I wonder if the concern and backlash had not been so vocal, if the publisher would have continued the published the original editions alongside the revised editions. Tangentially, the three works were brought to my mind as I was watching this video: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. Firstly, we have (as you mentioned in the video), living authors making revisions to their own works. Mary Shelley, less than fifteen years after the original publication, revised and republished Frankenstein to align it to her worldview at it had changed personally and socially, impacting the backstory of Elizabeth Lavenza, the culpability of Victor Frankenstein, and expanded upon the beginning of the novel. The revised 1831 edition seems to be the more widely read edition, which would make for an interesting discussion between readers who read the original versus the revised. Secondly, we have abridged editions of works. The Count of Monte Cristo is the massive 19th-century French revenge novel that, had I not realized it many years later, I had read an abridged version of in high school. While digging into it, it looks like the abridgments seems to have stemmed from the translation from French to English back in the mid-19th century. Finally, we have The Picture of Dorian Gray: a work that, only recently, was published with the "uncensored" version in 2011 that includes text and scenes that were deleted by Wilde's editor at the time that were deemed too risqué. All that said, I agree that having conversations, whether with your children or even with other adults, about the complexities and challenges of literature (or art in general) is the best way forward and to improve. Unfortunately, in relation to the Roald Dahl revisions, it seems to be reflective of society's at-large tendency to take everything at surface level rather than diving into and exploring the nuance.
Everything about this response is perfect, Evie. I realized after-the-fact that it would've been useful to talk about how revisions happen a lot in books, this one just seems to be more public. I think you brought up three really good use-cases, and I actually had no idea Dorian Gray wasn't the original - I doubt I read the new one! It's such a complicated issue that I think is easy to dismiss but holds greater consequences. And I'll NEVER disagree that we aren't critically thinking enough - and teaching your kids to critically engage in anything they experience is probably one of the most important life skills we can teach to the next gen.
This is what I love most about your videos, bookborn, and about the comment section like your post Evie. The context. It's easy to react like the world is ending because oh no, now they're censoring and editing books!! Yeah, it's been happening forever. That alone doesn't make it right or wrong, but having an informed opinion rather than just an opinion is crucial.
One thing to note is that publishers may be acting to promote sales. For example, Dr. Seuss's books were being revised for similar reasons and the sale of Dr. Seuss's books skyrocketed before revised versions came out. Frankly, I am not sure if the publisher actually did go through with revisions.
@@thomasc9036 That is certainly possible, and it's even more insulting if it's true. It's insulting to people who value these books (and books and art in general), and insulting to anyone fighting seriously for inclusivity. And insulting to everyone fighting censorship, using them/us as free advertising.
@@pjalexander_author Not sure about insulting. Publishers are running businesses to make profits for shareholders. Rebranding or remakes are common entertainment methods (see Disney remakes). In addition, what does "inclusivity" even mean? I don't know a single Black and Asian person who was "offended" because Peter Jackson's LOTR didn't have the "representation". Most of these pushes for "outrages" are fakes. These people don't really care but they know how to press buttons for those who are emotional and easily manipulated.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." -- George Orwell, 1984.
Cleaning up offensive books is actually harmful in my opinion because it's important to realize that these opinions existed and to understand how they came to be. How else are you ready to recognize signs of opinions drifting into a similar direction? Censoring the bad parts of history is a sure way of having it repeat itself
I think if we are worried about it in children's literature, the better way to go would maybe be having discussion questions at the end or some kind of small discussion page about it.
to be fair tho, it's not like they're eliminating ALL copies of those books pre-editing/censoring. even super controversial books like mein kampf were never completely removed from existence, they're just not available in general. the age of the internet means that practically ANY full text of an old-enough book can be found for online for free (legality notwithstanding). what truly matters here is the sense of "officiality" to any particular edit of a book. if one of these "sensitivity" versions are released as just a "2023 ed" with no clearer labelling until you find the small print inside... can it be considered false marketing? if they are clearly labelled as "cleaned up language" while older editions without it are still available for sale, then there is really no issue imo. the next step in this "officiality" thing goes beyond the publisher and to govt institutions: do libraries and schools ban the pre-edited version and ONLY allow the "sensitivity" one? what if they only issue advisories for the older versions, with warning stickers for discriminatory language use? there are probably ways to implement some method of discriminating between pre-edited and "sensitivity" versions, but what matters is whether the original wordings risk becoming replaced entirely with "sensitivity" edits. perhaps a comparable situation is with "abridged" edits of longer books: they are usually meant to make tougher reads more accessible for children or teens, but they are also obviously never able to replace the full originals. if "sensitivity" edits are just like that: edits for concerned parents who don't wish to deal with the language issues when reading with their kids... and care is taken not to replace the availability of originals, then a lot of these issues seem to disappear imo. tl;dr: there are levels of "censorship" and it depends on the institutions / individuals involved. care can and should be taken to ensure that such edits do not function as book bans, and govt policy may help here.
@@Bookborn YES! Like some kind of an introduction, or foreward, before the story or an editor's note / closing-statement or something after the last chapter. I distinctly recall my mother having some books that would provide potential talking points at the end for parents to discuss what the takeaways are or shouldn't be or such with their children, like..making sure kids know that saying or doing certain things isn't a good thing to copy, even if there was a character who did those things for some reason in the book itself. But in the form of asking questions to assess what the child independently was or wasn't taking from the story to begin with, not just speeching at them trying to control what they do or don't "rightly" take from it at all. If that makes sense.😅 People like to look at those things negatively, like they're belittling people's intelligence or something, but in the proper context of a teaching moment between children and parents or in a specifically classroom or otherwise educational context...it doesn't have to be done in a belittling way in the slightest. Even just reading those books on my own, I always found it an interesting/fun exercise to try and contemplate the themes or such and other things/elements of the stories and characters and all! ^-^ (but maybe that was just me!) 😂😂🤍
Completely agree. I think this kind of thing has the unintentional effect of making these "sensitive" people even more sensitive. If you grow up in a world where most everything around you, including books and movies, have been censored for anything that might give offense, then you're more likely to be even more offended and taken aback whenever you do encounter similar content that the censors haven't got to yet - or worse, real live racists and bigots and misogynists, etc. To use a health analogy, just as taking too many antibiotics can weaken the immune system's ability to fight off infection, too much "protection" from anything that gives offense can rob you of any immunity, any resiliency against, these kinds of behaviors encountered here in the really real world of today. And it makes it easier for our younger generations, these delicate flowers we're growing today, to think of these kinds of things as more isolated and rare events in history than they actually were, and to imagine that they would have been one of the "good" white people, or good whatever, which just lends itself to more virtue signalling. Arrgh, I could go on.
@@Bookborn There are indeed publishing houses that publish books which are followed with a discussion about the books. This is much more ethical and transparent.
When I die, I will be leaving an imperative for my family and estate. If they ever change a word of my published texts, they are to remove my name from the work and replace it with their own. Posthumous changes to works of art make that work not the author's. If a work of art loses relevance, or is just plain offensive, then let that art fade from existence.
The first time I ever was confronted with censorship was a comic book. The Adventures of Tintin in Congo. I was around 12 or 13 when I read it and my teacher saw the book in my backpack and called my parents. In my country (I'm Swiss) we had the original in french as well as a translated german version. Both where published in the 1930's and some of the language used as well as the settings and story was 'problematic' to say the least. My father and the teacher got into a huge argument and I was in danger of being suspended from school simply by reading that comic. I didn't really understand what the argument was (I was too young I think to really understand the discussion, or at that point the shouting match). In the end, my father had to take me to a hearing with several teachers and school board members. At first they argued amongst themselves while I was sitting there, watching my father defending that is daughter can read whatever she wants as long as he approves (my Father is a big bookworm himself) and it felt like an eternity of back and forth and I got scared. Finally they asked me about the comic. Honestly I can't really remember it that well, but I said something about it was okay but not really a good book but that I really loved the little dog. That made them all chuckle.. and after that they started asking me about races and belgium (I learned that belgium was a country from school but other than that not much at that point in my education) and about Congo (same issue there). It ended in an understanding that I wouldn't take that book to school anymore and the issue would be settled with that (which didn't really affect me since I already was several books ahead and if it wasn't for the whole incident I would have forgotten all about it. I later learned later in life that that said comic had a censorship discussion already in the 1950's and 60's during the french and belgian decolonisation. Some argued they should rewrite the story completely, other wanted to simply ban the book. What my father did instead was he sat me down and we read the comic together and he pointed things out, like certain words, attitudes of the characters and description and drawings of the congolese and why everyone was so upset wit it. I think he did a way better job by preparing me for my life than any censorship could have. Censorship is harmful, not only does it hide the pasts mistakes, it also can be used against its original meaning. Politics are constantly shifting. By making a law about something to be published, who says the next person in charge won't use said law against something else? Also, and that's just my opinion, by understanding how people thought at a certain time, like in the 1930, kinda shows us the progress we made. And, let's be realistic.. the fact that I even remember about that Comic book was not because it left an impression, it was the whole theater around it that made me remember, even almost 35 years later. The best way to let a teenager or a child want to read something is by simply telling them it's not allowed. Which, with no guidance like I had from my father, can be even more dangerous. If a school seems a text problematic, discuss it with the students why. Include them. Or replace them with another text but don't banish it from the library if the first option is to intense for you. But again, that is simply my view. Sorry for the long post, and I apologize for the typos. English isn't my first language
Censorship will never be the right thing to do. Perhaps putting warning labels on content that actually deserves it may be warranted, but censoring is never good. Censorship is the same as cowardice; it is for people who are afraid of being challenged. We need to allow history to be learned, rather than be non-existent. Content should always be experienced as it was initially intended. People should be able to learn without that education being forced fed or edited. Doesn't matter if you are progressive or conservative or whatever. Allow people the freedom of choice and at most just warn them, not restrict.
