Give me Un-bastardized Dahl or Give me Death

Or, The Ministry of Truth Backs off (for now)

Woe is art and common sense, Hypothetical Reader, for recently some “arbiters of taste”¹ over at Penguin/Puffin Publishing caused quite the controversy when they announced that they were making changes to Roald Dahl’s beloved books in order to make them more “suitable for modern audiences”².

As soon as it was announced, it was met with (deserved) instant backlash. Author Salman Rushdie wrote on Twitter — describing the situation aptly — that “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.” ³

Yes they should, though I doubt they are.⁴

To give an example of the “coddling” changes being made to Dahl’s work, here’s an excerpt from one of his books:

Original line from James and the Giant Peach: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that.

New, comrade approved line from James and the Giant Peach: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit.”

Sigh.

It’s not even like the changes made here completely mitigate any and all possible “unpleasant inferences” that may be taken away from the book by a reader. For instance, even with the changes, one might say:

‘So, instead of the book’s core demographic, children, reading the book and possibly taking away from it that being fat causes flab, they can now take away the much more politically correct notion that. . . people who are old and unpleasant deserve to die?” Alrighty.

The changes or removal of certain words in the books range from the stereotypically expected to the bizarre. Mrs Twit is now no longer referred to as “ugly and beastly”, but just as beastly — which one can easily infer as just meaning ugly all the same. Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now no longer referred to as fat but as “large” — which totally works; ever call an overweight person large? Oh how they love it! A final example: The Cloud-Men from James and the Giant Peach are now the Cloud-People — because girls can be nothing but wisps of vapour too, God damnit!

Some of the changes made, however, have an even more strange, more Sinister element about them, as they are not just changes concerned with using current politically correct terminology. For instance, references to authors Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad have now been changed to Jane Austen and John Steinbeck. And the earthworm from James and the Giant Peach no longer has skin that’s described as being “lovely pink”, but “lovely smooth”.

Hmmmm. Changes made to reference comrade approved authors who are not “problematic” and an issue with having a fairer skin complexion being described as “lovely” — whoever could this be the work of, I wonder? Which type of person with a specific ideological bent could this be, I ponder?⁵

Do not despair though, Hypothetical Reader, for this story has a happy ending. After the immense backlash — from the public, established authors, other publishing houses — Puffin has backed down on its decision. Albeit, seemingly, with a caveat. There will be two editions of Dahl’s books made available in print: The original, untampered editions, and then the new, bastardized editions. The amount of paper that is likely to be wasted on the new comrade approved editions when it could be used on other things — like toilet paper — should be considered a federal crime.

One is unfortunately likely to hear and read some “big brain” takes on the current matter. Take this headline for example: “It’s not Orwellian for publishers to edit, Roald Dahl, just commercially savvy”.⁶

Now, as I’m sure you’re aware of, Hypothetical Reader, modern journalists are some of the most enlightened, intellectual figures in our current societies. But, be that as it may, I’m going to disagree with this particular sentiment from this possible descendent of Einstein. It IS Orwellian to to edit the works of Roald Dahl — as it is with any other author — and to try and rationalise and justify it by saying that it’s “commercially savvy” is deplorable.

Sigh.⁷

Still, it's been, for the most part, a relief to see the reaction to this controversy.⁸ It's one of those things that really shouldn't have been a controversy in the first place, but alas, it's pleasant to see that the situation was pretty much met across the board with sane, rational responses.

Speaking for myself, I would rather that publishers just outright ban books than they alter them. Now, don’t get me wrong here, I hate the banning of books; I hate censorship in all its forms. But the editing, the changing of someone’s work without their permission, without their consent⁹, it’s wrong in every sense of the word. Again, I do not like to see books being banned, but I’d rather that that had been the case with Dahl’s work — or anyone’s work — because I find altering someone’s work without their consent to be more perverse than banning them.

It’s rather strange to think of Winston from George Orwell’s 1984, sat at his desk, working for the Ministry of Truth, combing over books by Roald Dahl and altering them to suit his society’s sensibilities.¹⁰

Sigh. Shiver.

Lets just keep the altering and retconning of literature to fiction, shall we?

1. Otherwise known as Censors, Authoritarians, and, if you wish to use more colloquial terminology, Cunts.

2. Dismissive wanking gesture.

3. If ever there were someone who was well acquainted with absurd censorship, I think Salman Rushdie may be a good contender.

4. Always disappointing to see people who have no business being in publishing be in publishing.

5. A clue: rhythms with the Far-deft. Rhymes also with: Hydrants. And: Runts.

6. In edition to the terms mentioned in an earlier footnote when describing which terms one may use in describing the people who are in favour of censorship, one may also employ some more colloquial terminology from their vast lexicon when describing those who attempt to justify censorship. Some of these terms may be: Retard, Spacker, Dribbler, Rube, Fucktard.

7. Sigh, sigh, sigh.

8. The whole affair has actually been quite refreshing. Seeing something so heinous to art and freedom of speech be ubiquitously shot down across the board suggests that there may be hope for society yet.

9. Which is especially hard to give when you’re dead.

10. Kind of funny in an existentialist way too, I guess.