2025 Reading Challenge discussion

Augustus Gloop now ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, Mrs Twit no longer ‘ugly’ and Oompa Loompas are gender neutral

Over the weekend, I came across this article from The Guardian with the headline:

"Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive"

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18...

As someone who grew up reading Roald Dahl books, I find this utterly outrageous and saddening.

For anyone that doesn't know, this all comes about because the children's publisher Puffin Books has deemed the language used in Roald Dahl's books as offensive and not suitable for children unless sanitized.

Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

First of all, who made this publisher the gatekeepers of what sort of language is "suitable" or "unsuitable" for people?
The sheer ego and arrogance!
Surely we're all adults and can decipher what's harmful and what is not! Surely, parents can decide what they allow their children/youngsters to read! Surely parents can also decide whether their child can read it or not! Surely, trigger warnings can be added to these books! Surely, it doesn't justify them being rewritten!

Among the hundreds of selective edits, is the removal of words like 'fat', 'ugly', and other "problematic" adjectives used to describe characters’ physical appearances. Even a description of tractors as black has been removed from Fantastic Mr. Fox .
Gendered references have been diluted. Case in point, Matilda's Miss Trenchbull, once described as a 'most formidable female' is now a 'most formidable woman'. The Oompa Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are now 'small people' instead of 'small men'.

In other words, a significant change to Dahl's language to suit modern sensitivities about gender, race, weight, violence, and mental health.

In The Witches , a passage that reads: 'Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman' has been changed to, 'Even if she is working as a top scientist or running a business’.
A disclaimer has also been added to a paragraph explaining that witches are bald beneath their wigs, stating: 'There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.'

These alternations have been worked on in conjunction with an organization called Inclusive Minds, which describes themselves as "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion, diversity, equality and accessibility in children's literature, and are committed to changing the face of children's books."

In other words, a desecration of Dahl's trademark prose has been made in the name of "inclusivity", "political correctness" and "respectfulness".

First of all, let us for argument's sake, say this is not corporate censorship, but simply about "protecting" the young minds of the children of the future from cultural, ethnic, and gender stereotypes in literature and other media.

Is the supposition then that cutting adjectives, such as "fat" and "ugly", from literature, going to stop children from using them, or being hurtful altogether?
And if we're truly worried about offending others, is being called 'enormous’ then not a worse choice than ‘fat’?

Matthew Denison, Dahl's biographer states of Dahl, in a The Guardian article:

“I’m almost certain that he would have recognized that alterations to his novels prompted by the political climate were driven by adults rather than children.”

Yes. Do you know why? Because children do not know to be triggered by something unless they learn through indoctrination that they should become triggered.

Like millions of readers worldwide, I read these books when I was younger, and let me tell you, I didn't run amok being rude or calling people names!
I was brought up with manners. I knew the difference between saying something that was right and something that was wrong. And even if I didn't, I soon learned. That's where parental responsibility comes in, right?

A co-founder of Inclusive Minds stated that they : “aim to ensure authentic representation, by working closely with the book world and with those who have lived experience of any facet of diversity”.

However, if these so-called "sensitivity readers" are diluting and making alternations by way of rewriting parts and adding to Dahl's work, can it even be regarded as Roald Dahl's work anymore?

Sure, a spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company claims that “it’s not unusual to review the language” during a new print run and any changes were “small and carefully considered”

Yet, in the original James and the Giant Peach , the Centipede rhymes, '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 since been removed, and in their place, the new verses read: '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.'

Does the above sound anything like Dahl's inventive voice, style, and musicality? Or has the magical rhythm of Dahl's writing completely been obliterated?
How many "small changes" does it take before the essence of the original text no longer resembles itself?
Meaning new readers of Roald Dahl won't be getting a true sense of what it was that made him, him, but instead a 21st-century franken-version of beloved children's literature because someone, or a group of someones, decided that they would not, could not, should not allow anyone in the now, or in future generations, to read Roald Dahl the way they read it.

Should we not respect the author's intent, if they wanted something to be the way it is?
If Roald Dahl intended Oompa Loompas to be "small men", then why do we have to change it all of a sudden and make them gender-neutral?

Critics will be quick to point out that Dahl had some personal opinions that were pretty dodgy by today's standards, but he was born in 1916, he's naturally not going to have the same opinions or thought processes as a Gen Z.

So what exactly is the message here? That these things won't happen in the real world if they are removed from literature? That we all need to group-think, and not only expect but enforce the "correct opinions" on people who weren't around when said "correct" opinions were even enforced in the first place?

Taking into account that these are changes being made to fit a singular idea of what is acceptable, and what isn't, at this time in history, this is a slippery slope.

Screenshot from article on Sky News (20 February 2023)

What's next? What authors are next on the chopping block? What does it mean for the future of literature in 10 years time? Or 50? Will it even stop at rewriting literature, or cross over to repainting paintings, remodeling sculptures, etcetera?
So where does this moral policing and censorship end?

Personally, I've never been happier that I still have my old, original, cherished copies of Dahl's stories, so that one day my children can enjoy them in all their unaltered glory.

I would love to read your thoughts and opinions.
Let us discuss the censoring of Roald Dahl.

🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮🕮

Sources & Links of Interest
↬ https://edition.cnn.com/style/article...
↬ www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/20...
↬ www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggRP3ZEgvY
↬ news.sky.com/story/roald-dahl-book-re...

