POV: Revising Roald Dahl’s Classic Children’s Books Is a “Dangerous Portent of Future Censorship”

We can’t and shouldn’t erase all outdated and potentially offensive words from literature

Collage: Three covers from Roald Dahl's books are shown in a row. From left to right, the covers of "Matilda", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and "James and the Giant Peach" are shown.

Book covers courtesy of Puffin

Voices & Opinion

POV: Revising Roald Dahl’s Classic Children’s Books Is a “Dangerous Portent of Future Censorship”

We can’t and shouldn’t erase all outdated and potentially offensive words from literature

March 10, 2023
7
Twitter Facebook

I’m not Roald Dahl’s #1 reader. As a child, I didn’t find my kindred spirit in Matilda or long to drink from the chocolate river with Charlie. There, I’ve confessed it! But as an author of a children’s book, I cringe at the wide-ranging way that Roald Dahl’s words are now being changed by his publisher.

If this precedent of drastically altering and updating a classic work like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory continues, what words of my own will be in danger in the future? When I work on my next children’s book, will I have to shift from imagining language that will engage young readers to scrutinizing which words might prove objectionable to their parents in decades to come?

Some may wonder: Why all the fuss? It’s just one children’s book author. Why has the Queen Consort of England alluded to the matter publicly? Why has Booker Prize–winning author Salman Rushdie condemned the edits so fiercely? For many who have joined the outcry against the extensive changes Dahl’s publisher Puffin Books announced several weeks ago, it is about more than protecting Roald Dahl and his stories. It signals a dangerous portent of future censorship and a concern about where we will draw the line, especially at a time when censorship of children’s books is often driven by politics.

Part of what’s shocking about the changes to Dahl’s books is how widespread they are. Dahl described the Oompa Loompa dancers in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as small “men,” but now they are small “people.” Instead of “fat,” Augustus Gloop is now “enormous.” 

There are plenty of authors whose works today might be thought of as out of date with today’s mores. Some readers in 2023 might cringe at Peter Rabbit’s mother withholding food as punishment in Beatrix Potter’s tale or at the guns in A. A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh. But these works have been left to stand as they were originally written.

In response to the widespread criticism since the news of the edits broke in mid-February, Puffin announced they will continue to sell the books in their original versions as part of “The Roald Dahl Classic Collection,” but they still plan to publish the heavily revised editions. While this suggests that the publisher and Roald Dahl Story Company—the manager of Dahl’s copyrights and trademarks—acknowledge the public’s desire for access to the author’s original words, the fact that they are still going ahead with the significantly altered editions shows a disregard for the larger concern about censorship.

As a parent, I will be purchasing the original versions of Matilda and James and the Giant Peach for my young children. I don’t believe we can erase all outdated and potentially offensive words from literature. In fact, trying to pretend troubling words don’t exist eliminates opportunities for elementary school children—the targeted age of Dahl’s works—to learn. Talking with children about language in books can be an important moment in their development.

I would also caution against erasing problematic language in Dahl’s fictional stories as a way of somehow correcting or distracting from problems in his real life. He was accused of anti-Semitism and, as a result, has been passed over for national honors, such as being commemorated on a Royal Mint coin, which I think is appropriate. A way to make sense of an author’s complicated legacy is not by conveniently changing his fictional words.

My hope is that we can capitalize on the international attention garnered from this debate about one classic children’s book author to engage in a broader conversation about representation in children’s stories. Instead of changing outmoded words in Dahl’s texts, perhaps future film adaptations of his novels can more effectively bring his stories to diverse 21st-century audiences. I certainly don’t think we should throw away classic texts—even the problematic ones—but we can keep reading the classics while making room for more writers from underrepresented groups.

So, go ahead and pick up a version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the words Roald Dahl actually wrote. And, while you’re at the bookstore, discover a new author too.

Sheila Cordner is a senior lecturer in humanities in Boston University’s College of General Studies and the author of Who’s Hiding In This Book?, a children’s book that introduces young readers to great works of literature and the authors who created them. She can be reached at scordner@bu.edu.

Explore Related Topics:

  • Share this story
  • 7 Comments Add

Share

POV: Revising Roald Dahl’s Classic Children’s Books Is a “Dangerous Portent of Future Censorship”

Share

  • Sheila Cordner

    Sheila Cordner is a College of General Studies senior lecturer in humanities; she teaches children’s literature. She can be reached at scordner@bu.edu.  Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 7 comments on POV: Revising Roald Dahl’s Classic Children’s Books Is a “Dangerous Portent of Future Censorship”

  1. I agree wholeheartedly with the writers. Changing the words of books does nothing to remove any prejudice and is merely a form of virtue signalling we now see far too often.