Warning labels are part of the censorship because warning labels are automatically assumed to be the right way to interpret the information(which is why TH-cam uses them for “controversial” topics now). The people issuing warning labels for former popular and mainstream art have an agenda that is usually not going to align completely with your own views and usually aren’t conducive to a healthy society at large.
I think there's also a bit of "now" bias-i.e., this idea that we've finally evolved; we're able to see things clearly and revise these older books to reflect a certain universally appropriate standard. However, it's a moving target. We're blind to things that may greatly offend in the years to come. Do we continually update the language of every significant work every 40 years or so? I think sensitivity editors are a great thing, but I'm leary about the people who assume they're uniquely qualified for such a monumental task. "I see the world as it is. I'm more empathetic than thou." We all have our blind spots. And the biggest blind spot we have (in my opinion) is the time we live in.
Well said. I am sure as we continue as a society things that seem good and acceptable now will no longer be. Additionally, I agree about people being uniquely qualified OR feeling that they can speak for everyone - but as a research starting point, to avoid large pitfalls, I think it can be a helpful resources.
This seems to be another instance of a company deciding that people wanted something that they didn't actually ask for and doing it in secret then launching it on the public and expecting them to love the thing they didn't want and had no input into.
You are seeing social engineering, rather than organic societal shift from "street level". Language changes, culture and people's roles within it change, and art changes to reflect this, but taking that for granted is allowing changes governed by top-down edicts to fly under the radar, and be accepted as "progress".
Yeah it's so interesting to me how misguided it seems, since I've seen VERY few people defending it. Where did it go wrong? How did that many people have eyes on it and approve it? That's why I wish we knew more about the process, but everyone seems to be staying tight-lipped.
Roald Dahl got me into reading! I hated reading so bad when I was young! I got so bored, I couldn't pay attention, and felt like I was a slow reader. Then I found his books!!! I binged them all! He started my love of fantasy. In addition, all his books have incredible messages!!! I am against every part of these changes! TBH he was very open forward thinking for his time! I think this makes me upset because people get the idea that Roald Dahl was like a raging racist when I (a black guy) have always admired Dahl and studied and read about his life. Dahl was literally a WW2 vet, fighter pilot, diplomat, spy, and of course an author to name a few. I just don't think we should hold people in the past to our standards, but instead try to have empathy and judge them for situation they were in.
I love that you do this kind of deep dive into important topics. I follow a lot of BookTubers, but your channel is special as it's the only one that tackles this kind of topic, and with this kind of depth. Thank you for what you do!
I'm usually too lazy to create posts of my own, but you expressed my exact opinion. There's lots of TH-camrs who at first catch my attention, but eventually I get bored. It hasn't happened yet with Bookborn and I doubt it will.
I hated the changes made by Penguin / Puffin. For one, it is extremely unethical to impose such drastic changes on an author's work (who is deceased and can't object) while still retaining copyright and the author's name. That should be illegal - it's a clear breach of the editing standards. Two, those who bought e-books of Dahl found their versions were updated to the new versions. That's unacceptable. Three, so what if literature is offensive? It's truly not the end of the world. The fact sensitivity reading has been so mainstreamed is extremely concerning. Dahl had a peculiar tone, but overall, his books are not Mein Kampf.
Wow, these changes are worse than I thought. I thought they were just removing one word here or there (which I still think is unnecessary, but I understand), but did not expect this! I'm baffled.
Yeah I think removing words here or there… I would’ve still questioned the ethics and history but I probably would’ve just moved on like eh I can see why it’s good. The extensiveness of the changes that I call into question and whether they are even accomplishing what they set out to don
It's like they made an excessive attempt to take the humour and Britishness out of the sentences. It was a horrible idea. Also as a kid reading witches I always felt like he used the cashier woman as a reference because kids see cashiers everywhere, its sort of written as like it could be a woman you have met or seen and you wouldn't even know. Contextually not many kids have seen top scientists, every kid has seen a cashier.
We live in a strange time. In the name of tolerance, we see lots of intolerance. Want diversity as long as it is the right kind of diversity. I can't help but think that while we think we're the most enlightened generation, judging everyone in the past for being so bad, and we're blind to our own blatant faults.
I recently read a Roald Dahl novel for the first time in my life at the semi-ripe age of 27. I had been thinking about picking it up ever since finally watching the 1971 movie that I knew the author hated because of its portrayal of Willy Wonka. I then wondered if the 2005 movie with Johnny Depp was more accurate in its portrayal. Without surprise, I found both versions took liberties, but that Johnny Depp's portrayal was closer to Dahl's vision. While doing some research about the book, I stumbled upon an article talking about the changes you mentioned in your video and I was baffled to say the least. It reminded me of that time I wrote that my husband is "overweight" (in the context of supporting his desire to get healthy by going to the gym with him) and this woman wrote a comment under mine saying I shouldn't use that derogatory term and that she would suggest I use "differently shaped" instead (or something like that, I can't remember exactly 🥴). Or that time when I used the word "gypsy" and people jumped at my throat but then the actually Romani people told me "my grandma called herself a gypsy and it's never been a problem". Or that French actor (who has Senegalese roots) who said that white children who were curious about his hair growing up were racist (how?!). I feel bad for those children who will grow up with parents that will teach them shame (aka false inclusivity) instead of curiosity and respect towards unharmful differences. 😔
That video is impeccable! My first reaction was that the driving force behind this choice is "we want to protect Dahl's image and we want to ~protect the children~, that way we can keep selling books and parents can pretend they're engaged in what their kids consume when really, we're just removing the question so we don't have to do the work of answering it".
I'm in university studying Latin and ancient Greek and a part of that is translating original texts. We've had discussions about what word we use to translate a word in Latin/Greek. Where is the line between translating with modern sensibilities in mind and not upholding oppression/stereotypes in your translation vs. imposing modern ideas and values on the text. It's such a thin line to walk and so difficult to make the right descision. It's obviously not exactly the same as this discussions because when you're translating, you have to make those choices anyway, while with the Roald Dahl situation, they are already in English.
Thank you so much for bringing this into the discussion, although not quite the same I think it's super relevant. I never even considered this as being a part (and a difficult one at that) of translation! What have your discussions brought up? Or is it just... "we don't know?" lol
@@Bookborn It obviously depends on the intended audience and what the goal is of making the translation, but to stay relevant in this discussion, let's assume that the translation is the end goal and you're trying to be as neutral as possible for a wider audience. Then there still isn't a full consensus. One principle is to find "the hidden GEM" where GEM is an acronym that stands for "Gets Everyone Mad". If any group of the population is 100% happy with your choices, then you've not done a great job. Editorial notes can also be useful. Outside of that, it's just "We don't know. Whatever you do, you will get hate for it." It requires a lot of cultural knowledge to find a balance and even then. Guidelines exist, but it the time it has taken me to write this comment, they've probably already changed three times. Bottom line: Translaters don't get the appreciation they often deserve.
We live in a very soft generation. I appreciate our modern sensibility’s, but think in a lot of cases it’s taken too far. It’s all so surface level. I understand censoring harmful ideas, but the truth? If somethings black, call it black. If someone’s fat, call it fat. If someone needs a dam stool, they need a dam stool. It’s the truth. It’s the character. It’s the narrators voice. I think sheltering children is more harmful than the texts themselves imo.
I think as book readers many of us feel this way naturally (I know I do). It seems when children are involved we sometimes think differently, because we worry that children don't have the historical context to understand what they are reading. Do you agree or disagree with that?
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said to just talk about it with our kids. It’s our duty as parents to provide that context. I know the entire goal is to look out for kids who may not have context providing parents, but I don’t think the answer is to remove that conversation from the parents who are. I would much rather explain to my son the reason why Edmund Dantes married a slave to set her free then to have a future edit of The Count of Monte Cristo have her merely be a servant instead. Or to be more on context, I think the descriptors provided in Matilda are witty and perfect. My whole life they never stood out to me as a problem. I do notice things now as a parent that stand out, like when a character in a Disney movie does any form of self harm I divert his attention. But I don’t think they should be removed for fear of tarnishing the art.
It reminds me of the old saw 'If you want to have a heart problem, see a cardiologist.' If you hire a company based on inclusiveness thay will find all kinds of anti-ist-isms. On a similar note, they decided just not to publish several Dr. Seuss books with questionable artwork rather than try to edit it.
You can burn books, put them on banned-books lists or rewrite them. It's all bad because censorship is bad. "I tell you what to think" is bad. Greetings from Berlin Andy 💁🏼♀️💞
There used to be a tradition where classic books were shortened - (Readers Digest) where classics were changed and to some degreed sanetized (censored). The difference was that it was cleared that this was stated that it was a chanhed/shorted and as such indeed a large clif note version - it is not the orginal.
I just added a pinned comment about this - I wish I would've talked about this more! Usually when something has been altered or abridged, it's clearly stated. I wonder if the publishers had planned from the get-go to indicate these changes, if people would've felt less weird about it. Who knows!
