A Big, Fat Publishing Blunder — changing Roald Dahl’s books is the ultimate form of unnecessary censorship.
As someone who is fascinated with the English language — from the most modern, contemporary and challenging works to classics that span the decades — I was surprised to hear that earlier this week some of our most beloved children’s books have now been deemed unfit to be released for modern readers.
That’s right, the estate that owns the works of Roald Dahl, one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century, has made the shocking and frankly disconcerting call to edit the work of a man who has been dead for over 30 years in order to make it more fit for a modern audience as they so claim.
In just a snapshot example of the many changes that have been made: in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ‘fat’ has been traded for ‘enormous’ and in The Witches the grandmother now no longer makes the giggle-worthy statement that you can’t go round pulling ladies’ hair to check if they are wearing a wig, but instead pragmatically prompts that ‘There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that’.
Not only do these changes feel clunky and unnecessary, but it simply doesn’t sit right with me that we are changing the work of a man who can no longer consent but are publishing it under his name. It is worse when changes completely change the sentiment of what Dahl was trying to say.
The Witches originally reads that you might find a witch ‘working in a shop’ or ‘typing notes for a businessman’ and this has now been changed to working as a ‘top scientist’ or ‘running a business’. The rational here is clear: not wanting to present women in low paying, non-aspirational jobs, but Dahl’s language here was carefully chosen and specific — he wants to emphasise that witches can be found in ordinary places and in everyday encounters, including in situations that children come across all day, therefore playfully encouraging youngsters to question the world around them.
As someone who read nearly all the Roald Dahl books back in the early 2000s, I could tell even then that they were of a different time — The Witches for example was published in 1983, and everything from the tone of the language used to the descriptions of the characters distinctly echoed the past. The stories still held (as they do for children today) important messages and entertaining fairy tales that are essential to childhood. This completely negates the ‘keeping things relevant’ argument and instead sends a dangerous message that it is okay to change and update classic books from powerless authors beyond the grave.
While one can sympathise with the initiative to not push a rhetoric to children that if you are overweight you are immediately likened to Augustus Gloop or if a woman is wearing a wig then the only explanation is that she is a witch — but in 2023 there are plenty of ways for children to be aware of this, and the burden does not lie on classic children’s literature to educate them. A healthy balance of newer, more progressive novels as well as those written 40 years ago is crucial for children to spot the difference between the language that was acceptable then and the language that is acceptable now.
It would be ridiculous to assume that a description of the Oompa Loompas as ‘small people’ rather than ‘small men’ will immediately prompt for children an understanding of non-binary people in society since the beauty of Dahl’s (and really any) prose is that it can be interpreted personally by the reader, so children can deduce how the writing is understood by them (with the help of parents if need be). A child is unlikely to read the word ‘fat’ or ‘ugly’ and immediately apply it to themselves or others as it has simply been used to describe the specific fictional characters that Dahl was trying to convey.
Justification aside, it is truly disturbing that it has been considered acceptable to change the work of a deceased author, censoring it in a way that he did not intend. We wouldn’t censor Jane Austen, Shakespeare of Harper Lee, instead explaining the context of the language used which I believe makes for a much more interesting education. In no way am I spouting the tiresome ‘political correctness gone mad’ narrative, but surely it is more harmful to delete history rather than examining it? It is prudent for discourse to circulate about unacceptable and out of date terms rather than just erasing them all together.
In 2018, streaming giant Netflix purchased Roald Dahl’s estate in a move to be able to adapt and televise his works for a modern audience. This points to a more sinister motive behind the adaptation of the novels — a way to ensure no readers or watchers are excluded or offended in order to maximise profitable gain.
Finally, after the Queen Consort herself as well as the Prime Minister getting involved, Penguin Random House who are in charge of publishing Roald Dahl’s work have announced that it will publish 17 of the ‘classic’ unedited versions in an effort to let readers choose which version they prefer. Although this is a step back to the right direction, the integrity of the works remains tainted as I fear the originals will be labelled anti-progressive or ‘unwoke’.
If we want to update the literature that influences ourselves and our children, we need to concentrate on education around the language in all works, and the lessons that the past can teach about the future — most importantly honouring the language created by all writers not censoring it!
