Damn those assholes.
I'm talking about the publishers of Roald Dahl's books and the estate, or whoever signed off on this madness to tidy up his books. Here's a sampling of the offensive words that they deemed so egregious they had to be expunged:
Fat: Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who was described as "enormously fat" is now just "enormous."
Ugly: Mrs. Twit in The Twits is no longer called "ugly and beastly" now she's just "beastly."
Crazy: Mrs. Jenkins in The Witches no longer "goes crazy" but instead she "will be furious." Matilda, who was "crazy with frustration" is now "wild with frustration."
Female: Miss Trunchbull formerly described in Matilda as "a most formidable female" is now "a most formidable woman." The Witches who were described as "a bunch of dangerous females" are now "dangerous people," also "old hags" is replaced by "old crows."
Mothers and Father: Changed to "parents" in several books.
Seriously?
You might look at these changes and say, so 'mothers and fathers' changed to 'parents', means the same thing, what's the big deal? I answer, exactly, what's the big deal?! What is so offensive about 'mothers and fathers' that it had to be changed. But there is a big deal and it's that a decision has been taken to alter the work of an artist from the original, and that's an affront to the integrity of the work and the dignity of the creator's artistic legacy.
The rationale is obvious in this case, it's to sell more books and make more money. I think that's a miscalculation. But putting the commercial aspect aside, it's treating art (and literature counts as art), as nothing but a consumer product, no different than clothes or electronics. Books are original creations of mind and heart intended to enlighten as much as entertain. They aren't simply manufactured product to be tweaked and marketed from time to time as 'new and improved' in order to sell more product. For anyone to argue this is just an 'update' of Dahl's books, my response is: Would anyone accept making word substitutions to Shakespeare's plays to update them?
What about the argument that words like "fat" and "crazy" have become offensive terms today in a way that they weren't in Dahl's time? I have two responses. First, all artwork has to be understood in the context of the era of their creation. That's part of the way we learn to appreciate art. Should we edit out the n-word from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Or rather use the text as written to delve deeper into the meaning of slavery and racism in America? In my view, the shock of experiencing that word in the text is essential to achieving greater understanding of where we were and how far we've come. Second, 'offense' is often in the eye of the beholder and not a reason to alter an artist's work. Offense is often the point of art, and it's by risking offense that cultural progress is made. In the case of Dahl, to edit out the supposedly offensive bits is so egregious because he was a satirist (like Twain). Walking the line of offense was part and parcel of his craft. Anyone who has read any of his adult fiction knows that his literary modus operandi is to surprise and outrage. In his work for children, using salty language (toned down to suit his readership) was clearly intentional. Subversiveness is the very essence of Dahl's work, and he chose every word carefully for effect. To change even a word is to diminish his work.
Another argument I've been hearing is that the edits and omissions can be justified by the age of the readership. It might be called 'censorship' if they were being made to his adult books, but children need to be 'protected' because they are easily influenced and unable to think critically about what they are reading. This is hogwash (no offense to hogs). In the first instance, it's parents who buy children's books, they make the decision on whether it's appropriate for their children. Furthermore, if you are a parent like me, you read Dahl's books to your kids, because let's face it, not many kids pick up books on their own. Secondly, I give kids, especially the ones who are age appropriate for Dahl's books, a lot more credit, and clearly so did the author. Dahl's books are spicy, that's what got kids (and their parents) reading them in the first place. It's entertainment not indoctrination. Just because an exaggerated fictional character like Augustus Gloop is described as 'fat' or the mythical witches are called 'ugly women' doesn't mean the kids will instantly become bigots or mysoginists. Rather, the edgy style of Dahl's writing may actually turn kids into avid readers, like it did to me, and creating book lovers is an author's greatest achievement.
For those who haven't read his books, I'll give an example from the 1971 film adaptation of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, for which Dahl wrote the screenplay. There is a scene, not in the book (and not actually in the original screenplay either), that beautifully illustrates what I'm talking about. Willy Wonka emerges from his factory, the first time he's ever been seen in public. His reputation is as a great and powerful man, but he appears to the assembled crowd outside the factory gate shockingly frail, he walks slowly with a cane. Suddenly, he trips and falls, the crowd gasps. But he does a sommersault and hops to his feet, agile as a gymnast. It was an act, signalling that appearances are not to be trusted on the journey he is about to take us on. It's a brilliant piece of filmmaking (actually improvised by actor Gene Wilder) that encompasses so much about the story, foreshadowing what's in store for the audience. I'm sure disability rights activists have demanded that the scene be expunged from the film as offensive. Doing so would diminish the film. I hope it's not the next part of Dahl's legacy to be chopped.
As you can probably tell, I loved Roald Dahl's books when I was a kid. I loved his adult fiction too when I got older. I was incredibly disappointed to learn later in life that Dahl was an unapologetic anti-Semite. It's well documented. There's nothing I can do about that. But his offensive racist views don't change I how feel about his books. Just as the full picture of who he was as a person must be acknowledged and not 'whitewashed' to help sell his books, so should his original works remain unchanged.
__________________________
UPDATE: The 'backlash' that was elicited by this announcement has prompted the publisher to back down, in a way. They don't say that they've decided to rescind their decision, but that they will also be publishing unchanged 'Classic Editions' of the original books. This leads me to suspect that the whole thing was a cynical marketing ploy to boost public interest in the books from the beginning. I think it worked. Damn them again for their cleverness.
