On Roald Dahl

[Ban]

So what are our thoughts on the current literary debacle regarding the posthumous editing of Roald Dahl's books to be more sensitive to certain modern sensibilities? For those who aren't aware, there's a bit of a commotion around the removal of descriptors such as "fat" in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or the changing of "mothers" and "fathers" to a more general "parents."

I think it's important that shared standards emerge regarding the involuntary editing of literature after the death of an author, so I am interested in your thoughts. As always, let's stick strictly to the topic at hand without veering into political or societal rants.

 

[Ban]

Personally I am opposed to the way these edits have been done, but not necessarily to the idea of transforming works of literature to suit different time periods and audiences. Had these editors put in the work to create a distinct interpretation of Dahl's books written under their own names, I would find little issue with it, but by merely censoring certain words and ascribing them to Dahl as posthumously his they have done a disservice to the author and the integrity of his work.

In other words, I have no issue with someone rewriting Arthurian legend for the millionth time, but you can't ascribe your fan fiction to Chrétien de Troyes.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I don't oppose the idea of updating a work to modernize the language, but I think they've gone too far.

Older books can contain accidental racist ideas. What I mean by that is that those ideas were perfectly acceptible at the time of writing the book, but don't fit with our current understanding of how the world should work. When Roald Dahl was born, the United Kingdom was one of the largest empires in the world. And that attitude can be seen in his choice of words in some instances. That's not because he was a bad person. But simply because that was the world view at the time.

I'm fine with changing the wording of those aspects. However, changing things like father or mother to parent or fat is different. That's just trying to protect children from harm where there is none and pushing your own political agenda onto a dead author's work. I don't like it.

 

[Queshire]

Can we get a link to something going into more details about this? It's the first I've heard of it.

 

[pmmg]

Plenty of em out there.

‘Sensitivity readers’ rewrite Roald Dahl stories, edit out terms like fat, crazy, boys & girls

 

[pmmg]

I think my thoughts on this will not be surprising. I think it is another thing to throw on the pile of bad ideas from humans, and I regret we live in a culture where this type of 'good intentions' permeates into so much stuff.

I would add, for those in the future, that no one...not my family, not my estate, not some busy-body who thinks they get to publish my work in the future, may change what I have written to update it to some other set of values without my express written permission.

 

[Finchbearer]

Opposed. Won’t go into it too much, but you may as well go ahead and rewrite all literature, if you’re going to completely change someone else’s writing to suit ‘sensitivities’.

Children also need to be able to make their own mind up about the world, not have the sensitivity police only let them see the world through a politically correct filter.

 

[Queshire]

Eh, put something in the front of the book saying it's been edited and this all seems like a big ol' nothingburger to me.

 

[Hope Charlotte]

I'm personally against it - not because of any 'political correctness' issue given Roald Dahl was an outspoken anti-semite and I'd be surprised if that doesn't permeate his work in some way - but because I don't think it's honest or useful to do. Children are able to engage with texts critically and it's a disservice to them to claim that they aren't. They can engage thoughtfully with writing that contains things we now find reprehensible.
In my opinion, if publishers want to 'update' these books, they should instead write a relevant disclaimer at the start (like old racist Disney movies) and keep the texts unaltered.

 

[CupofJoe]

One author I heard, when asked abut this said that if Dahl's works are now unacceptable, let them fade away and go out of print. And added that this would make room for new authors who can't get space on the [metaphorical] shelves because of the big beasts already filling them.

 

[pmmg]

Who still has shelves?

No disclaimers on my work either Publish it or dont, but if the values of tomorrow dont like the values I wrote them in, they can just reject them.

Mr. Dahl lived in a different time, and saw different events and was moved by different things than all of us. Whatever opinions he held, were informed by the things he saw in his life and the way that sifted through his filters at the time. I am sure he was as much a product of his time and culture and every one here is a product of ours. Its not right to change his words, or sanitize them. He stands on his own, and also as a time capsule for a yesterday age. Humanity does not need help to understand that. If he is too offensive for todays skulls full of mush, than there are other books instead.

 

[Queshire]

I'm personally against it - not because of any 'political correctness' issue given Roald Dahl was an outspoken anti-semite and I'd be surprised if that doesn't permeate his work in some way - but because I don't think it's honest or useful to do. Children are able to engage with texts critically and it's a disservice to them to claim that they aren't. They can engage thoughtfully with writing that contains things we now find reprehensible.
In my opinion, if publishers want to 'update' these books, they should instead write a relevant disclaimer at the start (like old racist Disney movies) and keep the texts unaltered.

