- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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
I donât understand the problem with books like these. Just put a disclaimer in the first few pages saying that itâs a product of its time and some views may be dated and move on.
But Jacqueline Wilson is specifically talking about childrenâs books, where that disclaimer wonât be particularly helpful (FWIW I completely agree for adult books). I think Pullman has the right idea - allowing the books to go out of print is the right approach here, but wonât be adopted for obvious reasons