- cross-posted to:
- literature@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- literature@beehaw.org
Archived version: https://archive.ph/kBVee
The publishing industry has been mired in debate in recent years about editing older books to remove content that could be deemed offensive.
Even the prime minister became involved in February after the publisher Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers to rewrite parts of Roald Dahlâs books to ensure they âcan continue to be enjoyed by all todayâ. The development prompted Rishi Sunak to say that publishers âshouldnât gobblefunk around with wordsâ.
Jacqueline Wilson waded into the conversation on Monday, saying that making changes to childrenâs books was sometimes justified and that she would not write one of her past novels today because of its controversial content. Below, we look at what other authors have said on the topic.
Margaret Atwood: âIf you donât like it, read something elseâ
Speaking to the BBCâs Newsnight in March, the Canadian author commented on the Dahl controversy: âGood luck with Roald Dahl. Youâre just really going to have to replace the whole book if you want things to be nice.
âBut this started a long time ago; it was the âDisneyficationâ of fairytales. What do I think of it? Iâm with Chaucer, who said: âIf you donât like this tale, turn over the page and read something else.ââ
Irvine Welsh: âI found it a positive experienceâ
The Trainspotting author said he had worked with a sensitivity reader for the first time when writing his 2022 novel The Long Knives, which deals with transgender issues. He wrote on Twitter: âI was initially very hostile, regarding this as censorship. However, my experience with the trans reader was highly positive.
âThe reader was highly supportive of what I was trying to do: balanced, thoughtful and informative, and the book is infinitely better as a result. I found it a positive experience. Certainly, there was none of the crackpot vitriol you see on all sides of the debate on here.â
Charlie Higson: âTimes and sensitivities changeâ
Higson, an author of young adult fiction including the first five Young Bond novels, said sensitivity reading is ânothing newâ.
In March, he told the Guardian: âI donât think it was a sensitivity reader who insisted on the change to the original title of Agatha Christieâs And Then There Were None.â The original title included a racial slur.
âTimes change and sensitivities change, and thankfully, we now accept that some things in older books can be very upsetting to some modern readers and a more diverse readership,â he said.
Salman Rushdie: âThis is absurd censorshipâ
Commenting on the Dahl debate in February, Rushdie described the editing of his books as âabsurd censorshipâ. On Twitter, he wrote that Puffin and the late authorâs estate âshould be ashamedâ.
Despite his defence of Dahlâs works, Rushdie said he was âno angelâ and that he was âa self-confessed antisemite, with pronounced racist leanings.â
Philip Pullman: âLet him go out of printâ
Pullman told BBC Radio 4âs Today programme in February: âIf it does offend us, let him go out of print.
âWhat are you going to do about them? All these words are still there; are you going to round up all the books and cross them out with a big black pen?
âRead Phil Earle, SF Said, Frances Hardinge, Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman. Read Mini Grey, Helen Cooper, Jacqueline Wilson, Beverley Naidoo.
âRead all these wonderful authors who are writing today who donât get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl.â
You must log in or # to comment.
I donât understand the problem with books like these. Just put a disclaimer in the first few pages saying that itâs a product of its time and some views may be dated and move on.
But Jacqueline Wilson is specifically talking about childrenâs books, where that disclaimer wonât be particularly helpful (FWIW I completely agree for adult books). I think Pullman has the right idea - allowing the books to go out of print is the right approach here, but wonât be adopted for obvious reasons
It just really rubs me the wrong way when people want to ârewrite historyâ either by modifying books, art or anything else, to fit their modern world view.
First of all: I think itâs naive to believe that we somehow now have âthe answerâ to what is âcorrectâ. Secondly: I really donât like setting a precedent that we can just erase uncomfortable things at any time. Imagine the how much has been lost throughout history by different cultures erasing things they didnât like.
Most of all, itâs the concept of judging acts or words from other times and cultures based on our idea of right and wrong that just gives me the impression that people lack perspective, and the ability to put things into context.
Realistically, this is a complicated issue. I can understand wanting to modernize older works (wanting to share something you enjoyed, but struggling because said thing has not aged well), but part of the value of those works is in the view they give of the past.
The important part if this is going to become commonplace, I think, is making sure the process is transparent and the originals preserved; EG, if a book is going to be edited, it needs to be explicit (in the new version) that it was editied, what was edited, and why it was changed. Itâs one thing to tweak something so that it can still be enjoyed, itâs another to try to forget it was problematic in the first place.
That all said, I find I agree with Pullman, here; I doubt the publisher is motivated to do this by anything other than sales. Let new authors find their place, instead of whitewashing the works of dead men to turn a quick buck. /shurg
Hereâs an extreme way to think about it. Would we rewrite Homer? Or Laozi? Or texts from 300 years ago? 100 years ago?
There is no line. Times change, just leave it there, in another 100 years youâll repeat the whole process again, just enjoy the new stuff in the present and read the old stuff with an understanding that itâs different.
The only people making this an issue are those who want to sell you the old books but need to increase their market share or not get caught up in controversy
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The publishing industry has been mired in debate in recent years about editing older books to remove content that could be deemed offensive.
Jacqueline Wilson waded into the conversation on Monday, saying that making changes to childrenâs books was sometimes justified and that she would not write one of her past novels today because of its controversial content.
The Trainspotting author said he had worked with a sensitivity reader for the first time when writing his 2022 novel The Long Knives, which deals with transgender issues.
Despite his defence of Dahlâs works, Rushdie said he was âno angelâ and that he was âa self-confessed antisemite, with pronounced racist leanings.â
âRead Phil Earle, SF Said, Frances Hardinge, Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman.
âRead all these wonderful authors who are writing today who donât get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl.â
Iâm a bot and Iâm open source!
Editing books for todayâs sensitivities feels uncomfortably close to burning and banning them. Itâs essentially historical revisioning with the reason changing from âit was never written or shouldnât have been writtenâ to âthe author was always in line with our contemporary views and can never be âwrongââ. The reader needs to experience the book exactly how the author originally intended it to be. The presence of some offensive words or passages contextualizes the particular thoughts of the author as well as reflects on what standards society had at the time of writing.