    It is unclear to me if the words themselves are harmful to begin with. It is the value society attaches to these words that make them dangerous. This means that over time, the word “enormous” will very likely have the same negative connotations we attach to “fat”. Perhaps publishers will use that moment as an opportunity to publish a new edition of the book and perpetuate a never ending cycle of replacing stigmatized words with new ones.

    My experience volunteering with various reading programs has shown (rather intuitively) that children are exposed to a variety of content beyond books. Even if we remove words in books, these words are clearly still present on social media and at the playground when children interact with their peers. The solution in not to remove the word but teach children the importance of respecting all body types. Books present an good opportunity to have a conversation about these topics. Sweeping the problem under the carpet nearly means we let social media algorithms teach children ideas better taught by parents/teachers.

    Even if it is important to change the words of books, perhaps the solution is to write new books instead of rewriting existing ones. There is obviously a lot less backlash to writing a new (appropriately worded and themed) book. In addition, we get to keep the original content of older books — books that people of all generations can relate to.

    Ultimately, children need to be exposed to a wide range of ideas when they are young — even if they are perceived to be harmful. The act of rewording books is no different from choosing to ban books as both stem from the assumption that children are unable to handle “complex” topics. If we believe childrens books should reflect the diversity of the world we live in, it should also reflect the diversity of the English language and the various, ever-changing connotations each word posesses.

    Reply
    Link

    1. I agree wholeheartedly! Whatever might seem offensive or uncomfortable in the older versions is an opportunity for deeper discussion about the changes in our cultural sensitivities. We needn’t “white wash” the past. It does nothing to protect our children from the reality of cruel prejudices and biases that continue to exist in the present.

      Reply
      Link

  2. I agree! I think especially with Roald Dahl’s complicated legacy regarding anti semitic comments and views, it’s important to recognize how works of literature from the past do not always perfectly translate well in present-day society, but this is something that must be acknowledged and not erased.

    Unfortunately, I was a big Roald Dahl fan as a child and was heartbroken as a Jewish person to find out about his views, and since then I haven’t been able to engage with his stories with the same zeal that I once had.

    I understand that books written in the present should definitely take care to ensure wording is inclusive and non-prejudiced, but changing the words used in the past does not feel like the answer. I think we should teach children about prejudice and harmful language and not exemplify it, but that doesn’t mean erasing it from the past.

    We need to recognize it was there, and that it happened, and is unfortunately still happening.

    Reply
    Link

  3. I agree with the writer’s POV. For as long as I’ve remembered, there were always arguments made on whether to censor children’s books, television shows, movies, etc. in order to “protect their young minds.” Whether you like it or not, these forms of art are, and will always be a part of history. Changing an original work does not promote inclusivity or how problematic something is. It only covers up the truth, which we will eventually unveil.

    Besides, with the current rise of digital media platforms, especially with the younger generation, altering words in classic books does nothing. Children are already exposed to Tiktok and Instagram at such a young age and are already learning new topics. Publishers are focusing on the wrong battle and need to redirect their concerns elsewhere.

    Reply
    Link

  5. As a child, I remember walking across my school library and picking out Roald Dahl’s books. It was a checklist that my and friends and I completed cause his stories were so magical that it transformed you into a different world. We also ended up doing a school play based on “The Twits”. It was disheartening to read that his books are being changed by his publisher. Change some of the words is futile as it still holds the same meaning, like changing ‘fat’ to ‘enormous’. These books mark a historic era in literature as they showcase the writing style of the late 1900s. Constantly editing older stories fails to recognise the evolution of writing through the years. There has been a conversation on editing these classics will be the solution to shelter children’s mind from the negativity. As rightfully pointed out in the other comments, social media is the main source of negativity that affects young adolescents. This is not the solution for their problem. Editing his stories just seems like an excuse!

    Reply
    Link

  6. I agree with your opinion, as an international student, and a person whose native language isn’t English, I find it disturbing that I might purchase a book and then find out later that what I read weren’t the author’s original work, but a very censored version of it! Especially for people who aren’t necessarily looking at news about this sort of thing, how would they know? I also think this opens up a huge question about the publishing house’s responsibility towards the author and their writing, it isn’t for them to decide what to publish under the author’s name, at least that’s what I believe! Thanks for the thought provoking piece!

    Reply
    Link

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today