Was woke retrospective editing of Dahl classics a good idea?

The latest culture battle is underway in the field of children’s literature with many sections of Roald Dahl’s various books being rewritten, subject to the sensitivity of readers. The British author wrote for over five decades from the 1940s and his books have been read by generations of children, selling over 250mn copies across the world with some books being adapted to the screen as well. In these ‘woke’ 21st century times, the books have now been scrutinised for offence, leading to Puffin (imprint owned by Penguin Random House) making several changes. The words ‘fat’, ‘ugly’ and ‘black’ have been removed, among many others, presumably to avoid fat-shaming, ugly-shaming and racism. The politically correct version of diversity that is the guiding force behind this rewriting seems to think that by revising what has been written in the past, we will be able to create a better future. It remains to be seen how such people are treated in that future by those who read these versions of the books (or whether this vision of the future actually intends to erase such people from existence). In the most current news update, Penguin has decided to publish both the original and the revised versions, leaving us muddled about the actual intention of the exercise.Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed. https://t.co/sdjMfBr7WW— Salman Rushdie (@SalmanRushdie) 1676760083000Once upon a time and placeAll literature reflects the context it was created in and Dahl’s privileged social position of being a white British male living through colonialism must have been a factor that influenced the racist and gender stereotypes that have already been critiqued. For example, his description of the Oompa Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, along with the illustration that accompanied the first edition, reproduced the racist trope of non-whites being backward and child-like, and the country they come from as being uncivilised: “Of course they're real people. They're Oompa-Loompas... Imported direct from Loompaland... And oh what a terrible country it is! Nothing but thick jungles infested by the most dangerous beasts in the world…” medium98231774In The Witches, he writes “A witch is always a woman. I do not wish to speak badly about women. Most women are lovely. But the fact remains that all witches are women..." Perhaps, some children who read these books when they were first published did imbibe a negative understanding of non-whites and women. But is excision the only way to prevent more children in later generations from doing so?American author and illustrator of children's books Maurice Sendak said of children, “They know what's real and what's not. They understand metaphor and symbol.” While literature for children cannot escape an element of didacticism, emerging as it does from an adult perspective that seeks to fashion the child — in terms of ideas, ability or potential action — we need to remember that the child is not a passive recipient. Literature is not about direct messaging. Not everything needs to be spelt out, not everything read is necessarily accepted. The child, like any reader, interprets subjectively, making meaning through an interaction between content, form and context. Thus, a child growing up in the midst of Black Lives Matter may in fact feel anger at the description of the Oompa Loompas, a child exposed to arguments about body-shaming may disagree vehemently with the portrayal of Augustus Gloop with or without the word ‘fat’ in it. medium98231350The act of excising the words restricts the words to only having one negative meaning, and while that creates change in an old text, it is not necessarily a way to create change in the world. For that, we need children to become critical readers able to discern when words are being used negatively and when they are not. Promise of readingAs children, my generation grew up reading Enid Blyton who too came to be critiqued for racist and gender stereotypes. However, not all of us grew up internalising these stereotypes, and in fact, many went on to work against the reproduction of such stereotypes. Readers are as diverse as the world — can a politically-correct lexicon contain all of that diversity?A key ingredient of children’s literature is irreverence that creates the possibility for playful imaginings. In Dahl’s work, we see this in the way nasty adults get their comeuppance, or the whimsical fantasy characters he creates, or the words he invents using onomatopoeia — ‘lickswishy’, ‘phizz-whizzing’ and ‘squishous’. These too are the pleasures and promise of literature, not just the edification of the child. But irreverence does not necessarily mean that writers should ignore developments that shape society. The demand for political correctness emerges from what writers like Dahl in their time and space may not have made room for — the struggles against discrimination of all kinds that have given voice to injustices unexpressed for long. This should in fact lead us to consider how we create representations, how we use words as our tools. It should stir us towards a more nuanced and imaginative use of language. When faced with this challenge, the Dahl rewrites appear to take the road more flattened. Sample this new line in The Witches added to a bit about witches being bald: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.” medium98231496After such prosaic didacticism, what literature!Every children’s book reflects the author’s assumptions and creates an idea of childhood. The childhood we see in Dahl’s books is very specific to his context. We have every right to find his assumptions offensive but have we become so limited in our imagination that our response is about revision rather than creation? As a publisher seeking to continue profiting from his estate, one response to the growing critical awareness and demand for political correctness could have been including a note that contextualises the work and talks about what has caused offence over time. As readers too, we have many strategies apart from choosing not to read his books or share them with children. Some teachers and parents have already been doing this, for example, raising questions while reading the books with children, encouraging them to think about representation and the world, or listening to children express how they receive the books and talking together. Cancelling words does not have to be our only option because it is literature’s role to provoke reflection and conversation, not agreement.Samina Mishra is a filmmaker, writer and teacher based in New Delhi