Rewriting Roald Dahl's Works and Sensitivity Readers - Making Literature More Inclusive or Sanitising the Past?
A consideration of the place sensitivity readers have in published literature.
There may not be a right or wrong answer to this debate, but it is one worth having.
A number of online newspapers and digital magazines ran the same story, although I believe it first appeared in The Telegraph and I then read it in The Guardian and Rolling Stone. The story highlighted that there had been a variety of small, but actually significant changes to reprints of Roald Dahl's books to make them more inclusive and less offensive.
Puffin, the publisher that owns the rights to release the Welsh author's works, hired so-called “sensitivity readers” to take their beady eyes and weak constitutions and suggest edits that should be made. These edits did not just involve the removal o certain words but sections of Dahl’s words being altered and rewritten.
N.B. To stay on the subject I am not going to discuss Roald Dahl’s questionable anti-Semitic comments in this article. I am merely going to discuss the subject of sensitivity readers.
Before we go any further and consider some of the changes that were made, let’s clear up what sensitivity readers are.
What are Sensitivity Readers?
Sensitivity readers basically function as additional editors who work in partnership with the publisher. Compared to other editors, sensitivity readers do not focus on grammar and spelling, they are more interested in weeding out anything that could be deemed insensitive, outdated or just inoffensive.
So, What Has Changed?
Now that we are all on the same page as to what sensitivity readers are, you’re probably wondering, if you’ve not read one of the articles yet, what has actually been changed in Roald Dahl’s books?
Well, there are 100s of small changes that have been made to many of the author’s children’s books.
Some of the most notable edits have been made to the physical descriptions of characters. For example, Augustus Gloop is no longer referred to as being fat. Instead, in the newer editions of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, he will be referred to as “enormous”.
The word ugly has also been removed. In the classic The Twits, Mrs. Twit is referred to as simply “beastly”, and not “ugly and beastly”.
In James and The Giant Peach, where the Centipede once sang “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat/ And tremendously flabby at that,” followed by “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire/ And dry as a bone, only drier.”
Now those verses have been removed and replaced with “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute/ And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and the second part “Aunt Spiker was much of the same/ And deserves half of the blame.”
Puffin worked along with the Roald Dahl Story Company and the specialist group Inclusive Minds to make the changes. All the altered and latest prints of the books will feature a notice from Puffin that reads “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”
There are a lot more changes like these, and while I can, to an extent, understand them, there’s a part of me that is a little incensed.
Why these Changes and the Concept of Sensitivity Readers Irk Me
I am not anti-progressiveness or things being altered to be more inclusive moving forward. What I disagree with is changing books that have already been written, published and are of their time.
Surely older books, aside from their plots, characters and all the other great qualities that make them classics, offer a looking glass into the past.
It's not a surprise or shock to anyone, surely, that in 1000s of years of human existence, not everything in our ancestral past is worth celebrating. When you alter those books, it’s like you are cleansing the history books a little and trying to cover over and forget the way things were. That doesn’t sound very progressive to me. Surely, it’s better to learn from the errors of the past and avoid doing them again.
Who Do the Changes Really Benefit?
Besides, who is being helped with the change of a word like “fat” to “enormous”? Wouldn’t it still be better to use “fat” and then parents can enter discussions with their children about why some people don’t like that term and why it’s not good to focus on their body size or shape in the first place?
With The Twits part…surely the whole idea of The Twits is that they are despicable and horrible, ugly people. Not just ugly on the outside, but ugly on the inside too. That is the point.
Perhaps I am the one that is over the top, though. I do get that modern books should reflect changing social norms etc. But I just don’t see it as okay to go back and alter books published many years ago by authors who are not even alive now.
I know that The Roald Dahl Story Company approved the changes and are fine with it, but it just feels like it’s chopping and changing someone’s work.
Conclusion
So, while I am sure that sensitivity readers believe they are doing a fine job and with modern published works, I may even be able to see that they should have a place in the industry.
