Censorship v. Sensitivity
Works of literature are not statues
“Biggest” News in Books: Censorship is Back
Puffin, one of the largest and most prodigious publishers, has decided to drastically edit, with the collaboration of The Roald Dahl Story Company and Inclusive Minds, the late author’s works in its next editions of many of Dahl’s classics. And the changes aren’t mild; a sampling of what has been reported is as follows:
“A witch is always a woman”, went the 2001 version of The Witches. “I do not wish to speak badly about women. Most women are lovely. But the fact remains that all witches are women. There is no such thing as a male witch.” Now, it will read simply, “A witch is always a woman. There is no such thing as a male witch.”
In Fantastic Mr Fox a description of tractors, saying that “the machines were both black”, has been cut. In the new Dahl world, it seems, neither machines nor animals can be described with a colour. Nor can anything be fat. “Bunce, the little pot-bellied dwarf”, is now plain old Bunce. The Small Foxes, previously sons, are now daughters, while Badger’s son has become a “little one”.
In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”
Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”
In the great debate over our changing relationship to and revaluation of history, it’s important to remember that changing works of literature and art is not the same as tearing down statues. Tearing down a statue is deciding to change what is valorized in the public square; retroactive sensitivity reading (a sensitivity read is exactly what it sounds like) does not fall under this same definition. Taking the Mona Lisa out of its prominent position in the Louvre would be the equivalent to taking down a statue; painting over her expression to alter it is closer to what is happening with Dahl’s works. This move by the publisher and estate is, at its core, about altering a dead author’s art to fit some new definition of what is decent and politically acceptable, no matter how hard they try to frame it as part of making sensitivity reading the industry standard practice in children’s publishing
Cen-sorship
to suppress, alter, or delete anything objectionable that is considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
The crucial difference between sensitivity editing and censorship is that the artist, in this case, has no chance to reject these edits. In public statements, the Dahl estate argues that these changes are “small” and do not alter Dahl’s “sharp-edged spirit.” This feels entirely disingenuous, as whether or not you think these changes are for the good or ill of the reader, it’s hard to independently read these passages (especially with an editor’s eye) and argue that they don’t change the tone, meaning, and intent of these sentences entirely. And even if they don’t want to fully own up to it, that is the estate’s and publisher’s stated purpose of doing this in the first place: these alterations take venom out of Dahl’s sentences, they make him less mean and more inclusive in accordance to some people’s contemporary standards.
Sensitivity reads for living authors can be a valuable practice. At their best, sensitivity reads can be another form of specialized editing that the writer and editor may consider valuable but lack the knowledge to carry out. It’s not so different from getting a fact checker for a nonfiction book or bringing in an expert to read on a specific subject that the author may not specialize in (i.e., if you have a doctor as a character, you might ask a doctor to read passages to see if the treatments they administer are plausible). Sensitivity reading is an extremely tricky and subjective worm hole, but the benefit is that—like almost any editorial advice—an author can (and should) be able make the decision themselves as to whether they implement the changes suggested. If the writer refuses to make edits that the publisher deems crucial, then the publisher can reasonably decide if they will move forward with publication. But a retroactive sensitivity read, without the creator’s consent, is at best censorship and at worst creating propaganda.
These wholesale changes may have some connection to Netflix buying the rights to Dahl’s works and intellectual property for nearly $700 million dollars two years ago. Cynically these edits can be seen to do with protecting or at least changing the nature of “the brand” underlying these works more so than concern for them as literature. Large, global corporations are generally fine with more generic and less sharp-edged, which supports the overall business strategy to get big, not deep. It’s why Hollywood edits scenes and plot lines for the Chinese market. Having a consultant-esque group called Inclusive Minds involved with these Dahl changes doesn’t necessarily instill confidence that this is motivated for the right reasons— a corporation does often hire outside help when they are making some kind of PR move. For the better part of human history, censorship was motivated by top-down political control—and that’s still the case in many parts of the world—but now what we’re seeing is capital-motivated censorship as publishers and media companies follow the winds and whims of their customer bases who increasingly demand that their politics be taken into consideration in commercial spaces. If removing any mention of a color in Dahl’s books and the word “fat” is going to make for a successful marketing campaign, then it is indeed from the owner’s perspective a “small change” to make in order to protect or increase the underlying property’s value by millions. This is profit pragmatism in action: the IP holders don’t think the books are too offensive or wrong to publish as-is—that would hurt their investment—instead it’s selective altruism based on market economics.
Likely the result of these changes is good on both ends economically for the right's holders, as we’ll see a spike in Dahl sales as the outrage gets ramped up to an even higher level in opposition—we saw this with Dr. Seuss last year when controversy rocketed his books to the top of bestseller lists. This is turn will further justify the new Dahl edits to the group of people that favors them. Each group gets their own version and there’s no room to reasonably talk about the piece of art as an imperfect pursuit with pros and cons. Everyone loses when art no longer occupies this grey area where people learn to form ideas and opinions for themselves and instead Dahl’s books become another way—as if we needed one—to simply express political stances instead of thinking critically about politics. Or, as the chief executive of PEN America Suzanne Nossel put it: “If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society.”
Thinking that children are incapable of not being unduly influenced by bad words or scary stories has always been the failure of the imagination of the adults, not children. If you find value in Dahl’s works then you also have to accept the ugliness of the life and creative mind that made them, but it seems the obvious lesson to teach the adults here is that you don’t have to adopt the morals of everything you read, see, or are told. The recourse is not to tinker with the works themselves or to ban them, but to use what is inspiring or true about them as a template to create better art. Rewrite an myth, create a new translation, maybe debate a children’s book’s message and make your case without trying to rewrite it. The great gift of books, or any art really, is that you can use disagreement as fuel to make something better, more entertaining, more creative, more morally aligned with how you see the truth of the world.
Back Matter: Links and Other Happenings
In other controversy, 1000+ contributors sign a letter protesting the New York Times coverage of trans people and the moral quandary of Harry Potter continues.
Gyllan Flynn’s first order of business as a publisher/editor is a crime fighting nun. Modern Love has an excellent series on language and love (the best, in my opinion, being how the language of therapy has invaded dating). The HaperCollins strike finally ends. Big book-to-TV adaptation coming in March. We can all be very “thankful” that the shattered Jeff Koon’s balloon dog was covered by insurance.
Roald Dahl Sources
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/books/roald-dahl-books-changes.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/02/19/roald-dahl-books-revisions-salman-rushdie/?utm_source=pocket_saves
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/puffin-books-from-publisher-to-censor/?utm_source=pocket_saves