Defiling the Art of Roald Dahl Kills Off the Spirit of Literature

With the terrible news that the entire works of Roald Dahl are being defiled and corrupted by woke publishers, one can only hold these criminals and vagabonds committing atrocities on literature as vile censorious scum who should be all lined up and …

Defiling literature in this way is an evil communist exercise in censorship that is compounded by a deathly silence from most writers and publishers, that is, apart from a few brave souls who dare to voice their disgust. Hypersensitive puritan woke Marxist readers are the new Ministry of Propaganda censorship board.

If a word is in the dictionary it should be allowed to be used as intended by an author. What’s the fucking point in having a language if you cannot use the words in it?

Hundreds of changes have been made to the beloved children’s books, including no longer referring to Augustus Gloop as ‘fat’.

Other characters have had their genders changed, and words like ‘mad’ and ‘crazy’ have been removed by censors.

Soon, as in George Orwell’s 1984, dictionaries will be so slim they will be able to be read in less than an hour.

You will be a goodthinker, you will only speak woke salad lingo, you will obey, you will report those who do not adhere to woke salad rules, if you participate in crimethink you will be put in a joycamp or simply be unpersoned. ‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course, the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or ” doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course, we use those forms already. But in the final version of Newspeak, there’ll be nothing else. In the end, the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.