That was my thought. Reading about all the changes had me looking askance at Roald Dahl: it's like, sheesh, somebody's far more edgy than they really needed to be.
But that's who that guy was. That's what came out when he set out to be edgy. Removing it, you might as well write a different book. Misrepresenting who the guy is in order to sugar-coat him seems not the right approach, to me.
So if you do that, you should DEFINITELY edit Harry Potter to get the terfliness out of it, simply because I'd like to see Rowling's reaction to that :)
I don't think the oppressed need their enemies painted over and hidden. I think they need allies. A little more 'You have my bow." "And my axe!"
"Let's just not mention Sauron k?", not really the same effectiveness.
> Rowling was a progressive darling for years until she expressed disallowed sentiments outside of her fiction writing.
Really? Talents based on heredity, the portrayals of the Dursleys as fat, the renditions of other cultures, the questions of whether the goblin bankers echoed anti-Semitic stereotypes, the domestic slavery, etc. got criticism for years. She got some kudos eventually for saying Dumbledore was gay but that was late and never in the books, so it seems pretty minor to hang that theory on.