The one author that has been “sanitised” most is probably Enid Blyton. She has also been demonised a lot - but people also forget she was probably the first with a major trans/nb character in a children’s book series George/Georgiana in the famous five and an overweight hero Fredrick Trotteville/Fatty in the Five find-outers. All very sad!
Excellent presentation! We are forgetting the essential art of critical thinking and even taking it away. Who will make the decision what and where to censor? An ongoing topic for sure. Thank-you!
The problem with changes of historical work is that they are changed according to our current understanding of morality. There are more complicated questions like "who even decides what is moral", but I want to ask slightly a different question: "Are we that arrogant to assume that our current moral landscape is the pinnacle of human species ?" Maybe in 100 years, people will look back and label us some kind of "-ist" , because we do something that we think is progressive, but not accepted in the future. In 200 years something else would need editing. Keep editing historical works until they basically become unrecognisable to the original. I am really worried that if I get to decide to read an old work to get a feel how it was like to live in the past, I am out of luck. It might be possible to dive into history with specific history books (that's a different conversation along the lines that history is written by the victors), but the censorship culture does not help for sure. What about the famous "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" ? I am okay when authors themselves greenlight the changes. But leave history to be the history please. If you want to fix our current social issues, promote the relevant works instead of changing the existing. You can always, you know, give children the books you think are good and safe. P.S. I love your videos. You always make me think carefully. You are the only youtuber I know who actually compiled the changes instead of blindly saying "changes are bad"
This is a really great point and something I was discussing with someone just today - our views on morality and what is right shift a lot over the years, and I wonder what our feelings on our current views will be in 20, 50, 100 years. In that way, promoting new works to forward diversity seems to make more sense than editing old ones.
I am in a similar boat to you, I read a few of Dahl's books when I was in elementary school, but never much beyond that. As a teacher I think there is a very delicate balance. Parents often worry about books in class, but let their children participate in unmonitored social media situations. I can tell you I haven't yet seen a child get in trouble from something they read, though I am sure some have. I see children get in trouble, get suspended, get expelled, and get arrested due to some really unfortunate decisions influenced by social media. As this relates to censorship I'm not saying there is a direct connection between the two, but I do think parents should be more involved all around. As a parent and teacher I am much more worried about the impact of social media than Roald Dahl. I'm on the fence when it comes to censorship or altering materials, it depends on too many factors to have a simple answer. Even better than censorship would be educating your children and helping them learn from the past and becoming better rather than pretend there was nothing wrong in the past. Family involvement and engagement would solve many more issues than changing some problematic wording from a different time.
Couldn't agree more. I always talk about how people focus too much on say...disney princesses as being "bad body image problems" instead of focusing on what really harmed me as a kid - the rampant photoshop in magazines which is still happening and even WORSE now because filters are so ubiquitous on social media. I never looked at a cartoon and really thought "I want to look that way", but I absolutely grew up looking at images in magazines that I thought were real and wanted to change. And, it's even worse now with social media. Anyway, that was a ramble, but my point is, I agree that we often worry about the wrong htings when it comes to whats influencing our kiddos. And if we talk to them about it, that's the most vital thing.
I like that take about them not accomplishing anything. The problem is the metaphor - body shape standing in for some moral meaning, character flaw etc - and metaphors are elaborate architectures in a story that can't be undone by removing "fat." That's probably even worse, because then the metaphor becomes even more covert, wheres, "fat," can serve as a red flag for a whole worldview. We're still being fed this questionable use of metaphors, but we don't have to really examine what underlies that because we can feel good about ourselves for reading a book with the word fat removed for our own comfort ..... Random plug for the Neverending story, by Michael Ende - When bastion goes to fantasia, he's able to make wishes and almost immediately wishes away his fat body. When he finally finds his way out of fantasia, there's a fountain that turns him back into himself, and it's this cute image of a fat kid splashing around in a fountain, finally happy to be himself. That book is amazing. My personal pet peeve is teeth. For a number of reasons - access socioeconomics etc etc - a few people in my family have needed a bit of dental work later in life. And that equating of imperfect teeth with flawed character is literally a medieval worldview.
YES, THIS EXACTLY. Look, it's been a LONG time since I read Huckleberry Finn, so I can't remember it - but I could guess that just simply removing the racist words out of it wouldn't change the racist undertones (or tbh overtones probably) of the book. Because like you said, it's what it stands for, more than the word, that is damaging. And wow, I never even considered the teeth thing from a fiction lens. I've read a lot about how teeth can be a class signifier and it's a huge problem...but as a morality signifier in fiction...wow I'll be noticing that a lot more now.
That was a fair, even-handed treatment of a sensitive subject. I would be as subtle as a brick to the face. Having said that, you did not cover the most pernicious aspect of this movement. These "sensitivity" companies are carrying out a cloaked extortion campaign. They approach publishers and authors under the veil (WOT shout out) of offering a "necessary service." They say, "Let us scan your upcoming books. The last thing you want to deal with is a PR disaster from an 'unintentional' slight against a marginalized community." What is left unsaid is the threat of outing. If an author publishes a book without paying for their service, they publish the title and author's name and publicly ask what the author is hiding. They basically threaten individuals and companies with financial loss for refusing to let a group of self-appointed idealogues with no creative skill to become the gatekeepers of the publishing world. They are leeches, political apparatchiks who couldn't possibly craft a story people want to read. Let us be guided by Gandalf and "Throw them back into the abyss" (ROTK, movie not book).
The fact that we believe that we know enough in our time to change the past is a major point to make against the censorship. We, as humans will change our way of thinking often and changing the books of dead authors to fit our current world-view is very pretentious .
Revised books should have warnings on the cover to make it clear the words have been changed from what the author intended (let's assume a case where the author has died). It's weird to sell both versions in a bookstore and not be able to easily tell which is which...
Incredible video as alwasy! One thing I think about within this conversation is how fairytales and fables changed ALL the time. My mum read me rumplestilskin when I was a kid and when she got to the part where he tears himself in two, she changed it a loud to "aannnnddd he ran away and was never seen again..." Later versions of these stories DID sensitize them to make them less brutal, scary, racist, etc. And I think thats okay (So long as the original is accessible for historical research, curiosity, or for those parents who feel like their kids can handle it/want to use it as a teaching tool.) To completely get rid of one version in favour of another is where I draw the line. Humans have to be able to choose for themselves the kinds of media they digest and let their kids digest. Some parents are perfectly fine letter their kids watch The Simpsons, other parents think its too mature. Similarly, some parents withhold reading scary stories for their kids, others believe kids can handle it. Similar, some parents will prefer the "censored" versions of books over the original, and other parents won't mind reading the original. And at the end of it all, I think this is a decision the parent needs to make, not the publisher, not the government, and not "society." Again I think about Grimm's fairytales. They printed 4 versions of the stories. The first was censored, then the people outcried and a 2nd edition put the stories back to their original brutal forms. Later versions have changed and softened aspects. Then of coarse there's the Disney adaptations that changed even more elements (some for good; some for not so good). My point is this is that changing children's stories to reflect the society times is a very common, centuries old practice. Having it happen to Dahl, tells me he's "made it" from children's author to modern fairytale storyteller.. and thats kinda neat when you think about it!
Fairytales are such an intersting notion because one) many of them started from an oral tradition and so I'd say they have less "official" versions than a single work written by a single author and two) they've had much, much longer to "marinate" than many of the books we are talking about changing today. Still, it's true that nobody bats an eye at those being changed. I would argue that most people know they aren't the original versions, and aren't being advertised as such, but then again, many MANY people grew up with the Disney versions and those in some ways have become more canon than the original. It's a fascinating addition to this argument, because in this case, everyone has been perfectly fine with those changes. Is it because a longer time has passed?
What a great discussion and your arguments were very well articulated. I am always impressed by the level of effort you put into these videos and appreciate your willingness to state your opinions! Keep it up!
I think you are all over this one. It's really really hard to change things like this without unintentional consequences. For the record my gut reaction is usually to be against over censorship
Pandora's Box burst open. Protect and hide your "old" books!!!! Being a history buff...I've seen this before. Over re-action? We'll see...🤔 You can also include all the re-imaginings that are so popular today. I agree with you (from a previous video), why not just write a NEW story!!! If they want a more inclusive story, why not write it? Find a clean page, go fill it! is there a such a thing as sneaky (soft) censorship?
The thing is, I think there are a lot of great inclusive books out there already! That's why I liked what the librarian said about curating - you could always push forward and promote other books that you feel are a better indicator of how the publishing house feels today.
I can't remember where I read it, but the whole "not telling someone something for their own protection" You know historically always resulted in healthy relationships. Ha!
Bravo! Spot on! You deserve a bigger platform (in general 😉) so more people could hear and consider what you have to say about this. You absolutely express the emotional sentiments of a great many of us, whilst to acknowledge disparate perspectives, and arrive at a place of sense, or wisdom so cohesively is masterful. Cheers!
One thing I wish I would've talked about (but it felt the video was too long already LOL) was that publishers do routine changes of books all the time - how often have you read the first edition of a book and noticed a few errors here and there? I remember in particular a large mistake in the 4th Harry Potter book when it came out that I've noticed is fixed in later editions. We usually take these as ok because they don't change the story in significant ways, or change the story in a way that it was meant to be written. There is a chance that these changes have been done to other books in the past. Do we feel these are the most extensive, or just that we know about them? Would it change your mind if they had always planned on putting an indicator on the cover of the changes? (Similar to how you know you are buying an "abridged" version of a book?) Some more questions to ponder!
