Charlie and the Edit Factory

When the story first broke about the changes to Roald Dahl’s books for children, I was as outraged as everyone else. So Augustus Gloop in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was no longer to be “enormously fat” but simply “enormous”. Mrs Twit in “The Twits” was changed from being “ugly and beastly” to just “beastly”.  Lots of people have weighed in on the debate including Salman Rushdie, Brian Cox, Ricky Jervais and even Rishi Sunak has expressed exasperation at the “airbrushing” of literature. There is an extra resonance for me personally as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is the first book I can remember taking home to read when I was at primary school. It’s a book that has a special place in my heart.

Within this is the central point of what I see as a longstanding issue. Rushdie described the changes as “absurd censorship”. So when is it appropriate if ever, to amend the text of a piece of published work? The irony here is that Dahl’s work has been changed in the past. The Oompa Loompas were originally black people from Africa and this was changed in 1973 to soften any association with pygmies and slavery. The enigmatic helpers became residents of “Loompaland” instead with orange skin and green hair. Maybe the difference is that it was Dahl himself that made the changes rather than sensitivity readers updating today’s texts to fit modern values.

In an article in The Times on Saturday, Michael Rosen talks about the central tenets of whether an author’s work should be sacrosanct and not open to edits post publication and there being “no stable texts”. He goes on to add that all writers are edited and changed. Even lil ole me has been subjected to this. There I was in January waiting with baited breath for a story to be published in an anthology only to see the final version included a different title for my work. So “The Haunted Fort of Bhangarh” became “The Haunted House at Bhangarh.” I must admit to being a bit miffed at not being consulted or even advised of the change. As I thought about it over the next few days, I came to the conclusion that the update had been for a reason and I would live with it knowing that the story was out there and available to more readers.

I have, up until now, been in the camp that thinks a piece of art is a piece of art and should not be messed with. No statues being taken down, no soup to be thrown over artwork to heighten the profile of environmental issues, no songs with lyrics altered to pander to lobbyists. No to cancel culture; no to the concept of woke (even if I'm still unsure as to what "woke" actually is). The challenge is that times change. I was watching an old re-run of Michael Crawford buffooning around as Frank Spencer in “Some Mothers do ‘ave ‘em” on UK Gold. This episode had Frank’s grandfather travelling thousands of miles to visit from his sheep-farm in Australia. As the story unfolds, the family doctor is under time pressure and is due to appear in a pantomime. He gets dressed at Frank’s house and transforms into a woman’s garb. The tale ratchets up as his associate calls at the house, also in drag. Frank and Betty are dumfounded, unaware of the panto/show. Eventually, as the plot is unravelled, the husband and wife are relieved that neither man is “one of them”.  Whilst I still find some of the comedy from the 70s funny, I guess the truth is that shows like “Some Mothers” “Are You Being Served” in which John Inman is the effeminate gay man and “The Benny Hill Show” with its rampant sexism are products of their time but no longer fit for purpose in this day and age.

Having given the issue much thought, I can see a reason to update texts. It will always be a sensitive issue and a difficult one to get right. Which version of “Fairytale of New York” will you listen to next? The one with the word “faggot” or the later replacement with “haggard”? If it’s on the radio then chances are it will be the latter one. Does it matter? Purists will say that it does; those with an open-mind and not so precious about the non-alterable integrity of a piece of art may disagree.

The end result of all this is that Puffin have reissued all of Dahl’s children’s books in both their unedited form and the newly sanitised versions. It would be easy to be cynical and hear the metaphorical kerching of tills ringing. If that was the plan all along then it’s been executed immaculately. The truth is that this has made me reappraise my own take on what is appropriate and what isn’t. I’m still unsure as to the answer at times but then these are my words and maybe they will be edited in the future. Who knows?

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-20/six-key-changes-to-roald-dahls-books...

Comments

Some of the "improvements" made in Victorian times gave rise to the term Bowdlerism. I can follow your arguments, but - and it's a big but - what if someone gave 'Das Kapital' the treatment? Or '1984'? I'm sure there will be something inappropriate in both, but that's the point of a polemic, or a satirical, dystopian novel. In fact, I'll probably have a third reading of Orwell's classic, just to see if there is anything.

