By SHAUNA ANDERSON
It isn’t Aunt Spiker and Aunt Sponge getting them all in a twist.
Nor Boggis, Bunce and Bean or even Miss Agatha Trunchbull – though she would surely send anyone into a frothing ball of terror.
A Roald Dahl book has been pulled from the shelves of Aldi after customers complained it contained language unsuitable for children.
According to The Guardian, the book was removed after at least one person commented on Aldi’s Facebook page, saying it had “an unacceptable word in it for kids” and that it was “(n)ot ok!”
An Aldi spokeswoman said the book had been pulled after “comments by a limited number of concerned customers regarding the language used in this particular book”.
Intrigued? Want to know word could Roald Dahl possible use that would cause such offense?
We all know that Miss Trunchball of Matilda was prone to fear-inducing outbursts like never before seen in a headmistress: “You blithering idiot! You festering gumboil! You fleabitten fungus! You bursting blister! You moth-eaten maggot!”
But so far, she seems to have survived the wrath of social media.
And it wasn’t Mr and Mrs Twit even though they are are cruel to birds, monkeys and small boys.
It isn’t even the anti-sugar crusaders complaining about Willy Wonka indoctrinating our children.
It was Roald Dahl’s Revolting Rhymes that has caused the uproar, and in particular the use of the word ‘slut’ in his take on the Cinderella fairytale.
In the book, first published in 1982 Dahl parodies six traditional fairy tales. In Cinderella it is her that is left at the ball, and the Prince instead of marrying who the slipper fits – this time it is one of the evil step sisters – instead cuts off their heads.
After he chops off both of her step-sister’s heads poor Cinders begins to fear for her life.
“Poor Cindy’s heart was torn to shreds. My Prince! she thought. He chops off heads!”
“How could I marry anyone who does that sort of thing for fun? The Prince cried, ‘Who’s this dirty slut? Off with her nut! Off with her nut!’”
After Aldi withdrew the book from sale the supermarket chain’s Facebook page was then inundated with complaints about what they branded as an overreaction.
“I am appalled at Aldi withdrawing the Roald Dahl book, Revolting Rhymes,” one commenter wrote.
“I am a frequent shopper at your Rydalmere store — BUT NO MORE!! You people are absolutely pathetic to cave in to such a petty complaint about one word in this book.”
“What IS wrong with you?! That book is a childhood classic, one that I loved as a child and one that I had planned to go in and buy for my own children this week,”
“Roald Dahl’s brilliantly hilarious, subversive and inspiring works should be compulsory reading for every child. Hugely disappointed in you Aldi.”
Australian children’s author Andy Griffiths told The Guardian kids love this kind of fiction.
“This is the kind of material that kids love, because kids want to go to those darker places and to the icky places, and explore them,” he said.
“One of the best ways to do that is with humour, so that you touch the fearsome, the fearful, the disgusting that we all know is there, and the kids need to have it acknowledged.”
Others though say it is time to do away with words such as ‘slut’.
Writing for FlavorWire Emily Temple suggests a re-print with the word ‘mutt’ substituted. “This is a poem in which a man, when interrupted by a woman, not only uses a sexual slur against her but uses it as a precursor to violence, and that’s something a little different, a little more insidious, than just cartoonish head-chopping,” she says.
Zoe Williams, for The Guardian, says that the term is being used in a different context in this book. She writes:
“The worst thing in the world, in my view, is the ad hoc creation of a taboo without proper discussion. Do we object because the word denigrates women? Or because it’s about sex? Are we meant to avoid it in order to be politically correct or prudish? Are prudery and feminist orthodoxy the same thing? They damn well aren’t, and any fresh omertà that makes them appear the same is a giant error.”
For author Andy Griffiths the question is whether or not any book should be banned at all.
“But what you don’t have the right to do is dictate to other parents and other children what they can access, because most people are very comfortable with it and understand that it’s incredibly useful,” he said.
“The worst effect it’s going to have is to turn your children into lifelong readers.”
We’re just glad that the parents who complained didn’t buy the BFG — because as we all know he only has frobscottle to drink.
And everyone knows frobscottle causes whizz popping. Imagine the outrage over whizz popping!
[post_snippet id=324408]
Top Comments
Language changes over time. Did we rewrite the whole of shakespeare because it contained words which have different meanings in todays world? Yes we did but we keptthe originals too. Maybe thats all that is needed. Kids shouldnt think its ok to call anyone a slut because they don't know the original meaning wasnt sexist. So change it to something less offensive. Cow and 'kill them now' maybe. The issue isnt the rudeness of the book its the understanding that todays kids have of the word slut. Noone is saying kids cant read fart or shit or any other rude word. Sexism, racism etc isnt acceptable. Whether it was originally intended that way or not isn'tsreally relevant.
The word slut originally meant slovenly house wife. So what the line is really saying is that Cindy kept her house untidy. It does NOT mean and was not meant to mean the definition used today. It's unfortunate that this book has been taken off the shelves