Hi Lisa, thank your for this outstanding summary. I've read about this in multiple newspapers and on multiple sites. I can only say that I find it outrageous to 'mutilate' Dahl's stories. I certainly hope that the books that were translated in Dutch will be spared and that new editions will not undergo the same treatment.

It's really interesting though because as Peter Hitchens tells TalkTV (Youtube link), the doctrine of editing children's books is nothing new. After all, naturally, language is not static, and therefore it's regularly subject to revisions to better fit contemporary expectations.

Most notably, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (1964) was partially rewritten by Dahl in 1973.
Where the Oompa Loompas were originally 'a tribe of tiny miniature pygmies' whom Willy Wonka 'discovered' and 'brought over from Africa' to work in his factory for no payment other than cacao beans, they later became residents of “Loompaland” with 'golden-brown hair' and 'rosy-white skin after the revisions.

And the most recent example is the bowdlerization of Enid Blyton's and Dr. Seuss' works.

From a linguistic, and perhaps even a sociological, point of view this is somewhat understandable.
What is sad in this case though, is that the modern society in question has become so overly sensitive that it has taken this to a dangerous extreme.

I think what really rubs me the wrong way is that Dahl is no longer alive and doesn't have a say.
Instead of editing and expurgating the work of the past, we should accept, learn from it, and do better in the future.
Anything other than that is, in my opinion, a crime since an obliteration of the past is fundamentally an obliteration of the truth.

In the wise words of Rafiki from The Lion King:

"The past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or learn from it."

Sadly, I do not think Dutch translations will be spared. Neither will Danish. It will take time, but there's no doubt in my mind that it will be done.

It is censorship no matter what they call it. Looking at the history of sanitising literature, this is a very dangerous, slippery slope.

Next it will be, Let's just ban the ones that won't let us change the words, eh?

I find this quite horrifying.

This is a very interesting discussion - I can totally see how some words/phrases might need to be amended to keep books relevant. The word gay for so many years meant happy/joyful but obviously now has a different meaning so changing a book that says "Jane was feeling gay" to be "Jane was feeling happy" doesn't feel like a problem to me as the meaning has not changed & leaving it unchanged could be very problematic.

We definitely need to be aware of language changes & acknowledge them but there does need to be a limit and some of this is just going too far ...
In the Witches example, children might not understand why somebody would be "typing letters for a businessman" as that typist role doesn't really exist nowadays (just as bus conductor doesn't) but I don't know why they felt they had to use the phrase "top scientist or running a business" instead of just changing one tiny part "Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or running a business" ... after all as we found during the pandemic, our supermarket workers are essential staff & that role is just as important as being a "top scientist"!

Children like opposites - hot & cold, fat & thin, tall & short and Dahl knew this. I think he would be very supportive of some of the changes (as can be seen in his update about Oompa-Loompas) but I can't help think that he'd be horrified about some of the others & yes, the changes to the caterpillar's rhyme in the James & the Giant Peach example DO change the rhythm that makes Dahl's work so engaging!

I can't help wondering if Winnie the Pooh will soon have to be a "Bear with neurodiversity" instead of a "Bear of very little brain" (actually that sort of works "when you are a Bear with neurodiversity, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it") & perhaps "tubby old cubby all stuffed with fluff" will be "cuddly bear-like-toy stuffed with fire-retardent polyester" or that "Isn't it funny, how a bear likes honey?" will become "Isn't it funny, how some bears like honey, but others instead like avocado on bread?"

One example that remains with me as something that acknowledges the past but doesn't seek to change it is the Dambusters film, where the dog is called "Nigger" - a word not well received today. In the USA I believe some releases of the films have been dubbed to call him "Trigger", but in the UK, instead of changing the name to "Digger" or "Fido" a warning/disclaimer is usually put on the screen at the start to acknowledge the film is historical and contains racial terms from the period which some people may find offensive.

I totally agree with you.
I'm happy to say that the Spanish publishers will not change Roald Dahl's books in Spain:

"We comply with no kind of censorship"
Editorial Santillana

👏👏👏

I read lots of older books to my kids and sometimes we just talked about how society has changed since the original writing. Literature is often a reflection of the times. Is it because we think children will be offended by the original versions of these stories?? Or are the adults offended and feel the need to change these stories to fit current socials norms?? Use books to launch into good discussions with kids...don't go changing all the books!

Hi! I appreciate the creation of this discussion. However, there is quite a bit of debate over whether this circumstance qualifies as censorship. This is not a government institution or entity restricting what can and cannot be published. This is not even a publisher unilaterally deciding to change the language, recalling all other editions, and only allowing the newly suggested language to be used.

This circumstance appears to be a publisher and the author's estate taking a look at the language in the books and offering an optional edition that has some of the terms altered for sensitive readers. The publisher has confirmed they will still be publishing the original editions. And older editions are still available.

While there are many interesting points being addressed during the discussions, here and in other forums, I do want to make sure we are being clear on what constitutes a violation of freedom of speech (which requires a government actor among other things), what constitutes real censorship (preventing or banning something being released to the public), and what is a decision based on multiple discussions that leads to an alternative option.

Megan wrote: "Hi! I appreciate the creation of this discussion. However, there is quite a bit of debate over whether this circumstance qualifies as censorship. This is not a government institution or entity rest..."

Thanks for this clarification, Megan. I agree that it's a fascinating discussion, and one well worth having. As you say, it is important to keep in mind the source of the literary alterations. As it's the author's estate (and publisher) acknowledging and instigating the changes, I see it as a reasonable.