Unlike Tolkien, this token playing to "wokeism" as a pejorative and I detest that playing to. It's time we need a plurality in society rather than a tiresome "both sides" that cuts off intellectual discourse in favor of stunts, distractions, and self-censorship. Read Nietzsche! And skip to last line of Atlas Shrugged and get the gist. Only book I somehow gladly did do and will ever do so. Got it for like two bucks local library sale paperback wondering what's its appeal on so many shelves of "go-getters" and limited defines of "success" with questionable role models. My theory is it's some kinda long game Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal? End tangent.
There is a difference in fixing an omission or error or typo from a first run of a book. Stuff happens. I actually appreciate it when a publisher makes fixes to text for the next run, usually the soft cover.
I do get some of these changes, and there are some that seem unnecessary to me. I might be wrong (feel free to correct me on this if i am not exactly right about this), but I feel that some of these changes might be (in a way) harming the education of the younger generation/ others that might not fully understand certain situations, disability, and lessons we might learn from these situations(teachable moments)
Man the more I watch your videos the more I like your point of view. As for your comment about how adults see things differently than kids I could not agree more. The best example I can think of is this story I was lightening to on NPR several... several years ago. (I am so old lol) Where the granddaughter or daughter of Charles Lindbergh was invited to the Smithsonian when they were installing the Spirit of Saint Louis and she brought her son. She describes this beautiful moment where she and her son are in the cherry bucket way up in the air and she's looking in the cockpit and has this surreal moment imagining what it was like for him all alone way up in the air on that historic flight. She reaches out and touches the skin of the plain and tears come to her eyes. And right then her son says man mom this is great! And thinking he was having the same experience she turns and he's looking down off the bucket and he looks up at her and says, I've always wanted to go up in one of these.... Kids are great, and just like adults, they all have their own points of view. As for the topic of this video, changing works of literature is a very slippery slope that leads to changing works of history. Which is how we now live in a world were we are still having arguments over the cause, and issues of the U.S. Civil War. While I understand the sentiment... I don't know that I agree with the change. I would never disrespect someone by calling them the N word. But I love Samuel Clemens and his works. And he named one of his characters the N word... Seriously man!? No wonder he wrote under a pen name lol All kidding aside, I am for making the world a more inclusive and welcoming place, but maybe add a foot note, or some other marker to bring attention to the fact that this particular piece or literature is a little outmoded. That way you as a parent can use that litterateur as a teachable moment for your children. Anyhow that's just my two cents. Hope everyone is having a good day, and go read a book.
Man I actually really like the footnote idea. Maybe even something at the beginning, or discussion questions at the end. Instead of changing it, help kids critically think or discuss it. And also, I've definitely had my own experiences of "wow kids get something very different out of this" 🤣
One of the reasons I love your content is that it's often enlightening as well as entertaining. This was a really thoughtful breakdown of the subject. Thanks for making these videos that are always good food for thought and help me sort through my own feelings on these complicated topics.
Great discussion! 🙂 I generally agree with you. I understand some people wanna preserve the classics. I think it's time to end the gatekeeping and accept they are outdated 😅. Time to support new stories and authors. Classics should be left unchanged and preservered for memory of the culture from other periods in history.
Yes, definitely want more nuanced deep-dives into controversial topics like this one! Thought this was very well researched and presented, extremely comprehensive (for an "only" 26 minute-long video!). I definitely was aware of the Dahl book changes in the UK, but didn't know much more than that they were making changes to be more inclusive. Appreciate you sharing examples. Agree that a lot of the replacements are simply poorly written. Also appreciate you talking about sensitivity readers as...I apparently have been living under a log, because I didn't even know they were a thing!! So thanks for the education there. My opinion - these types of wholesale changes to older books make me nervous. As a writer and reader, nothing makes me shudder more than the idea of censorship and modification of content to fit with the times. A bit Orwellian, to be sure, and though there can be many innocuous cases, I will ere on the side of leaving books unmodified every time. Yes, there will be books with problematic content and cringe-worthy scenes, especially older books! But these books are part of the history of humanity, and it makes me sick to think that we will virtuously erase the problematic parts of our history away to present a shinier, purer, falser image to our descendants. Let our history stand, warts and all. (oh wait, am I not supposed to talk about warts...?) I remember reading "Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry" when I was a kid, and that book shook me to my core. Ought we to edit that book now, to take out the disturbing passages? May it never be. For children's books, I do understand some of the impulses to sanitize. There certainly is content that may not be appropriate or helpful for children of certain ages to consume. And I do think it's important for the parents (primarily) and schools (secondarily) to curate the materials that children are exposed to. Again, I still ere on the side of allowing our children to read more rather than less. I would rather have to awkwardly explain some odd word choices or scenarios to kids rather than keep every potentially problematic text from them. But, there are choices to be made, hence the battles that rage in local communities, families and school boards. I have some librarian friends, and it's fascinating hearing the struggles they face trying to make the right choices in which books to shelve and/or promote. It's challenging! These conversations are necessary. But I go far afield. Obviously there are books where changes are made post-publication with full author approval, and I'm generally fine with that. There are often abridged copies of older books, and I'm fine with that too, because you generally know you are being an abridged copy and that thus there were editorial choices that had to be made! In this case with the Dahl books though, I think it went over the line. Clumsy, poorly-written replacements for original slightly-problematic lines? Please no. One other example before I end this far-too-long example. There's also been some talk in past years about the problematic parts of the "Little House" series, a book series that a lot of kids (myself included!) grew up reading. I recently re-read these and...well, I went into it expecting them to be shockingly racist and dated but...what did I find? A series of books written giving one person's perspective on a certain time period, the time period in which she grew up and lived. A few lines that might offend some (but give a very accurate picture into certain people's attitudes back then!) and a couple scenes that shock our modern sensibilities...but that also provide an accurate depiction of certain elements of small-town American life in the latter half of the 19th century. These books should not be textbooks of modern behavior, no. But as books that give kids of today a peek at our past? Invaluable. Also, as parents and teachers? Don't just stick to the old books that were written 50 or 100 years ago. Keep seeking out good new authors and books to introduce to your kids...you don't want to fall into the trap of thinking only the classics have anything to offer. Your kids might learn something new (and you might too!!) If anything though, parents and teachers should stay a part of the process - praise and encourage reading and provide kids plenty of good quality reading material and let them make choices on what to read! And then...be open and understanding and eager to have conversations with your kids on what they're reading. I know parents who read every book that their kid is reading so they can have those conversations. I love that so much. And sorry, I have written too much and too much off-topic. Apologies, but apparently this video provoked this type of response!!
Agreed all around with everything you said. I agree that the impulse makes sense - I often worry about sanitizing for my kids - but ultimately realize they WILL hear about it eventually, and as a book reader, I also balk at telling me kids they can't ever read something lol. If I did, I'd at least want to talk about why! Usually I say "not yet", but I'd have a hard time saying "never". To your last point - I never got into the Little House series, so I don't know what the exact issues are, but I do think it's a difficult line to walk. If you write historical fiction and everyone loves everyone its...not very historical lol. But at the same time, with a series like Little House, I can see how people might worry kids can't parse that those notions are outdated, if our "heroes" are the ones making those statements. That's where I think talking about it is the most vital. Simply saying "people actually thought this back then - we know that's not true!" can go a long, long way.
I could easily write you a long, 10 paragraph comment, but I'll just keep it short 😄 I feel that we live in a time where folks are more sensitive than they should be, and I feel that sometimes people do things (like editing past publications) to avoid potential backlash and/or unwanted attention. However, I, myself, feel that a) these changes are unnecessary and b) published works should just be left alone (unless authors themselves initiated). As you stated, they contain teachable moments, and reflect a history/culture that we cannot nor should attempt to hide or erase. And besides, the examples you show are awful changes!! The books will lose their humor and charm! What's next? Editing Loony Toons? Censoring Roadrunner / coyote because of "violence "? If editing older works become a new thing, then okay, edit them for those who want it... some parents may just feel more comfortable having "clean" versions of kid stories. But let's also keep the originals intact and available, as well. I look at this like Grimm's Fairytales... we watch the Disney version as kids, but grow up wanting to read the darker original versions.
I get it, my video is long, I'd also want to write paragraphs 😂 I agree though. Mostly, I think if you want to censor something for your kids, that's totally your right as a parent, but I don't think we need publishers making that decision. I use a website called Common Sense Media all the time to help me decide which content I want my kids to read and watch. But, I also recognize they are going to hear these words/ideas anyway, and so talking about them is important regardless!
I got to read the Grimm Fairy Tales. As a child. Unedited and in German. English translations of the unedited works are fairly close. It helps that a lot of the English language derived from German.
When the Belgian cartoon The smurfs came to america they changed all the instances where a smurf was hit with a hammer on the head to something else. Because this humorous part was deemed to riskful for American children. So there is a very long tradition of editing down content for children.
I just found your channel this week and I'm very glad I did. We have similar taste in books and I liked your discussion of them so I subscribed, but you also have a kid about the same age as mine and you provide suggestions for the kiddos to read...Awesome! Glad I subscribed! Now I find out your favorite podcast is The Adventure Zone!?! Double Awesome! Great video concerning changes in literature here. I difficult subject to navigate, but you handled it well!
Such a great discussion in your video! It really rubs me the wrong way that those works are being altered, it's like changing history. I personally always found Roald Dahl's works quite weird and even as a kid made me uncomfortable, but to just change stuff like that without the consent of the author feels like a weird form of sheltering, and it is definitely a form of censorship
lol, I know, same, they weren't really my style as a kid. That's why I think it's interesting that even as someone that has no connection to the work, I STILL recognize that the changes feel...weird and too much.
