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
Even the people who seem to be in favor of it all seem to be talking about how theyâll write going forward.
With that said, editing older works to fit different contexts isnât new at all. I remember reading my grandmotherâs collection of Readerâs Digest Condensed Books, and cable companies routinely overdub curse words in movies and cut out sex scenes. Different edits for different audiences. Itâs weird (itâs not weird) how we only start getting pissy about it when it comes to editing out slurs and stuff.
I donât think anyoneâs arguing for completely banning books that use shitty stereotypes and nasty racial language. The âunabridgedâ versions, much like the âtheatrical releasesâ of movies, arenât being thrown into a giant shredder. If someone wants to read an anti-semetic rant by Dahl, itâs out there. But weâve never once at any point in the past gave two shits about editing content to make different editions for different people, and I havenât heard an argument about why we should care when it comes to this specific version of the practice.
I tend to agree with this. Why not have multiple editions of a book available, one that is the original and the other that has received some edits to reflect modern values?
Iâve been reading HP Lovecraft recently. A lot of his stories are horrendously racist, and Iâve found that more uncomfortable to read than the actual horror. Iâd have quite happily purchased a version (rather than downloading a free ebook) that had received a light touch of editing, of the kind that removed the racist slurs while keeping everything else intact. I genuinely canât see that the actual story or vibes of âThe Rats in the Wallsâ would have been any different if the cat had a different name.
I also find it bizarre how many people get pissy about sensitivity readers being âcensorshipâ, while also insisting that editors are absolutely essential to making a book as good as it can be. Surely if a sensitivity reader is âcensoringâ a book by giving some suggestions (not orders or demands) on how to make a book better, then an editor is also âcensoringâ a book when they do the exact same thing? The truth is authors have always had fellow authors, beta readers and editors who read their work, react to it, and give suggestions on how to improve it. A wise author should seek out feedback, and getting feedback from people who actually know the subject matter is pretty damned valuable.
Iâm not really making an argument, but describing something Iâve heard and seems like a reasonable point to consider: One potential issue with âcleaning upâ stuff like HP Lovecraft is that a lot of his horror is, in fact, horror about race. So cleaning it up would interact weirdly with that topic â would it mask the racial nature of it by making it less overt? Would it make it a different story? Or would it still basically be intact, but less immediately distracting, just because our modern ear recoils when we read certain words? (I donât know which of these it would be; it probably varies depending on the story)
I actually think the stories would be stronger without the racial elements, because a common theme in many of the stories Iâve read so far (bearing in mind Iâve only read about 25% so far) has been the discovery of something hideous and bestial within the human. Iâve actually not interpreted the horror as being exclusively about race, because Lovecraft assumes all characters are white unless explicitly stated otherwise (as most authors do), and ghastly heritage is not reserved only for the non-white characters. I suppose one could argue that itâs intended to be a metaphor for discovering that oneâs âbloodlineâ isnât as pure as they believe (I wonder if Lovecraft had, or feared he had, non-white ancestors?), and thatâs where the racial horror comes into it.
The interesting thing is that so many of the stories Iâve read so far donât even mention race (except in passing), which makes racism stand out even more in the stories it suddenly appears in. The âwhat if we arenât who we think we are?â and âwhat knowledge would drive us mad if we learned it?â themes stand just fine on their own in the stories where race isnât mentioned; and these themes would be maintained if the racist slurs were edited out of other stories. Lovecraftâs horror is cosmic and existential, and is more so when presented as racially neutral, because it leaves all humans equally powerless in the face of the unnameable.
shrugs Thatâs just my interpretation, anyway, which is of course 100% subjective. I may change my mind when I get to Lovecraftâs later works. The dude is absolutely an awful racist, and my experience with bigots is they become more extreme, and less cautious about hiding their hatred, as time goes on. So weâll see. But as it stands, the stories Iâve read so far would not change significantly if the racism was removed, and theyâd be better reads without that enormous distraction.
We want to be progressive and we live in a society that pretends to be rad and chill with everything. However we feel the need to censor and modify everything that âoffendsâ us or doesnt fit our vision of the world.
đ€ Iâm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
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