However, when it comes to older books and those that are of their time, I can’t help but think we are simply censoring and sanitising the past a little too much. Children need to learn the good, the bad and the ugly (or beastly, as a sensitivity reader might put it).
Sources: The Telegraph, The Guardian, Rolling Stone
*
Thank you, as always, for taking time to read my work. I hope you enjoyed this piece or at least found it interesting. If you did, please click the heart, leave a comment or do both.
I wanted to open the conversation/debate up to all of you reading this - what do you think? Do you think publishers should be free to, with the clear okay of the estate or owner of the rights to the author's works, hire sensitivity readers to change works already published just to make them more "okay"?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
If you have the time or inclination, here are a couple of other pieces you might find interesting:
You can also check out the rest of my work here.
About the Creator
Paul Stewart
Scottish-Italian poet/writer from Glasgow.
Overflowing in English language torture and word abuse.
"Every man has a sane spot somewhere" R.L Stevenson
The Accidental Poet - Poetry Collection is now available!
https://paulspoeticprints.etsy.com
Reader insights
Outstanding
Excellent work. Looking forward to reading more!
Top insights
Easy to read and follow
Well-structured & engaging content
Excellent storytelling
Original narrative & well developed characters
Expert insights and opinions
Arguments were carefully researched and presented
Eye opening
Niche topic & fresh perspectives
Heartfelt and relatable
The story invoked strong personal emotions
On-point and relevant
Writing reflected the title & theme
Keep reading
More stories from Paul Stewart and writers in Journal and other communities.
Why You Should Proofread Again...and Again!
Okay, so it may seem like I am just taking this opportunity to promote my most recently published piece, as featured in the image connected to this article. That is not the case. However, if you would like to read it, you can at Goodnight, Nonna, Goodbye, One of the Main Link to My Family I would greatly appreciate it as I am still new on this platform.
By Paul Stewart2 years ago in Journal
When the Robots Took My Job
This is for RM Stockton's Write Club prompt for the month of April: AI Please allow me to vent. For "college," I went to a scam school that is now closed. We were promised internships that were never spoken of again after admissions, and we were promised help finding jobs. The first time I went to the career counselor's office, she was completely frazzled. She had no idea what to do with us, the film majors. The second time I visited her office, I let her know that I'd found myself a job, and she was visibly relieved.
By Rebekah Conard4 days ago in Journal
Cryptocurrency and Existentialism: Redefining Value in a Digital World
In the realm of existential thought, the concept of value holds a profound significance. It extends beyond mere economic transactions, encapsulating the essence of human existence and the choices individuals make in shaping their lives. Cryptocurrencies, with their decentralized nature and digital form, offer a unique lens through which to explore existential themes. They challenge traditional notions of value and invite contemplation on the role of individuals in shaping the future of finance.
