inclusivity and sensitivity, in many cases wokeism has pushed us in the opposite direction. If we aren't drones that have received the latest OTA update we are not accepted in society.
Also, altering the text of an author of yore to be more socially palatable for the times is pathetic, wrong, and more importantly a missed opportunity for education. These books were written in a time and place. If need be, let's talk about how and why the text, subjects and themes are different or maybe even out of place in today's society. Bowdlerization is lazy.
They could've added a great foreword that explains these things and kept the original text.
While I agree with what you wrote, I’d argue that there might be a better name for your viewpoint. “Neopuritanism” is really just another attempt to lambast the puritans as a group. It’s a sad and tired revisionist trope.
The puritans were largely rebelling from persecution in England and surrounding areas as a continuation of the reformation. They were largely martyred by their own people for their beliefs. Again, it’s a shame that most people only associate that group of people with the fictional work “the scarlet letter” or “the Salem witch trials”.
It's also incredibly insulting and disrespectful to Dahl to meddle with his work.
The endless critiquing & editing types should instead write new books and see if anyone's interested in their 'new' ideas.
It all reminds me of the 1980's era of putting antibiotics in plastic children's toys in case they might chew on them and get 'contaminated' by germs. We have to build up resistance along with critical reasoning skills but there's lots of evidence the kids just built up a lot of resistance to the antibiotics and the germs were good at building up immunities.
In the Victorian era 'Father Christmas' was conceptually green, skinny and 'good'. His opposite was Krampus who was bad, with lots of scary images of him carrying off terrified children.
Over time Coca cola et al made Santa's imagery fat, jolly, 'unopposed' and therefore meaningless, and now that tradition is reduced to a saccharin sweet gift giving orgy to children.
We are having similar conceptual erasure imposed on us in so many areas of society this decade and it is not going to end well.
It seems like in it's attempt to encourage inclusivity and sensitivity, in many cases wokeism has pushed us in the opposite direction. If we aren't drones that have received the latest OTA update we are not accepted in society.
Also, altering the text of an author of yore to be more socially palatable for the times is pathetic, wrong, and more importantly a missed opportunity for education. These books were written in a time and place. If need be, let's talk about how and why the text, subjects and themes are different or maybe even out of place in today's society. Bowdlerization is lazy.
They could've added a great foreword that explains these things and kept the original text.