Re-editing of decades old books for sensitivity reasons

[KEV67]

What do you think about all this sensitivity re-editing of old books? There was some controversy about Roald Dahl's books being wokified. Actually, I am pretty sure it was Roald Dahl himself who sanctioned the Oompa-Loompas being changed from black/brown to sort of orange. That was so long ago people have forgotten about it. Possibly, royalties from the film had something to do with that.

 

It is not just Dahl, though. I bought a copy of the James Bond book, Live and Let Die. I wanted to check how Ian Fleming's Bond compared with the current film version. However, when I read the note on the text, it said they had tried to edit the version they thought Fleming would have approved of, using parts from the British and American editions; that they had altered some of the outdated terms, but had by no means bowdlerised it. I tore it up and threw it in the bin. Then I ordered another copy from World of Books, which sells second hand books. Judging by the cover, it has not been wokified.

Edited March 31, 2023 by KEV67

[lunababymoonchild]

I'm not happy about this. Dahl's books have been around for decades and children have always enjoyed them so I do not understand why they would need to be altered. And I don't understand why anything else needs to be altered. Reading broadens the mind, if you only get to read woke how does that broaden the mind ? Dahl knew what he was doing, leave it alone!
 

As for me, I always want to read what the author wrote at the time, the way they wrote it, completely and unabridged. For example, I sought out the 1818 version of Frankenstein because I wanted to read the unedited version, even although it was Mary Shelley herself  who edited it. Of course there are time specific writing, I hear that Flannery O'Connor can be offensively anti-semitic. So, how are we to know what anti-semitism looks like if we don't read it ? Everybody has the choice not to read O'Connor. Of course the reader might not know this before reading but that, imho, is the joy of reading, you find out what kind of person you are and what your taste is. I know that I'm always learning. I have also decided not to read Lolita because it's about paedophilia but I don't condemn those who do read it. What are the woke brigade going to do about that? 

[timebug]

It comes under 'censorship' to me. If a book was written two hundred years ago, it will naturally contain language and opinions of that era. I regard these works as a window into the period,rather than take supposed offence at them! Repeats of old tv shows now carry the same warning about 'language and opinions etc' and I find it quite annoying to be fair. I am an adult; if I choose to read a book from centuries past or watch a tv show from the sixties/seventies I can make up my own mind as to whether it may or may not be offesive in these precious overly sensitive times! We know history is full of sexist/racist things that we now regard as being wrong or 'incorrect'. But that is how it was, and much as we strive to rewrite or whitewash the past, it remains what it was. We learn by our mistakes and try to correct them;that is civilised behaviour. But we should never be blinded to the rue facts of any given situation!

[Madeleine]

 I agree it is ridiculous, unless it's an outright racist term - I remember one of my friends looking through some of her old Enid Blyton books to give to her kids when they were small, and one of the books had a black dog called, well you can probably guess, now that should be changed but the more general stuff should be left alone.  They are a snapshot of how things were at the time the books were written.  I remember being read Roald Dahl's books at school at the end of the week and none of us took any offence, so either we were very naive, or weren't so easily offended.  It is a form of at best sanitisation and at worst, as Timebug says, censorship.  I expect a lot of these people are the ones who'd find something offensive in the ingredients of a cereal box......!

[lunababymoonchild]

A friend of mine once told me that a friend of hers (not known to me) had recommended a book for my friend's son but warned her that the f-word was in it. My friend decided to let her son read it. It was The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon and her friend thought that otherwise the book was good. It was, I read it myself and my friend's son grew up to be a well-mannered, law abiding citizen because his parents taught him that. 

[France]

I feel that getting 11 year olds to read books like Lord of the Rings is far more harmful than the odd swearword, outdated notions and language and attitudes that are not approved of today. Besides giving readers nightmares (you might gather I loathed it) it also suggests that ganging up on the weak or the different is quite normal. Far worse than the casual snobbism in Enid Blyton.

[Hux]

Who asked for this?

[KEV67]

7 hours ago, Madeleine said:

 I agree it is ridiculous, unless it's an outright racist term - I remember one of my friends looking through some of her old Enid Blyton books to give to her kids when they were small, and one of the books had a black dog called, well you can probably guess, now that should be changed but the more general stuff should be left alone.  They are a snapshot of how things were at the time the books were written.  I remember being read Roald Dahl's books at school at the end of the week and none of us took any offence, so either we were very naive, or weren't so easily offended.  It is a form of at best sanitisation and at worst, as Timebug says, censorship.  I expect a lot of these people are the ones who'd find something offensive in the ingredients of a cereal box......!

The copy of Live and Let Die that I am reading uses terms that would be underlined by modern sensitivity readers: negro, negress, Chinamen, Japs. I have only read two chapters. Negress might be considered racist and sexist these days. I expect negro was considered more respectful than a similar term. OTOH M was more respectful of blac people's abilities than a lot of British people's at the time. I was a little surprised to learn Live and Let Die was Ian Fleming's second James Bond book.

[willoyd]

Penguin's plans were to publish 2 versions - the altered one, and the original.  This sort of thing has been going on for years.  There were children's versions of books around when I was a child. 

 

Far worse is censorship of the type we're ever more frequently seeing, especially in the States (as in the recent case of Michelangelo's 'David'), where a a small minority's views are being allowed, indeed encouraged, to prevail.

 

 'Woke' simply means 'racially aware'.  I don't regard that as a bad thing, and am immediately suspicious when it is used as a perjorative.

Edited April 4, 2023 by willoyd

[Madeleine]

Yes but children's versions are usually simply a much shorter version of the original book, so that they're more appealing, and easier to read, (and with perhaps some content which might be considered unsuitable for youngsters) for children, and maybe adults, who are learning to read.  

[timebug]

I read an abridged version of a book that I was familiar with (an old favourite) and nowhere on the cover did it state that it was abridged. I read through it realised that several of my favourite passages or incidents had been totally removed!

[KEV67]

I am reading Live and Let Die. It is good, but it definitely would not find a publisher these days. But then The Expedition of Humphry Clinker contained racism, sexism and general bigotry, and I do not think a word should be changed. The Prioress's Tale in The Canterbury Tales is horribly anti-semitic, but that should not be toned down neither, although the version I read was updated to modern English.

[willoyd]

On 4/5/2023 at 11:15 AM, Madeleine said:

Yes but children's versions are usually simply a much shorter version of the original book, so that they're more appealing, and easier to read, (and with perhaps some content which might be considered unsuitable for youngsters) for children, and maybe adults, who are learning to read.  

 

It's just a variant on the same theme - making books more accessible to children.  I'm sure some editing has been a bit OTT, but do we really want children to be reading books that include racism, physical stereotyping etc etc.? It's different when dealing with adult books - theoretically they should be mature enough to differentiate and adjust for different attitudes at different times.  It's rather different when dealing with children's books.

 

And, as I said, Penguin always intended to continue publishing the original versions - it's not as if Penguin were censoring, just allowing parents/teachers to have a choice depending on the maturity etc of the reader (and attitudes of parents/teachers!).

Edited April 10, 2023 by willoyd

[Madeleine]

It'll be interesting to see which versions sell more copies, at least it's generated a lot of publicity!