Publisher Reverses Course on Censoring Children’s Books After Backlash

Last week, the internet was well ablaze with outrage over publisher Penguin Random House’s decision to publish new editions of Roald Dahl books that were. . . shall we say, edited for the times. (Roald Dahl, of course, being the prolific author of such classics as James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and The BFG.)

The changes were approved by the Roald Dahl Story Company and the books’ publisher, Puffin Books, and carried out by a sensitivity organization for children’s books called Inclusive Minds, according to the Daily Telegraph, which first reported the revisions.

. . .

Descriptions of characters as “fat,” “ugly” and “crazy” have been removed from the works in an attempt to bolster body-positivity and more sensitive depictions of mental health. Some gendered descriptions have also been removed from the texts, changing what had previously been references to “boys and girls” as “people” or “children,” reported the Telegraph, who also said that a previous description of the character Miss Trunchbull in “Matilda” as a “most formidable female” has been changed to a “most formidable woman.”

(I think the real problem here is that we as a society have not only allowed, but enabled the existence of “sensitivity organizations,” but that’s a topic for another time.)

To give you some extra context, enjoy these highlights from Twitter:

I cannot fathom why Hemingway gets a pass where Conrad and Kipling don’t, but I guess I’m not versed enough in the hierarchy of oppression. Colonialism bad, sexism. . . good?

Literally WHAT IS THE POINT. I’d rather have someone call me “fat” than describe my face like a BALL OF DOUGH.

Yeah. . . if Mrs. Silver existed and found out someone had decided to remove her descriptor of “attractive,” I don’t think she’d appreciate it. I certainly wouldn’t.

Ohhhhh, I get it– they’re just trying to alienate non-British readers! WHO’S THE NATIONALIST NOW, PENGUIN?!

You’ll need to open these images in Twitter to read them all, but I definitely recommend it to see the depths of insanity here.

Anyway, the internet exploded in public outcry at this outrageous act of “literally 1984“-style censorship. Salman Rushdie (who’s still recovering from being stabbed by a pro-censorship lunatic) tweeted, “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”

History suggests Dahl would feel the same. In a recorded conversation from 1982, Dahl told artist Francis Bacon, “I’ve warned my publishers that if they later on so much as change a single comma in one of my books, they will never see another word from me. Never! Ever! When I am gone, if that happens, then I’ll wish mighty Thor knocks very hard on their heads with his Mjolnir. Or I will send along the ‘enormous crocodile’ to gobble them up.”

There’s a lot of nuance there, but I think, reading between the lines, Dahl would not be very happy with Penguin Random House.

Luckily, people bitching on Twitter actually worked this time: Penguin Random House actually reversed their decision.

Well, sort of. The original works will be rereleased alongside the Party’s publisher’s “acceptable” versions so that individuals are “free to choose which version of Dahl’s stories they prefer.”

So, in a way the battle was won, but it’s not exactly looking good for the culture war. Those censored versions are still out there, and the fact that someone even thought about embarking on this project in the first place is strong indication of the dire circumstances we’re in. I’m sure plenty of pro-censorship progressives out there will accuse me of being melodramatic, but the fact is that society changes by degrees and rarely by monumental leaps. Those degrees add up.

Literature should make us uncomfortable. To Kill a Mockingbird isn’t required reading across most of American schools because it’s a cozy, heartwarming story, but because it holds a mirror to an ugly part of our country’s past, and in so doing illuminates a path for us to be better. And for those who might argue that children’s literature shouldn’t be uncomfortable, I have two responses:

1. Yes it should, in age-appropriate ways, because fiction is an invaluable way for humans of all ages to grapple with uncomfortable situations in a cathartic way that can inform their real-life actions.
2. Okay, don’t raise your kid to be uncomfortable around descriptors like “fat” or “female.”