Censoring old kids' books

[David]

I’m surprised nobody's mentioned this here yet, but this has been a big story over the past few days: the decision by Puffin and the Roald Dahl estate to release "sensitive" re-edits of his books.

https://theconversation.com/roald-dahl-rewrites-rather-than-bowdlerising-books-on-moral-grounds-we-should-help-children-to-navigate-history-200254

We’ve been here before, of course, with Enid Blyton back in the '90s, and indeed it's been pointed out that even Dahl's books themselves were changed in his lifetime (the Oompa Loompas were African pygmies rather than fantastical small orange people in the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).

For whatever it's worth, I've never been a huge fan of Dahl – I often found his stories unpleasant and mean-spirited, a disposition that seems to have been reflected in his own life (he was a rabid anti-Semite). Much of what has been changed is related to things that I disliked, such as his portrayal of overweight people as loathsome and disgusting – most of which is gone now, although apparently Augustus Gloop is referred to in the new books as 'enormous' rather than 'enormously fat', which seems to miss the point somewhat!

Like (I assume) most people, though, I'm not remotely impressed by any of this. Firstly, I hate the notion that you can change attitudes by wallpapering over the past (which, of course, is where books from decades gone by come to us from, and also what they signify), and the idea that artworks should be meddled with to reflect changing values. I appreciate the arguments that this isn’t quite censorship because the old versions of the books are still widely available in libraries and second-hand bookshops, and that making a new version of something doesn’t erase the past. People might reasonably point to the many versions of old fairy tales that exist, or "director's cuts" of movies. So I guess the issue isn’t that we ought to be treating works of art as sacred texts that can’t be meddled with, but that the reason you’re doing it matters. And if it’s effectively Bowdlerisation – sanitising works by smoothing off their edges and removing their bite – then that’s not treating readers with all that much respect, and feels not unlike the older, more heavy-handed interventions by censors that we'd hopefully left behind.

That’s my take, anyway. What do you guys make of this?

[stui magpie]

My view on this has shifted a bit, I don't have a problem with it in this context.

I see it as very different to re-writing classics which attract older readers, just trying to make kids stories better for Kids these days.

If I'm reading a bed time story to my grandson, I don't want his ears pricking up at words that aren't considered acceptable nowdays and ruining the moment by having to have the conversation about how this is an old book and what they said back then isn't how we do it now, I want him to enjoy the story.

I'm not a huge fan of Dahl, not because I have anything against him, just because I never ready any of his books, not myself or to my kids.

Yes there's a risk of people going way OTT, but these are kids fantasy books. If you can tweak a few words here and there without changing the story and therefore make the story an easier read for a new generation, then why not?

I could just imagine the look my Grandson would give me if I was reading Noddy and Big Ears and read the line "Noddy was feeling a little queer".

If they have a problem with using the word "fat", I'd rather use the clinical term "Obese" rather than enormous

[David]

[stui magpie]

I loved The Faraway Tree when I was a young kid, not so much the Famous 5, I sort of skipped to The Hardy Boys.

If you're reading to the kid during the day, I agree the opportunity is there to discuss things, but if I'm reading to my Grandson at night when he's in bed, I'm not looking to stimulate debate.

When he was last over, I read him The Dingo Pup by Banjo Patterson from a book I was given in 1970 called "The Animals Noah Forgot" and changed some of the words as I was reading to aid his understanding.

eg, opening line, "Twas the Dingo Pup to his Dam that said" I read as "It was the Dingo pup to his mum that said".

Changing a few words to aid understanding for a young kid is harmless provided it doesn't change the story. How old is Ingmar now? My grandson is 7 so I think similar age?

[David]

Yep, he just turned eight in November. Probably same year level at school, I’m guessing (year 2)?

I think changing old-fashioned or less commonplace words to something more comprehensible can be a sensible approach. Could also be an opportunity to help them expand their vocabulary through a quick explanation (e.g. "dam – that means mother"), but agree that time and context matter.

[stui magpie]

Ty just started Grade 1 this year. Considering his 2 years prior to ending up with my Daughter, it's amazing that his teachers rate him right were he should be for his age.

He's be in the bottom of his class though because he's in a good school with a lot of smart kids who haven't been through what he has, but he's holding his own largely through latent intelligence.

[What'sinaname]

I think no one posted on here because no one is surprised by the global cancel culture - and although it is not being banned, it is being censored so it doesn't offend.