We are different now than at the time these stories were written. My old (or should I say former as he was only middle aged) history teacher said "you can't judge the people of the past by the standards of today" and that has really stuck with me over the last 15 years since he said it. By all means have a disclaimer at the start but we shouldn't change history or we won't learn from it (hello 1984 anyone??) if people want to change it, just make sure the original version is still available so people can decide.
I can only speak for myself, but as a woman, I don't like censorship of sexism in books that were written in a different time, or even modern books that put sexism in to reflect society or make a statement about it. It's not helpful, it's degrading and insulting, as if I can't understand the context and need my delicate sensibilities protected.
I’ve been a subscriber for a while now but rarely comment. But a video this good, this well thought out, and so well articulated deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. If more comments help the YT algorithms promote your videos, I’m happy to do my part. Great job with this.
You articulated your feelings on this well! I couldn’t have said it better myself, and you said things that I couldn’t articulate! I think this is a great topic of discussion and absolutely needs to be discussed. Censorship is a dangerous slope. Some things I do agree need to be censored, especially for children, but I feel there is a line. The author’s intent should be brought into consideration and considering he is not here to approve the changes, it’s hard to know what he would have wanted. But here I think they do go too far, and it feels like something they did in order to be “woke”, possibly?
Yeah and I think censorship may just be more in the hands of...the parents. I technically censor stuff all the time for my kids! They have to be a certain age to watch movies and books! I look up ratings and content before I allow them to read or watch something! That's technically all censorship.
Wow. Thanks for this video. I knew the general story about the changes, but had not seen the details, and…wow. They are, in large part, stupid. I get the underlying premise - the overall picture of people and society in books is subconsciously teaching children what is normal, acceptable, and to some extent true. This really speaks to the point you made about needing to talk to our children about things as you read them to provide context and to teach values. I think of myself as a young reader, though, and I didn’t just accept what I read as correct. I grew up in the 70s, so there was much written that would be considered offensive, now. I didn’t just take that and internalize it as how things should be. The values instilled in me by my parents informed how I reacted to what I read. that is the main truth for me. The problems of stigmatizing, labeling, discrimination, etc. come more from parents teaching reprehensible views to their children, not from books. Changing “offensive” books won’t fix that. In the end, our children are more resilient and discerning than we credit. There are two things that particularly offend me about these changes. First, how poorly done they are. Seriously, any change to an author’s work is fraught with risk that the editor isn’t understanding what they are editing. Humor, sarcasm, shaded meanings, and many other complexities and nuances of any written work may not be understood by the person editing and changes can destroy the intent of the author. The changes that you showed are awkward, stilted, and lack Dahl’s irreverent voice. They exude politically correct insincerity that I think most kids will see right through. The text reads as if written by a committee. These are not sensitive changes that retain the character of the original. Second, how does a publisher have a legal right to do this to a deceased author’s works? How can they make changes and retain his name as the author making it look like he wrote those words? Are they in the public domain, now? I find it unethical. If there is a book that by it’s nature is unacceptably offensive (yeah, don’t ask me to define that, but I mean something like, promoting the holocaust as good, or a how-to on rape) then don’t publish it. For other books, like Dahl’s, if there is concern, then maybe include a forward providing context and some discussion. Beyond that, books should be allowed to succeed or fail based on readers’ opinions. If a publisher wants to keep making money off an author’s work, then publish it as written. If people find it offensive, they can choose not to buy it. That is the worry driving these changes, in my cynical view, worry of controversy or negative press leading to decreased sales, and they don’t want to lose sales. They are treating a work of creation/art as a commodity. The worst part is the ham-handed changes seriously lessen the work without doing anything substantial to address the purported concerns.
11:07 - I feel the new version is actually more likely to potentially cast a negative light or subconscious bias on women as a whole, because it removes the clarification that - despite the fact that all witches are women - not all women are witches. The whole point of the original passage[ at least as far as I can tell without reading it in more context] was to make it clear that you really can't suspect a woman of being a witch just for being a woman, even though if you ever do encounter a witch then that witch will undoubtedly be female. And if you're worried about the word "lovely" being taken to mean 'physically pretty to look at' and not 'perfectly wonderful/respectable people to be around' or such... _^sighs^_ I can't even begin to dig into that one with a ten foot pole. ((And, as far as I can tell, that's much the same with the later passage about gloves or wigs or such too-like the original version is saying that you can't just target any random person, because if you treat people this way without any actual reason and are wrong about them there will[ quite rightly] be negative consequences for having targeted them so unjustly.))
Fantastic content as always. I'm so glad you addressed this topic, and you handled it extremely well. btw the comment section is reflective of the quality of your videos. It's always such a great discussion here and I always read all the comments. My general take on this kind of topic is usually, if you don't like a piece of art, make your own. We need more creators, not more editing of other creators' work. I can see some nuance in some situations, but in this particular example? I find it hard to believe anyone who takes history and literature seriously would engage in this type of nonsense. And being against this type of editing is in no way supportive of any kind of attack on inclusiveness. There are simply far, far better ways to achieve that worthy goal.
Yea I remember in kindergarten in the 90s we’d continuously comment on the shade or texture of our hair, our skin color etc. A fair society isn’t one that doesn’t see color, but one that doesn’t factor it when judging fellow humans
I think it is best to keep the book in its original form and add a foreword that addresses the issues. Changing the authors words without their consent changes their artistic intent. Honestly, if I read some of these rewrites I would question Roald Dahl's proficiency as an author more than I would judge him a racist, sexist, ableist, etc. with the original wording. It's just so clunky and unimaginative.
One of the most confusing changes to me was removing the words “black” and “white” when they don’t even have anything to do with race. The spider is black. That’s a fact. Why do we need to call it a dark-colored spider instead of a black spider when its color is literally black? Are black and white not allowed to exist as colors anymore without someone being seen as racist for using then, regardless of context? Am I missing something?
No, I think those are the weirdest changes as well. Just like going "red in the face" when someone was angry or embarrassed. I understand that "red" can have a bad racial connotation if used that way, but...peoples faces DO go red when they are angry, etc. So it's so weird that they took that out as if it's offensive or a slur.
I do believe it should be clearly stated if a work has been changed. I’m highly against changing things so you like them better. There is a reason people say we learn from past mistakes, kind of need to see the before to appreciate the after. Thank you for the video
Thank you for the compact overview. I think banning those books or only making rewritten books available at school is the wrong approach. Especially when it comes to controversial books. Reading them in a supervised surrounding like in class should be considered educational. Even better when you have easy to engage and fun books. I fondly remember the time we dissected the mindset behind some books written in the NS time (not the mainstream propaganda, but authors that still were successful during that time) and how society influenced them.
No artistic product should be censored. It's a form of expression of the creator. Not even they should change it. It's a mark of their own journey and of the time it represents. More than that censorship always fails. As an ex-soviet union citizen I can attest that censorship doesn't work. On the contrary, it only makes the public's hunger to consume forbidden art even greater.
While I agree we should do better in terms of representation and not perpetuating stereotypes, we shouldn't do it by erasure, but by writing new, better books. But here's the kicker, they've 1984'ed: 1. the james bond books (which are for adults), 2. the goosebumps books (without alerting the author, who's alive and well), 3. the entire catalogue of ladybird fairytales, Those are just the ones we know about. Just saying, this slope is beginning to feel real slippery.
I’m completely against changing the language used in an existing work. Sensitivity reading is fine and can be helpful but the time to address these issues is during the editing process or, in the case of an older book where the author is no longer living, in the preface or forward. You’re absolutely right about it being a slippery slope. Where does it end? And who gets to decide? I am the daughter of a librarian so censorship was a frequently discussed topic in our house. My mother was firmly against it. History can be instructive, she said. There is value in seeing what we came from and how we have evolved. There is value in reading something and asking oneself, “Do I agree with this?” I myself am frequently appalled and outraged by the misogyny present within fantasy and sci books but I would not for one minute advocate editing the already published text. It would be much better to include a forward or an author Q&A at the end in which they are asked about any issues present in the book. If the author has problems with gender, ethnicity, weight, etc. it’s far better for the reader to know that about them. Know who you’re supporting, in other words. I’m very late in commenting so I don’t know if you will even see this, but in any case, great video!
I don't understand who's the audience for new versions. If I would have a problem with Roald Dahl's language, why would I buy revised versions, since I wouldn't know what they take out and what they put in, unless I am willing to do an exhausting amount of research, which no one will do for the author that they have serious problems with, there're plenty of other children books.
And this is just a fantastic point, period. There are books I don't buy for my kids because I don't like their contents (language, sex, whatever). I think that's the best way, tbh. We can let things fade if they no longer are relevant.
This is such a difficult topic. I can see the spirit of what they're trying to do here, and I appreciate the heart behind it, but I'm a little bit wary of what might happen if we're not careful regarding these practices. I personally think context and conversations are king. It's SO important to have conversations about books, especially older works, rather than just trying to read them in isolation. I'm not sure if this works as well for children's books, but for the older audiences, I think a dialogue about these topics is SO important. Most of the outcry I see in book reviews for the older classics seems to be by people who automatically assume things with no context...I could be totally wrong about that of course, but it's what I've observed recently. I'm not sure about Dahl specifically...I didn't really get into him as an author specifically...but as for other works, I feel like it's important to have context and create opportunities to learn about the history/circumstances behind classic works before automatically jumping on the idea of revising them. At the end of the day, I'm just a small "Movie Essay" TH-camr and am not really qualified to make the decisions about cultural relevancy and the ethics of editing regarding books...I just hope people are careful and do research about the time period in which something was made before they automatically condemn any piece of art...
