/s3/static.nrc.nl/images/gn4/stripped/data97075959-194d3b.jpg?fit=%2C&ssl=1 "Roald Dahl has already been adapted to the zeitgeist, why is it now pressing?")
It is not the first time that Roald Dahl’s children’s books have been adapted to the wishes of the times. But now a line seems to have been crossed, as witnessed by the outrage that erupted this weekend after the British newspaper Daily Telegraph had described that Dahl’s British publisher Puffin had revised a large number of “offensive” formulations in reprints of Dahl’s books.
Hundreds of adjustments have been made so that “everyone can continue to enjoy the books,” the publisher’s footnote read. Sensitive readers have combed the books for undesirable terms, such as stereotypes, at the instigation of the publisher and rights manager The Roald Dahl Story Company, which has been owned by Netflix since 2021. Dahl’s Dutch publisher was critical of the adjustments on Sunday and does not intend to adjust the texts.
“Roald Dahl was no angel, but this is absurd censorship,” writer Salman Rushdie tweeted. He thought that the publisher and collecting society who agreed to the changes “should be ashamed”. PEN America, an interest group that fights for the freedom of expression of fiction writers, said it was “alarmed”. “Those who welcome specific revisions to Dahl’s work should ask themselves how the power to rewrite books can be used by those who do not share their values and sensibilities,” said the chairman.
The adaptations are downplayed by the Roald Dahl Story Company as “small and deliberate,” but the list the Daily Telegraph this weekend is long and diverse. The common denominator is displeasure. Stereotyping descriptions that, in the opinion of the sensitivity readers, testified to sexism, racism or fatshaming, were identified as problematic and ironed out. Things are also a little less malicious now: sentences in which characters were “put into the meat grinder” or in which a thumb was “put into the spout of a pot of boiling water until steamed” have been removed from the books altogether.
Sensitivities
That goes one step further than the removal of an n-word from literary classics following the re-evaluation of sensitivity readers – incidentally, a practice that has also been the subject of heated debate in recent years. Yet it is not unique that Roald Dahl’s lyrics are revised to keep up with the times: already in an earlier version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came a prince from the Indian city of Puducherry, and no longer from Pondicherry, the old colonial name still used in earlier editions. The writer himself sometimes agreed to larger changes. The Oompa Loompas, the pygmy workers at Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, were in the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory still black pygmies, which was adjusted after criticism. If the zeitgeist demanded, Dahl was prepared to make adjustments – but he flatly refused word changes for the American market. Dahl was careful with his language.
Also read this opinion piece by Daniela Hooghiemstra: Adaptation of Roald Dahl’s work is part of the weak zeitgeist
That is now wringing, but in the new row around the revised texts much more comes together. With the reference to PEN America’s “values and sensitivities,” the review is drawn into the arena of the global moral culture battle, which includes the introduction of sensitivity readers. In it, one party signals numerous (cultural) sensitivities in texts that should be avoided, and the other side responds by saying that political correctness goes too far and the fiction author should be able to write whatever he wants. The question that lingers in the air is: if the text gets an update, what exactly are the wishes of this time?
In any case, a golden mean is not followed in the Dahl revisions: the current changes go too far for many critics. Wasn’t that malice, now being flattened, precisely the charm of Dahl’s children’s books? Wasn’t the subversive and unrealistically grotesque nature of his books, the mischievousness, the fun part about it? In that respect, children’s literature has more to endure, because of its supposed pedagogical function. But there are limits to guarding the delicate soul of children, as was the case after the banning of too liberal books from conservative American libraries, and after the recent witch hunt on children’s author Pim Lammers.
Personal views
Moreover, the reference to Roald Dahl himself by Rushdie (“not an angel”) also shows how easily his character and personal views are drawn into the discussion outside of children’s literature – something that has been going on for some time. This touches on another sensitive contemporary point of contention, that of cancel culture: can a work of art be seen separately from its (wrong) maker? Dahl was not of impeccable conduct: his surviving relatives were forced to distance themselves from anti-Semitic statements made by Dahl in the 1980s two years ago. Last fall, in response to a new, somewhat extenuating biography by Matthew Dennison, Dahl’s children’s books were also reviewed in light of his non-angelic nature—and criticized for the grimness they share with their creator.
Who controls the fiction? Who owns it? The relatives of the writer sold the rights agency The Roald Dahl Story Company, which manages the exploitation of his books, including options for film adaptations, to streaming service Netflix for more than half a billion euros in 2021. Publisher Puffin, who earned millions in royalties from Roald Dahl over the past decade, reported The Daily Telegraph that the new review was already underway before that deal was closed.
