Yet another controversial censorship action has been taken, sparking much national debate: Roald Dahl’s children’s books have been or are in the process of being edited to remove offensive language and raise them to modern day standards (although it must be noted that Penguin will not take originals out of print entirely due to backlash). The much-loved author has faced criticism over the years, with many recognising his empire-era views as racist and unacceptable today. This is far from incorrect – his second autobiography Going Solo does convey somewhat his patronising attitudes toward the native inhabitants of Britain’s colonies. However, the offensive words and phrases that have been removed from his children’s books include “black” and “white” – the BFG’s cloak is no longer black, for example, and characters will no longer be “white as a sheet” but instead “still as a statue”. “Fat” has also been cut – particularly in reference to greedy Augustus Gloop – as well as “ugly” and “crazy”. Ms Trunchbull is also no longer referred to as “female” but as a “woman”. These changes can be seen to have some positive effect – or, at least, intention. Depictions of evil or villainous characters in many of the films and books we consume see them as overweight, having big noses, curly hair, so on so forth. These undoubtedly do create and perpetuate stereotypes that are simply untrue and unfair, often targeting ethnic minorities or those who do not fit our western standards of what is ‘beautiful’ and therefore ‘good’. In no longer referring to the vicious headmistress as a “formidable female”, we also prevent alienation of trans people whose gender identity does not align with their biological sex.
My issue with this decision, however, is that it is ultimately erasing history. We cannot deny the truth from ourselves and our future generations that such attitudes and language were the norm in the era in which Dahl was writing. In the pretence that, 50 years ago, we did not use such words in an intended negative way, the fight and progress made to get to where we are today is fundamentally negated. For example, the new edition of The Witches sees “even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman or driving around in a fancy car” change to “even if she is working as a top scientist or running a business or driving around in a fancy car”. The intention of this change is clearly to encourage ambition into the subconscious minds of young girls reading this – indeed, it is what I would expect from any modern children’s book. But The Witches is not modern: it was published in 1983 – when Dahl was nearing 70. How can we expect a book written 40 years ago by a man well into his old age to have such a progressive outlook? Doesn’t pretending that women were not dealing with misogyny and the glass ceiling – as they are today – undermine the feminist movement over the years?
This change is arguably comparable to Orwell's 1984 and Big Brother’s frequent changing of history to suit them that day. This can be applied to making the Oompa Loompas gender neutral; it simply was not commonplace at the time, and we cannot pretend it was. I entirely agree that we ought to see representation of gender neutral or trans characters in children’s books to encourage open minds and acceptance in our future generations, but how can we pretend that it has always been like this? Indeed, by allowing historical attitudes to remain in our literature, we can convey how far we have progressed to our children. Furthermore, it is a little disappointing that colours when used as descriptors have been removed. The tractors from Fantastic Mr Fox, for example, instead of being described as “black” are now just “murderous, brutal-looking monsters”. It is clear throughout his work that Dahl’s use of the words “black” or “white” does not refer to race. Indeed, as ludicrous as it may sound, words often have more than one meaning. There was no need for these words to be removed.
I am saddened to see Dahl’s books being changed in this way. We cannot expect old books to live up to modern day standards, and, if they are not good enough, let them die out of print, as author Phillip Pullman suggests. Let’s not lie to ourselves and future generations. It is fundamentally futile.
My second issue with this decision is the harmless nature of Dahl’s books in the face of all the terrible things of the world that genuinely enhance discrimination. Andrew Tate’s videos, for example, are still accessible, and much of his propaganda is still spray-painted on walls along streets. Kanye West has been seen promoting antisemitism and White Lives Matter, and our government’s solution to the influx of asylum seekers is to propose to send them to Rwanda – promoting the message that immigrants are not welcome in our country. Removing minutely offensive language from old children’s books will not provide any solution to discrimination, especially while there are still public figures actively promoting misogyny or prejudice toward certain ethnicities. Instead, it will set precedence for many more dated books to be edited, hiding the cultures of their time. Fundamentally, it will do nothing to benefit society. Indeed, I would argue that this decision will actively hinder any progress we might be able to make: the comments of BBC News’ Instagram post of the editing of Dahl’s work is filled with people accusing the ‘snowflake generations’ of being too sensitive and claims that this is the beginning of the end. In my view, the divide between the woke youth and older generations will only increase, causing more resistance to the positive change we so desperately need. I do not see how the editing of Dahl’s books will benefit society in any way, and I am sorry to see this erasing of history and the denial we are burying ourselves in.