It's one thing to advertise something as a modernized version and another to advertise it as the original work of the authors. Isn't it worth preserving how things were in the past? If not how will we understand where we came from? How will we know how to learn from mistakes if they're just erased?
That's an interesting point. I would agree that the attribution should clearly state "Revised in 2023 by Puffin" or something along these lines.
As for:
> Isn't it worth preserving how things were in the past?
Oh, yes, absolutely, and this is why archivists and librarians have such an important profession; and also why copyright law sucks so much. Do be angry at copyright law, don't be angry at the decision to modernize the texts.
"Why do we lie to children in the places and times we do" is its own fascinating topic, but are we expecting anyone encountering Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the first time to be reading it through a lens of "how things were in the past" lens?
I'm not sure. Bright children might indeed notice some things and ask questions about them. My childrens' first encounter with Matilda was via me reading it to them, at the ready for any questions they might have had, and also (great nerd that I am) probably trying to provoke questions and answer ones that were never asked.
