[gmw]

ABC Australia had this article today: Revisions to Roald Dahl's books stokes anger about censorship, but authors say change is justified.

The headline is a bit misleading, as the authors give a rather more nuanced response.

Will Kostakis notes that it has happened before:

"[...] British author Enid Blyton's books have also been subject to changes.

"Those books were quietly edited over the course of years, sometimes not quietly," Kostakis told ABC News.

In Blyton's The Magic Faraway Tree series, Fanny is now Frannie and cousin Dick is now cousin Rick.

Nobody told me that! No Fanny and no Dick? The world has ended! ... Seriously though, the original names give the stories some historical context, and unless you think modern readers have grown so obtuse as to not recognise that, then what is the possible justification? Anyway, back to Kostakis...

"I don't own my books anymore," Kostakis said.

"I've sold the rights to publish them to a publisher, and they can edit and tweak however they see fit. That's just the way that it works.

"No story remains static. And if we believe that, then we're kidding ourselves."

True enough, I guess, sort of, close enough, but I think it misses the historical aspect to Dahl's works. At the time a story is first being published it seems appropriate that it be edited and manipulated to best achieve the desired effect (sell books, make a statement or whatever). I think that one of the issues with Doald Dahl's stories is that they have accumulated significant history which includes a context you risk destroying or obscuring by applying edits that are centred around social acceptance rather than modern understanding. Do we really want to white-wash the past? (Well, I guess maybe some do.)

Kostakis goes on to talk about "writing out of my experience", but that's a whole other argument I won't start here.


Jackie French offers various examples as to why changes might be considered acceptable, but noted some changes to an American edition of one of her books that changed the essential nature of the character:

French said she's "worried" about those changes.

"That showed a very deliberate kind of change. We know life is not like that. But we're going to pretend to children and to adults that life is like that.

"And I think that is a very, very dangerous belief for readers, whether they are four years old, or 40 or 104, we should read what life is really about, not what we'd like it to be like."

It may be dangerous, or it may simply be stupid and presumptive and be a way to turn readers away by being overly condescending. One thing I found difficult as a writer was to learn to trust the reader - I'm still learning it. What I fear about some of the edits being described is that we are losing that trust. We are being patronising and dismissive, and that's not a good thing.