You made an interesting statement about writers use experts when it comes to science and biology for example. I agree with you nothing wrong with also using experts about culture and people when you are creating a NEW book. I totally in favour of more inclusion of all kinds of people in tv series, films, books and society in general. However I want it to feel natural and not to be politically correct. So if people want TV series that are more inclusive create them, make your own world with your own story and have inclusion in it from the bottom up. Do not take an old story and change it just so it is more inclusive. I personally find it cheap that they rebooted Charmed and now made the story about three black sisters. You take something that has proven itself and now recycle it so you can say: "look how inclusive we are". If you think a tv series about three black sisters has potential than it also deserves its own original story instead of it being based or inspired by an other series. If something you desire to depict is not in your source material. Create your own new source that takes into account what you want there to be depicted. That is what writers do today, they are making books where kids have two mothers or fathers, there are books about gender, there are books with more racial inclusion and there are books where the disability is also positively displayed. Writers saw the gaps and started to fill them in. That is in my opinion the answer to wanting to be inclusive. With the news about the changes to Roald Dahl's story reaching the Netherlands there were also some examples of how publishers changed books. A very famous series from the 1950's for example is still very popular to this day. However certain things like a coal storage/cellar do not exist anymore so they changed it to cellar since that is something that kids still understand. They did not change the premise they just made sure kids are still able to understand the story. I think that such changes are okay since they allow for stories to last. However you should not do it with every book since reading older books is also a nice way to understand how society was and has changed over the years. Especially if you talk about it wigh your children you can help them understand what is written in those books and how it relates to today.
The worst thing you do with censorship is taking away agency from the reader. Not always an update is bad, but currently we seem to be forcing a certain worldview into everything. And at that point it's, in my opinion at least, well, the opinion of the person rewriting the story. I would rather have them write a commentary on the book, adding footnotes and what not, instead of determining what it is that you are allowed to read. And what opinions you should have. Besides, if you want to avoid hurting anyone's feeling you will have an extremely dull book.
My understanding of a sensitivity reader is that this person is from the marginalized group and notes the things they find offensive. (Everthing I know about this came from the writing excuses podcast). They are key when when you are righting "the other" so you don't do it wrong. I'm sure we've all seen the video of the white guy dressed in the poncho, fake droopy mustache, and sombrero who gets chastised by college students (who aren't hispanic) for cultural appropriation. He then goes to a Mexican community where he is welcomed in and nobody finds his outfit offensive in the least. If you aren't in the marginalized group you may overreact to things that don't matter or not notice things that really are offensive.
Hopefully they will clearly label the cover of something. Like .. *_book title_* _revised edition_ / *_book title_* _original edition_ (Or something along those lines) ..so, that way, even people not already in the know can be aware that there is a difference and be alerted that they may need to ask a bookstore employee or look into it themselves before making a purchase choice themself.
So Sensitivity Reading is a part of cultural consulting. Cultural Consulting is for corporate cultures that differ (American to British, European to Non-European, etc.). Sensitivity Reading is usually done to aid sub-cultures most people aren't aware of. Diabetes is notorious for having very few sensitivity reading groups because most people assume that the only things we care about are food & insulin. Paul Blart assumed you could revive a downed diabetic with a dozen donuts. If tried that I would not be chasing the "bad guys" I'd be experiencing a half-hour of vasovagal syncope (blacking out from intense blood pressure pain). Now I get that it's a comedy so I'm not "supposed" to "take it seriously" but implied"permission" to hurt myself is actively saying "diabetic pain is fine, actually". Just my 2¢
Imo, the bottom line is very clear. When an artist creates art, that is their artistic expression. If a person doesn’t like that art, they are free to not consume it. Other people ethically should not touch that work. I don’t think you should even be able to change things that you are “morally” right about. A writer carefully chooses the words they use to express not only their opinions, but the opinions of the characters they are attempting to portray. Kurt Vonnegut describes one of his characters as fat “as big as a house” in slaughterhouse five. That observation later made the book so much more powerful when the character talks about how much he loves his wife (the fat woman) be cause you realize with the character that what’s inside a person is so much more important than what’s on the outside. He describes their relationship as mostly happy their entire life, and for that he loves her. Cut the offending words, the human words and you steal the power of the book. That example aside, if it isn’t your art, keep your damn hands off it.
Thank you for this deep dive. I'm honestly shocked by the number and type of changes. And I see two very big problems: First, and we've seen this with disease or politically sensitive topics. We tend to blame the word rather than the behaviour or attitude (you touch upon this with the black part). This will just move the connotations from word to word. For example: By taking away the word fat and keeping enormous, as we keep doing that, in time we will just move the negative connotation of 'fat' towards 'enormous'. Second, it also invalidates in part human experiences. For example: yes of course it is perfectly fine to wear a wig. And actually I can't think of a person I know who judges people for wearing wigs, unless they are so unnatural that it starts to come to the level of wearing unflattering clothes or distasteful jewelry or something. I do know several people who wear wigs who struggle with shame. But it's usually not from being judged, but from dealing with emotions of not being able to have or grow their own hair. It is not because they think society at large laughs at them for wearing wigs. But they hate to have wigs and saying having to wear one is perfectly fine, I'd say that is not their experience and they will disagree, not because they judge others, but because they just don't feel that way about their wigs ;)
It is interesting to note that the Oompa Loompas were already censored during the 70s-80s I think. It was extremely messed up and do the research at your own risk, they were insanely insensitive.
1. What is with the librarian thinking it's her job to protect the world from "oppression?" That's a censorious mindset. 2. Sensitivity reading is TOTALLY different from authors doing research. Authors choose to do research for the benefit of their characters. Sensitivity readers are forced on authors by publishers trying to cover their asses. 3. The idea that only people who are in a particular group can judge "sensitivity" gives outsized power to people who aren't authors or editors. All sensitivity readers do is push their own political agendas. If they want to do that, they should write their own material, not use others' work as an avenue for their ideas.
I still have yet to see proof yet that sensitivity readers are always forced on their authors! Sanderson clearly chose to work with his - he said so in a Reddit AMA. My husband, and indie author chose freely to ask someone to sensitivity read for him. A lot of authors do it for research! There may have been an experience at some point where it was forced… but I’ve yet to read about it from an actual author and not as a scare tactic.
@@Bookborn I could tell you about a few. If an author chooses to have someone read their work for "sensitivity," that's just research and I couldn't have a problem with it. That's the author's decision.
Thanks for another thoughtful chat about this topic and sharing the link to the Telegraph! I agree that the writing of the changes was really poor. Part of what made so many of the changes so bad is injecting affirmative bias when a neutral one would do. For instead instead of replacing cashier and typist with top scientist and running a business, it could be “… working as a researcher in a lab or writing press releases for companies” - STEM being a place where women work but don’t dominate and the other in public relations where women have a stronger foothold. The original turn of phrase had an everyday feeling to it - jobs kids could see something tangible (a cash register) or someone doing something (typing). Not honoring the premise of the original writing undoes some of the textual quality. I’d rather they kept the premise and updated the gender associations. I fully support eliminating language about fat mice - I’m a mouse of girth and my fellow mice and I were offended by that statement because we weren’t allowed to play any raindeer games with the emaciated mice growing up. 🙃
Some of the "I do not understand" examples are (at around 18:50) quite understandable I think. By removing connotations like using dark and black together with bad or scary adjectives/verbs, we are deconditioning the child readers from associating dark skin with scariness. The tiny-little and all the rest of the ableism (for example, the stuff with the 'simple creature' regarding the tortoise) is also related to that. Ultimately, I did get surprised by the amount of backlash these changes received all while people kept saying they do not even see the point in them. This kinda is the point. Unconditioned glances at these passages do not tell us much, as to us, these words are like water to a fish. Not reproducing these unnecessary eugenical connotations is what matters here, imho.
I don’t feel the need to change old books, but I do think putting some sort of a disclaimer or having a foreword that maybe explains historical context of a text is good. After all, they used to do it to old shows and movies, just put a disclaimer at the beginning that explains things.
I think I'm OK with an edit that is permitted by the author or his/her estate as long as it is clearly called out somewhere that this isn't the "original" text. My strong preference would also be to have access to the original unedited version (again it could be called out clearly that it's unedited). I think the only time that the originals should no longer be available is at the request of the author or his/her estate. On a side, my understanding is that R.L Stine's books have been edited and he was completely unaware of this until recently. There's definitely a problem with that.
It was a great 30 minutes spent. You did great. There is one thing you could have mentioned which maybe you didn’t want to take more time with and that is that a book is an artistic expression. With that in mind, do we have the right to change someone’s creation? Otherwise, let me take the opportunity to say that I enjoy your creations and hope to continue to do so.
Yeah, art is weird, huh. At what point do we feel like art is owned by the artist or owned by the public. That's an intersting question that I probably can't answer
I'm a little confused, it reads that "all witches are women" and not "all women are witches." Maybe everyone reads it as the second, but I've never read any of these books and I read that and saw the change and just saw that they got rid of the statement that most women are lovely, which just made me sad and feel like they just made it worse.
