Ann0 One would argue with the fact that Roald Dahl was just plain mean. In his books, small children are eaten by giants, thrown into the trash and hated by witches, and wives feed their husbands to worms. Dahl also suffers from a reputation for being racist and blatantly anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, his books remain popular, and he is celebrated as one of the most eccentric and imaginative children’s authors. So, it was unsurprising that Dahl’s publisher Puffin, the children’s imprint of Penguin Random House, came under criticism last month. rewrite parts deemed objectionable so that the books “can still be enjoyed by all today.” Parts changed include references to race, weight, gender and mental health. Struggling to deal with the backlash, Puffin hastened to say that it would release his works in their original versions with altered versions for young readers “who will be navigating independently written material for the first time”. “
rummaging through old books
Despite this explanation, even in this age of political correctness, the idea that a group of editors could change a work without the consent of long-standing authors is worrisome. Publishers are supposed to be the protectors and guardians of the works they publish and promoting rewriting or promoting any form of censoring is a betrayal of this responsibility and the trust placed in them. While publishers and copyright-holders attempt to edit so that older books can be read by newer, more sensitive readers, while continuing to benefit from these classic works, ‘sensitivity reading’ makes sense in the case of newer works. , not books published decades ago . Trying to improve the present is clearly different from trying to change the past.
There is also no evidence that such changes are accepted by readers. And acceptance is important, for publishing is first and foremost business. For example, in 2010 Hachette announced that Enid Blyton’s works would receive a 21st-century makeover. Old-fashioned words were changed: ‘housemistress’ became ‘teacher’, ‘tunic’ became ‘school uniform’, and even ‘mercy me’ became ‘oh, no’, so that the books become more “timeless”. In 2016, Guardian reported that this proved to be a futile exercise; The response was the best. The message to readers was clear: Blyton’s books were timeless, and his legacy was too great to tinker with. It seemed that readers were buying the books because they were written by Enid Blyton – with profanity, profanity and archaic language – and not some edition of Blyton. He prioritized authenticity over political correctness.
Although it can be argued that many classic children’s books have been updated to remove racial and gender stereotypes, such as Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Hugh Lofting the story of doctor dolittleNone of these versions change who these writers were or their vision of the world. It is through the original books that we have some understanding of the prejudices, cultural attitudes and practices of the times in which they were written. Works are a product of their time and reading them is a way of knowing the truth.
Furthermore, to determine which books should be rewritten, which parts should be rewritten, what is objectionable and which should be rewritten, is an exercise fraught with difficulties. It is argued that the books are updated to reflect the customs of the times, but customs are also not set in stone: they are controversial, vary across geographies and cultures, and evolve rapidly. Have been
The greater danger is that if fiction is changed or molded according to arbitrary moral judgments, it can happen to non-fiction as well, especially history, which has always been shaped by the ideology of the time. Trying to rewrite accordingly. In India we have already seen this in the field of education. Popular majoritarian rhetoric rides on the disdain of the few and the glorification of an earlier past. School textbooks are changed; Heroes and villains are reconstituted. These changes are also directed at children. There seems to be a worldwide dogma for challenging children into the realm of thought.
reading a variety of books
So, how can we challenge children in the realm of ideas? One way would be to introduce them to different types of reading. Philip Pullman rightly suggested that we should simply “let Dahl’s books go out of print” while introducing children to other writers such as Michael Morpurgo, Mallory Blackman and Jacqueline Wilson. In fact, we should be doing more: in an age where writers from different cultures, communities, genders and languages are being read, and translated fiction is in vogue, children have the opportunity to discover a range of books. Is. Second, in older works, publishers could introduce an introductory paragraph providing some context that would help children and parents understand the time period in which the books were written. Third, instead of rewriting books, publishers may encourage rewriting works. For example, Wilson re-imagined Susan Coolidge’s classic book, what did katie doIn Katie, Whereas in the original, Katy is confined to a wheelchair and deprived of happiness, Katie It has a different ending and says a lot about disability.
The uproar over editing is especially loud in the case of children’s books because they evoke feelings of childhood and nostalgia. Rather than dusting off old books, softening the brutality in them, and, as Dahl put it, trying to “fudge with words”, it makes more sense to refocus children’s literature so that it Don’t just stick around for Dahls and Blytons.