I tend to see arguments along these lines when it comes to childrens cartoons; often in the context of modern day cartoons being stupid compared to the cartoons we had back in the good ol' days.

Honestly I'm torn? Like yeah, you don't want to be dissmissive of children, but at same time it seems a disservice to expect them engage with a work to the same level that an adult would because they just haven't had the time to build the same mental foundation that and adult has.

Erm, not that I'm sure that applies here. Like I said, I'm more used to seeing this sort of argument in reference to cartoons so I'm more thinking along the lines of things that an adult would just roll their eyes at or think is overdone but a kid finds rip roaringly funny.

 

[Hope Charlotte]

I tend to see arguments along these lines when it comes to childrens cartoons; often in the context of modern day cartoons being stupid compared to the cartoons we had back in the good ol' days.

Honestly I'm torn? Like yeah, you don't want to be dissmissive of children, but at same time it seems a disservice to expect them engage with a work to the same level that an adult would because they just haven't had the time to build the same mental foundation that and adult has.

Erm, not that I'm sure that applies here. Like I said, I'm more used to seeing this sort of argument in reference to cartoons so I'm more thinking along the lines of things that an adult would just roll their eyes at or think is overdone but a kid finds rip roaringly funny.

I'm not at all saying that Roald Dahl is or isn't any better than any modern children's book. In fact, I'm not really sure how well his work holds up. I just don't think it's beneficial to children to censor older media. I do understand that children lack the judgement abilities of adults, but I also think they're smarter than we tend to give them credit for.

 

[Finchbearer]

Education starts at home with parents / responsible adults, so from that perspective when thinking about how children are being parented, it’s asking about the level of appropriateness when giving children things to interact with. I love a particular scene from a film called Captain Fantastic, when his daughter, who is around perhaps 12 or 13 years old, who has finished reading the book Lolita, and the dad asks her what she thought of it, and there began an intelligent and honest discussion of the points about the controversial text, that is parenting to me. If my son picked up Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies, I’d love to have a guided discussion about it. Same goes for Roald Dahl I suppose.

 

[Queshire]

I'm not at all saying that Roald Dahl is or isn't any better than any modern children's book. In fact, I'm not really sure how well his work holds up. I just don't think it's beneficial to children to censor older media. I do understand that children lack the judgement abilities of adults, but I also think they're smarter than we tend to give them credit for.

Fair enough, fair enough. It was just close enough to those other arguments that I felt the need to reply.

Personally? If I was put on some committee to vote whether they should do this or not I would vote that no, they shouldn't, but since it's a thing already happening then I don't see a lot reason to have strong emotions about it. I mean, escalate on the concept long enough and sure you might wind up with something like soviet era un-personing people out of photos, but the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. That leaves us with a writer's natural protectiveness over their words, which, fair, but the article makes it sound more like it just being treated as if it was undergoing another round of editing albeit from a modern perspective so, *shrug.*

Actually, editing a classic as if it was something freshly submitted to be published today sounds like it'd be a truly interesting case study looking at how things have changed between then and now.

EDIT: Edited so that the quote is on the top of the post. Always hate it when they wind up on the bottom.

 

[Mad Swede]

Personally I'm against it. Partly because, as L P Hartly wrote, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." But partly also because we as adults are deluding ourselves if we think children don't use terms like that between themselves and about others. We're at risk of over-protecting our children when what we should be doing is encouraging them to read, listen and think for themselves. We might encourage them to think about terms like that and ask when they think it's OK to use them? Because in some situations it is OK. But by denying children the chance to even read things like that we're denying that the problem exists - and that makes dealing with offensive behaviour and the hurt it causes much more difficult.

 

[Queshire]

But partly also because we as adults are deluding ourselves if we think children don't use terms like that between themselves and about others.

I... don't think any of the people responsible for the edits think that kids don't use terms like that between themselves and others???

 

[Mad Swede]

I... don't think any of the people responsible for the edits think that kids don't use terms like that between themselves and others???

So where then is the problem with leaving those words in? What we should be teaching (or discussing) is when those terms are appropriate - and books, like playground talk, are a good starting point for such discussions.

 

[Queshire]

I mean.... there's nothing wrong with having a direct conversation, but I should hope that all our experience with writing has shown that the indirect route can be just as effective.

 

[Finchbearer]

I mean, Lady Chatterley’s Lover was famously banned, along with many other books that we don’t blink an eye at these days, but this was decades ago speaks about the ideals around morality at the time, but this feels way more invasive, to actually change the words that the (now long since deceased) author wrote years and years ago. That we have the audacity to do that says a lot about where we are right now.