With the Roald Dahl books I feel the whole thing was also a publicity stunt. They were very quick to say they will release both editions and even had covers ready to show for both of them. On another note: I think there are indeed problems with some of the tropes of Dahl books but these are in the core of the books so they can not be changed without completely rewriting the book. (which they might have tried to do based on your examples. 🙂) I think as long as you talk to your kids and also let them read more modern books with other takes on these issues they will be fine. And I also agree: I've been reading quite some of the Roald Dahl books as bedtime stories the last year or so and the very outrageous parts are what my son really likes. (Oh my god, the principal used someones braid to catapult them into the air.)
YES. I sometimes think that wild stuff is an outlet for things kids can't do. On a lesser note, it's why the argument for "why are these parents letting kids do stuff??" in kids books drives me bonkers. The point of children's books is so that they can see themselves as the heroes. Of COURSE it doesn't make sense. It's not supposed to!
@@Bookborn I have friends who do not let their children watch Peppa Pig because Peppa is a bad example for their kids. I wonder how they would feel about these books.
I prefer the idea of promoting new material over altering existing work for children and schoolwork, theres so many books published every year theres no need for static reading lists. I liked your point about patent/ teacher to student discussion about problomatic material and rhink that is a better approach than sanitization. In terms of the mainstream I think the orginal text of the book is important in recognizing its message and context which needn't be agreed with or promoted by th he reader, I think santising books inhibits facing diffcult questions about past attitudes and behaviors. Almost like removing a consequence and theregore the lesson attached. Trigger warnings can also be effectively used to prevent harm to people who may experoence trauma with the attached material but then again I think all media ahould warn of triggering content.
In the ethics of censorship you discuss that the reasoning for the censorship isn't to uphold inequality but to combat inequality. That is very interesting, because we have to look at power dynamics. To enact censorship (or cleaning up language or whatever) you need power. If I at home 'fix' Roald Dahl it is of no consequence to anyone, as I cannot enforce anyone to read 'my' version of it. Penguin House on the other hand is a big publishing company with a lot of money and influence, and they critically hold the exclusive rights to publish Dahl works, so they can enforce their version of it. Also Inclusivity Minds (the organization mentioned) is not the one in power here, even if they may have pointed to possibly offending phrases in the books. Penguin House is the one with the actual power and they hired Inclusivity Minds. But that all is an interesting thing to think about here for a moment. Because ultimately nobody ever said they changed or outlawed books because they wanted to oppress, they always explained it with the good they wanted to do. The times the church was powerful they used to clean up language that 'would damage the immortal soul' of the readers. But as the ones in power their look on what is good, right, justified was always differing from what people without power think. So if Penguin House declares they want to change it for good of society, I ask myself what they gain from it. The most probable answer, as they are a company, is that they clean up their image to improve sales overall. And if that is the actual purpose, then it doesn't matter if they achieve the declared purpose. They might have also failed to clean their image with that backlash, but that was something they probably didn't expected. A side note about fat. It is purely speculation on my part, I have no research, but I feel like the fat, lazy, stupid connotations are initially springing from an attack on upper-class, because there were a time when only upper-class members could actually become fat. So the fat lazy kid as I remember often is a fat, lazy, *rich* kid, that doesn't even can appreciate all the toys it has and only wants them as a status symbol, meanwhile the skinny, energetic, smart kid often (as I remember) is poor and only has one broken toy. I may misremembering or I may put more emphasis on this connotation than actually is in the books I read, but that is my impression.
I'm not sure if I agree with your comparision between sensitivity readers and authors performing research for their novels. Art is allowed to do anything and is obliged to nothing. If I were an author and I wanted to write a book that makes a point by slapping you in the face (figuratively speaking of course) by being as offensive as can be, I'm quite sure that a sensitivity reader could only decrease the quality of that book. This has nothing to do with any research I might have made beforehand.
But sensitivity readers are a *choice* is the point; and so yes, if you were writing a book to slap people in the face, you might not employ sensitivity writers. OR, you might employ readers to see if your point got across accurately. The point is that not ALL sensitivity reading should immediately be thrown in the trash; I think this case is much more suspect because the author wasn't involved, and it seems to be missing the point of what *good* sensitivity reading can do.
I grew up with Dahl, Tolkien, Blyton and patrick o'brian- two of whom are now being edited and one of whom is criticised. I think we should take note of how we have evolved as a society but- censorship is not the way to do that. If reading a book with children that has language that is no longer appropriate then have the discussion afterwards with the child about why that language would no longer be used?
I wonder if the concern and backlash had not been so vocal, if the publisher would have continued the published the original editions alongside the revised editions. Tangentially, the three works were brought to my mind as I was watching this video: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.
Firstly, we have (as you mentioned in the video), living authors making revisions to their own works. Mary Shelley, less than fifteen years after the original publication, revised and republished Frankenstein to align it to her worldview at it had changed personally and socially, impacting the backstory of Elizabeth Lavenza, the culpability of Victor Frankenstein, and expanded upon the beginning of the novel. The revised 1831 edition seems to be the more widely read edition, which would make for an interesting discussion between readers who read the original versus the revised.
Secondly, we have abridged editions of works. The Count of Monte Cristo is the massive 19th-century French revenge novel that, had I not realized it many years later, I had read an abridged version of in high school. While digging into it, it looks like the abridgments seems to have stemmed from the translation from French to English back in the mid-19th century.
Finally, we have The Picture of Dorian Gray: a work that, only recently, was published with the "uncensored" version in 2011 that includes text and scenes that were deleted by Wilde's editor at the time that were deemed too risqué.
All that said, I agree that having conversations, whether with your children or even with other adults, about the complexities and challenges of literature (or art in general) is the best way forward and to improve. Unfortunately, in relation to the Roald Dahl revisions, it seems to be reflective of society's at-large tendency to take everything at surface level rather than diving into and exploring the nuance.
Everything about this response is perfect, Evie. I realized after-the-fact that it would've been useful to talk about how revisions happen a lot in books, this one just seems to be more public. I think you brought up three really good use-cases, and I actually had no idea Dorian Gray wasn't the original - I doubt I read the new one! It's such a complicated issue that I think is easy to dismiss but holds greater consequences. And I'll NEVER disagree that we aren't critically thinking enough - and teaching your kids to critically engage in anything they experience is probably one of the most important life skills we can teach to the next gen.
This is what I love most about your videos, bookborn, and about the comment section like your post Evie. The context. It's easy to react like the world is ending because oh no, now they're censoring and editing books!! Yeah, it's been happening forever. That alone doesn't make it right or wrong, but having an informed opinion rather than just an opinion is crucial.
One thing to note is that publishers may be acting to promote sales. For example, Dr. Seuss's books were being revised for similar reasons and the sale of Dr. Seuss's books skyrocketed before revised versions came out. Frankly, I am not sure if the publisher actually did go through with revisions.
@@thomasc9036 That is certainly possible, and it's even more insulting if it's true. It's insulting to people who value these books (and books and art in general), and insulting to anyone fighting seriously for inclusivity. And insulting to everyone fighting censorship, using them/us as free advertising.
@@pjalexander_author Not sure about insulting. Publishers are running businesses to make profits for shareholders. Rebranding or remakes are common entertainment methods (see Disney remakes).
In addition, what does "inclusivity" even mean? I don't know a single Black and Asian person who was "offended" because Peter Jackson's LOTR didn't have the "representation". Most of these pushes for "outrages" are fakes. These people don't really care but they know how to press buttons for those who are emotional and easily manipulated.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." -- George Orwell, 1984.
Cleaning up offensive books is actually harmful in my opinion because it's important to realize that these opinions existed and to understand how they came to be. How else are you ready to recognize signs of opinions drifting into a similar direction? Censoring the bad parts of history is a sure way of having it repeat itself
I think if we are worried about it in children's literature, the better way to go would maybe be having discussion questions at the end or some kind of small discussion page about it.
to be fair tho, it's not like they're eliminating ALL copies of those books pre-editing/censoring. even super controversial books like mein kampf were never completely removed from existence, they're just not available in general. the age of the internet means that practically ANY full text of an old-enough book can be found for online for free (legality notwithstanding).
what truly matters here is the sense of "officiality" to any particular edit of a book. if one of these "sensitivity" versions are released as just a "2023 ed" with no clearer labelling until you find the small print inside... can it be considered false marketing? if they are clearly labelled as "cleaned up language" while older editions without it are still available for sale, then there is really no issue imo.
the next step in this "officiality" thing goes beyond the publisher and to govt institutions: do libraries and schools ban the pre-edited version and ONLY allow the "sensitivity" one? what if they only issue advisories for the older versions, with warning stickers for discriminatory language use? there are probably ways to implement some method of discriminating between pre-edited and "sensitivity" versions, but what matters is whether the original wordings risk becoming replaced entirely with "sensitivity" edits.
perhaps a comparable situation is with "abridged" edits of longer books: they are usually meant to make tougher reads more accessible for children or teens, but they are also obviously never able to replace the full originals. if "sensitivity" edits are just like that: edits for concerned parents who don't wish to deal with the language issues when reading with their kids... and care is taken not to replace the availability of originals, then a lot of these issues seem to disappear imo.
tl;dr: there are levels of "censorship" and it depends on the institutions / individuals involved. care can and should be taken to ensure that such edits do not function as book bans, and govt policy may help here.
@@Bookborn YES! Like some kind of an introduction, or foreward, before the story or an editor's note / closing-statement or something after the last chapter.