By Rana Awais Ghaffara day ago in Journal
Comments (10)
Very important topic and extremely interesting article, Paul! I would like to stay out of the debate, but I very much enjoyed this and thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! :)
I'm going to take back part of what I said about "sanitizing" children's stories. the Grimm classic of "Little Red" has been changed since it was written in the 1800's. Here's the link to the original version. The Brothers Grimm version, Little Red-Cap. https://americanliterature.com/childrens-stories/little-red-riding-hood
Since you are looking for a conversation and a debate. I am going to give you one. First I was put off that you used the terms "beady eyes and weak constitutions" to describe the sensitivity readers. Must we continue the juvenile act of name calling which heightened by some politicians from 2016 to 2020 under the guise of not being politically correct? Now, while I agree that the change from fat to enormous is realistically unnecessary. Isn't it just as hurtful to call a kid enormous? Same with ugly to beastly. I would think that name calling an eight year old girl beastly is going to do just as much damage as calling her ugly. These changes are virtually ineffective. You mention terms as progressive and such hinting that these changes are of a political nature. The reality is this has nothing to do with politics as there are no laws stating that outdated or older books must be updated. In the case Roald Dahl this is something completely initiated by the publisher Puffin books, which is an imprint of the parent company Penguin books. I can understand why Puffin books ordered such an update. It all boils down to revenue - the almighty dollar (or pound). Let's say that a teacher, or a parent teacher association, or a school board decides a certain book has too much potentially hurtful or harmful language for children of a certain age the result will be less orders for certain book titles - meaning less money or revenue for the publisher. I would think the publisher would want the maximum amount if orders for their titles vs. a decreasing order total. When we think about it this way updating these book may not be so much anti-progressive as you stated but pro-capitalist - if we're going to involve politics. While I disagree with changing (and banning) books maybe a solution might be to notate in order catalogs books that may contain hurtful or harmful language. Ultimately I feel that a private company should have a right to make the changes they deem as necessary in order to keep a steady stream of revenue. Such as the decision of the Theodore Seuss Geisel Estate to pull certain Dr. Seuss titles. While I disagree with their decision I also feel they, as the owners of these titles, have a right to make that decision. In the end corporations such as Puffin/Pengiun Books, are regularly making decisions that seem useless to the consumer but are monumental to the billionaire CEO. In the end again this is an argument between big money vs. artistic value. (Note: there is nothing artistic about name-calling a person fat however that was the author's initial vision when he wrote the book.) The question is do we preserve or do we financially gain?
I also agree that the changes aren't necessary and unwarranted. Once the changes have been made, how can you call it an original work if the author didn't approve the changes? Children and whoever decides to read these books have a much more prevalent demon to upon their hands. There is so many worse words out there that I'm sure kids are practically desensitized before they even pick up the book. If not, hopefully the parents can give the proper guidance to explain the author's intent of telling their story the way they decided to. Thanks for sharing.
I agree that altering these books is altering history in a way that is not progressive or sensitive like people claim but a definite sanitization. We need to see where we've come from to know where to go next. We can't go back and 'fix' it all to be what we want to see now. Current authors can go ahead and do that. Great article on a very important topic! Thank you for sharing :)
I'm totally with you on this one, Paul. Like wth, I can't seem to wrap my brain around this. Sensitivity readers? Again, wth. It's so disrespectful to the author when alterations like this is done. And I feel enormous is worse than fat. See, this is how history is changed. This whole idea of Sensitivity readers is ridiculous. Like you mentioned, parents or the school have to step in to teach children from right and wrong. I mean, that's how we learned. Gah, I don't even know what's happening with this generation. Anyway, I'm so glad you wrote about this. I had no idea this kinda atrocity was happening!
The author wrote what the author wrote, and as you say, it was a different. I think the sanitizing is silly. If you want to put a TW, go ahead but don't change anything. Also, I don't see those examples being any better. As a person who is overweight, I'd rather be called "fat" then "enormous." And is "beastly" really better than "ugly?"
Is being called "thinner" any more derogatory than "fatter"? A very skinny person would object. I think it'is ridiculous & a disservice to readers of all ages. Literature, whether for children or adults, should remain as it was created to reflect the times and social mores of the era in which it was written. Books are being banned by the thousands by some libraries, the authors of which simply wrote what they knew and how their society viewed the world. How would we ever know what the world was like if everything including history is sanitized and "sanitized" is a misnomer, because these censors are really misappropriating authors' works. It's also insulting to kids. I'm so angered by this that I'm tempted to re-write a sanitized version of something to show just how ridiculous it is! Great article by the way! I have a list of 20 books that are in danger of being banned including Huckleberry Finn, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, The Colour Purple, among others. I can post it if you're interested.
I think that if the alternative is being banned, then if I were the author I’d probably prefer the alterations. I agree with you that (for most things like this) children should be able to see what it was and then discuss with trusted adults why things that used to be common are not alright now.
Nice piece for the thought process buddy, my take, change is okay only if you’re okay with change, it’s all in the changes if change, 😳😳, many I am not okay with, many I’d like to see will probably never happen but with change comes change,