It's all a part of the left's campaign to homogenise humans. We are being told how to think and being told what is offensive.

[David]

This article offers a compelling argument for why blaming the left or cancel culture for stuff like this misses the point:

https://popula.com/2023/02/20/roald-dahl-sensitivity-and-copyright/

[What'sinaname]

^ it doesn't miss the point. It actually recognises the changes needed to appeal to the homogenous snowflake generation who despite being told how unique and special they are, are just a bunch of lemmings.

[Pies4shaw]

This one was in our primary school library: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17824/17824-h/17824-h.htm

Try doing critical engagement with that text!

One site in Australia has been doing it's best to keep golliwogs going: https://allthingsgolliwog.com.au/

I don't see much merit in modifying the original versions. I suppose we could also take Shylock out of The Merchant of Venice, too (and probably someone already has). As for modernising the language in new editions, I see the merit in making works written in archaic language a bit more accessible but I actually prefer people to produce new works.

It becomes a serious probem in the performing arts. A couple of examples should suffice. Starvinsky's Petrushka is one of the greatest ballets ever written - and both deeply moving and tragic - but there is a "bad Moor" (the three lead roles are all, of course, puppets who come to life) puppet, who is usually danced in "blackface". Here's an extract from Nureyev's fantastic 1976 production (him as Petrushka, of course - Charles Jude, former Principal with the the Paris Opera Ballet is dancing the Moor): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjkmX21VYeU

If the Moor were replaced in Petrushka, it wouldn't be Petrushka anymore.

I know there is a push to rename one of Debussy's most famous children's works - and I understand why - but there are people who seriously suggest it ought not now be performed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cnm6eeAOzo

I don't think there's much doubt that Debussy's music was depicting a golliwog minstrel. To take the golliwog out of The Golliwog's Cakewalk, though, you'd have to change the meldoies, rhythms and harmonies. I'd much rather people not now write new piano pieces about golliwogs cakewalking but there's no merit in trying to change Debussy's brilliant work, still less in pretending it never existed or is about something else.

Then, there's the whole "orientalism" thing with The Pearl Fishers and Madama Butterfly. I suppose it would be possible to remove brownface pseudo-Sri Lankans singing Au Fond du Temple Saint https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3rf_lFcHzw or real Italians with funny eye makeup singing Un Bel Di https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1woH96ROG-c from the operatic reportoire but the World would be a much stupider place if we did that.

Better to leave these things as they are and focus energy on not creating new works that would definitely be racist/fattist/whateverist now.

If you got to the end of that rant and looked at all of the links, you deserve to see this short video of the best bass player Glen Waverley ever produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY2L812JV98

[lazzadesilva]

[David]

Good post, P4S. Agree with all of that. I’m fine with "remixes" if they serve a purpose – homage, satire or whatever – but trying to pass off a sanitised version as the real thing is a different matter. I guess that’s the biggest problem here from my perspective.

[David]

Seems this is moving beyond kids’ books now:

https://www.theage.com.au/culture/books/james-bond-novels-rewritten-to-remove-some-racial-references-20230226-p5cnmr.html

Again, I have no interest in Bond (books or films), but this is disturbing to me. I really do think that these "sensitivity readers" (two-bit censors, essentially, no more sophisticated than people putting pants on Greek statues) are being brought in for one reason and one reason only: to ensure the IP’s ongoing profitability and market position. As I think the article I posted above put it, it’s essentially a crude facelift.

Books, like people, should be allowed to grow old as nature intended – showing their wear and tear, visible in their distance from current social norms – rather than walking around the local high school with a skateboard slung over their shoulder saying "How do you do, fellow kids?". I only hope that this is merely a fad that soon runs out of steam, rather than our new reality.

[stui magpie]

I have more of a problem with this. I read most of the original Ian Fleming James Bond books when I was a teen. Even then they were dated and hardly literary masterpieces.

Most of the movies made in the last 30 years weren't based on his books so I don't see the appetite there to go back and read the originals. Seems like a shameless marketing exercise. Surely it would be preferable to simply put a disclaimer in new print runs that these books were written in a time when attitudes were different and the language in some parts is reflective of that time and needs to be read in that context.

[David]

Shameless marketing exercise is right – particularly now that the publisher has (partially) backflipped and decided to make the original versions available alongside the new expurgated ones. I expect they're laughing all the way to the bank.

David Mitchell nails it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/26/updating-roald-dahl-same-old-story-david-mitchell