It was inevitable that Puffin would rush to put out a new edition of the original Dahl books. That's publishing; cynical and all about the money.

I can't accept the three Bs I'm afraid: there are three things you should never do with books; burn, ban or Bowdlerise them. Often, one can lead to the other. The relative merits of books doesn't matter. We can choose to read them or not. Regarding a children's book? Hmm... "No, you can't read, watch, touch that" is - in my admittedly limited experience - a guarantee that a child or teenager will want to do it. Changing the books, removing what may offend is an option, but how about not buying them?

I can't get my head round it. It smacks of totalitarianism to me. The political circle may turn left or right, but at the furthest from the start point, the practical effects of the ideology look and feel the same.

So, with cordial respect, we shall have to agree to differ.

Thanks for your thoughts, Ewan. A powerful and eloquent response, of course.

I was very much a purist myself until a few days ago. "Nineteen Eighty-Four" remains my favourite book and there is a case for drawing an analogy with Winston Smith working at the Dept of the Ministry of Truth. His job of rewriting historical documents on behalf of the Party and removing "unpersons" who are to be airbrushed from history could easily be someone working in a country like the Russian Federation or China. For me, Orwell's book is as valid and relevant today as it was when it was written in 1949 and the warning intended about totalitarianism and the threat to freedom has been brought into stark focus with world events of the last few years.

I have always maintained that a word is simply a word - a sequence of letters and no more. It's the intention behind the use of the word that creates nuances such as offence. The N-word is used routinely in gangsta rap music and other sub-cultures where it's considered to be cool. In pretty much any other context it's thought of as offensive and taboo. Agatha Christie's book "Ten Little Niggers" had its title changed to "And Then There Were None" in 1968. It is still available under both titles in different countries so which is the appropriate version for a child of today to read? Is the previous version an example of white supremism that should be frowned upon and avoided or a monument to a classic that reflects the time it was written?

Maybe this is about the intention behind edits and changes rather than the nature of the change itself. If a piece of literature is brought into line to reflect current values for the right reasons then maybe that is an intention that has a valid raison d'etre and isn't sinister at all. 

As I said in the original post, it's a sensitive issue and feels intractable. In a society where inclusion is higher profile than ever and schools have a duty to adhere to an ever wider set of intrinsic values to be taught to students, it feels like this debate will run and run.

 

https://booksplease.org/2013/10/17/ten-little-niggers-by-agatha-christie...

https://medium.com/writing-for-your-life/revisiting-the-horrific-racism-...

 

 

who decides what is unacceptable and where they stop. Agatha Christie's book title is a hardy perennial that is always raised. I don't get so upset about that one, but that is a bad thing, because I don't admire her work greatly - and that shouldn't matter. Whether I like it or not, should have no bearing on these decisions.

We can't even write the N-word here, where we are clearly referencing something that pertains to the past, that is by general consensus as unacceptable in every context except the one that you mention.

When I was in the RAF, I worked for a couple of months at a USAF listening station in Augusta, Georgia, there were one black guy on the shift of 6 that I worked with. Everyone was all very polite whilst he was in the room, but the minute he went for a 'comfort break' every single bit of bile, bitten off word and vile sentiment spewed out from his 5 USAF colleagues - until he came back. I don't think these people had heard of Agatha Christie. I told the guy in private at a bar in town. He had to say "it's ok, he's with me." at the door. You'll have guessed what he said when I told him. That's right, he said,
"I know."

Nuance is a bad word nowadays too, you may have noticed. I don't have the answer, but like I say, taking the word 'fat' out of Dahl probably isn't it.

We s swear a lot in Scotland, more than anywhere else in the UK. Nobody seems to give a fuck. 

 

Was thinking of you yesterday, CM. Congrats on Celtic winning the League Cup. And against Rangers, no less. I am guessing things got messy in the aftermath... 

 

cheers buddy, recovery mode. best team won, thank fuck