An argument I heard against "localization" [1] of video games and cartoons is that one would never dare "localize" [2] Moby Dick, the Odyssey, or the Gulag Archipelago, so why not extend the same courtesy to other media vying to be recognized as "art"?<p>But apparently they <i>would</i> dare.<p>The next question is, are they compelled to mark these books as altered from the original, or is there no recourse for this forgery, and they can lie with impunity about what Dahl has written, by putting his name above someone else's words?<p>[1] Instead of mere translation, the dialogue, characters, and plot, are adjusted for a target market. Rice balls become hamburgers, jokes are re-written to not cause offense, references and phrases are changed to ones more familiar with the target market, etc.. Usually the practice is defended by offering a false dichotomy between a literal, word-for-word translation, vs. recreating the work as if it were made by and about members of the target market.<p>"This person from Mumbai said X. But someone from San Francisco, in that same situation, would never have said X! They would say Y, so let's localize it to Y."<p>[2] Not to be confused with <i>adaptations</i>, that do not try to pass themselves off as faithful renditions of the original, e.g. Romeo + Juliet