I distinctly recall my mother having some books that would provide potential talking points at the end for parents to discuss what the takeaways are or shouldn't be or such with their children, like..making sure kids know that saying or doing certain things isn't a good thing to copy, even if there was a character who did those things for some reason in the book itself. But in the form of asking questions to assess what the child independently was or wasn't taking from the story to begin with, not just speeching at them trying to control what they do or don't "rightly" take from it at all. If that makes sense.😅
People like to look at those things negatively, like they're belittling people's intelligence or something, but in the proper context of a teaching moment between children and parents or in a specifically classroom or otherwise educational context...it doesn't have to be done in a belittling way in the slightest.
Even just reading those books on my own, I always found it an interesting/fun exercise to try and contemplate the themes or such and other things/elements of the stories and characters and all! ^-^ (but maybe that was just me!) 😂😂🤍
Completely agree. I think this kind of thing has the unintentional effect of making these "sensitive" people even more sensitive. If you grow up in a world where most everything around you, including books and movies, have been censored for anything that might give offense, then you're more likely to be even more offended and taken aback whenever you do encounter similar content that the censors haven't got to yet - or worse, real live racists and bigots and misogynists, etc.
To use a health analogy, just as taking too many antibiotics can weaken the immune system's ability to fight off infection, too much "protection" from anything that gives offense can rob you of any immunity, any resiliency against, these kinds of behaviors encountered here in the really real world of today. And it makes it easier for our younger generations, these delicate flowers we're growing today, to think of these kinds of things as more isolated and rare events in history than they actually were, and to imagine that they would have been one of the "good" white people, or good whatever, which just lends itself to more virtue signalling. Arrgh, I could go on.
@@Bookborn There are indeed publishing houses that publish books which are followed with a discussion about the books. This is much more ethical and transparent.
Imagine if Shakespeare was revised every 25 years to conform to the social mores of each successive generation.
The plan is to erase Shakespeare altogether.
When I die, I will be leaving an imperative for my family and estate. If they ever change a word of my published texts, they are to remove my name from the work and replace it with their own. Posthumous changes to works of art make that work not the author's. If a work of art loses relevance, or is just plain offensive, then let that art fade from existence.
The first time I ever was confronted with censorship was a comic book. The Adventures of Tintin in Congo. I was around 12 or 13 when I read it and my teacher saw the book in my backpack and called my parents. In my country (I'm Swiss) we had the original in french as well as a translated german version. Both where published in the 1930's and some of the language used as well as the settings and story was 'problematic' to say the least. My father and the teacher got into a huge argument and I was in danger of being suspended from school simply by reading that comic. I didn't really understand what the argument was (I was too young I think to really understand the discussion, or at that point the shouting match). In the end, my father had to take me to a hearing with several teachers and school board members. At first they argued amongst themselves while I was sitting there, watching my father defending that is daughter can read whatever she wants as long as he approves (my Father is a big bookworm himself) and it felt like an eternity of back and forth and I got scared. Finally they asked me about the comic. Honestly I can't really remember it that well, but I said something about it was okay but not really a good book but that I really loved the little dog. That made them all chuckle.. and after that they started asking me about races and belgium (I learned that belgium was a country from school but other than that not much at that point in my education) and about Congo (same issue there). It ended in an understanding that I wouldn't take that book to school anymore and the issue would be settled with that (which didn't really affect me since I already was several books ahead and if it wasn't for the whole incident I would have forgotten all about it. I later learned later in life that that said comic had a censorship discussion already in the 1950's and 60's during the french and belgian decolonisation. Some argued they should rewrite the story completely, other wanted to simply ban the book. What my father did instead was he sat me down and we read the comic together and he pointed things out, like certain words, attitudes of the characters and description and drawings of the congolese and why everyone was so upset wit it. I think he did a way better job by preparing me for my life than any censorship could have. Censorship is harmful, not only does it hide the pasts mistakes, it also can be used against its original meaning. Politics are constantly shifting. By making a law about something to be published, who says the next person in charge won't use said law against something else? Also, and that's just my opinion, by understanding how people thought at a certain time, like in the 1930, kinda shows us the progress we made. And, let's be realistic.. the fact that I even remember about that Comic book was not because it left an impression, it was the whole theater around it that made me remember, even almost 35 years later. The best way to let a teenager or a child want to read something is by simply telling them it's not allowed. Which, with no guidance like I had from my father, can be even more dangerous. If a school seems a text problematic, discuss it with the students why. Include them. Or replace them with another text but don't banish it from the library if the first option is to intense for you. But again, that is simply my view.
Sorry for the long post, and I apologize for the typos. English isn't my first language
Censorship will never be the right thing to do. Perhaps putting warning labels on content that actually deserves it may be warranted, but censoring is never good.
Censorship is the same as cowardice; it is for people who are afraid of being challenged. We need to allow history to be learned, rather than be non-existent.
Content should always be experienced as it was initially intended. People should be able to learn without that education being forced fed or edited.
Doesn't matter if you are progressive or conservative or whatever. Allow people the freedom of choice and at most just warn them, not restrict.
I couldn't have said it better.
Warning labels are part of the censorship because warning labels are automatically assumed to be the right way to interpret the information(which is why TH-cam uses them for “controversial” topics now).
The people issuing warning labels for former popular and mainstream art have an agenda that is usually not going to align completely with your own views and usually aren’t conducive to a healthy society at large.
I think there's also a bit of "now" bias-i.e., this idea that we've finally evolved; we're able to see things clearly and revise these older books to reflect a certain universally appropriate standard. However, it's a moving target. We're blind to things that may greatly offend in the years to come. Do we continually update the language of every significant work every 40 years or so? I think sensitivity editors are a great thing, but I'm leary about the people who assume they're uniquely qualified for such a monumental task. "I see the world as it is. I'm more empathetic than thou." We all have our blind spots. And the biggest blind spot we have (in my opinion) is the time we live in.
Well said. I am sure as we continue as a society things that seem good and acceptable now will no longer be. Additionally, I agree about people being uniquely qualified OR feeling that they can speak for everyone - but as a research starting point, to avoid large pitfalls, I think it can be a helpful resources.
This seems to be another instance of a company deciding that people wanted something that they didn't actually ask for and doing it in secret then launching it on the public and expecting them to love the thing they didn't want and had no input into.
You are seeing social engineering, rather than organic societal shift from "street level". Language changes, culture and people's roles within it change, and art changes to reflect this, but taking that for granted is allowing changes governed by top-down edicts to fly under the radar, and be accepted as "progress".
Yeah it's so interesting to me how misguided it seems, since I've seen VERY few people defending it. Where did it go wrong? How did that many people have eyes on it and approve it? That's why I wish we knew more about the process, but everyone seems to be staying tight-lipped.
Roald Dahl got me into reading! I hated reading so bad when I was young! I got so bored, I couldn't pay attention, and felt like I was a slow reader. Then I found his books!!! I binged them all! He started my love of fantasy.
In addition, all his books have incredible messages!!! I am against every part of these changes! TBH he was very open forward thinking for his time! I think this makes me upset because people get the idea that Roald Dahl was like a raging racist when I (a black guy) have always admired Dahl and studied and read about his life. Dahl was literally a WW2 vet, fighter pilot, diplomat, spy, and of course an author to name a few.
I just don't think we should hold people in the past to our standards, but instead try to have empathy and judge them for situation they were in.
It's funny we assume our standards are better!
@@BitsyBee true! He was actually a war hero pilot. I can't imagine risking my life like that and yet we judge him
I love that you do this kind of deep dive into important topics. I follow a lot of BookTubers, but your channel is special as it's the only one that tackles this kind of topic, and with this kind of depth. Thank you for what you do!
Thank you so much for the kind words, they mean a lot ♥
I'm usually too lazy to create posts of my own, but you expressed my exact opinion.
There's lots of TH-camrs who at first catch my attention, but eventually I get bored. It hasn't happened yet with Bookborn and I doubt it will.
I hated the changes made by Penguin / Puffin. For one, it is extremely unethical to impose such drastic changes on an author's work (who is deceased and can't object) while still retaining copyright and the author's name. That should be illegal - it's a clear breach of the editing standards. Two, those who bought e-books of Dahl found their versions were updated to the new versions. That's unacceptable. Three, so what if literature is offensive? It's truly not the end of the world. The fact sensitivity reading has been so mainstreamed is extremely concerning. Dahl had a peculiar tone, but overall, his books are not Mein Kampf.
I did not realize the extent of the changes. This is starting to feel like 1984 where people in society can only say pre-approved words.
Wow, these changes are worse than I thought. I thought they were just removing one word here or there (which I still think is unnecessary, but I understand), but did not expect this! I'm baffled.
Yeah I think removing words here or there… I would’ve still questioned the ethics and history but I probably would’ve just moved on like eh I can see why it’s good. The extensiveness of the changes that I call into question and whether they are even accomplishing what they set out to don
As someone who can easily be described as fat, enormous is way worse.
Ok, right though 😭
It's like they made an excessive attempt to take the humour and Britishness out of the sentences. It was a horrible idea.
Also as a kid reading witches I always felt like he used the cashier woman as a reference because kids see cashiers everywhere, its sort of written as like it could be a woman you have met or seen and you wouldn't even know. Contextually not many kids have seen top scientists, every kid has seen a cashier.
We live in a strange time. In the name of tolerance, we see lots of intolerance. Want diversity as long as it is the right kind of diversity. I can't help but think that while we think we're the most enlightened generation, judging everyone in the past for being so bad, and we're blind to our own blatant faults.
I recently read a Roald Dahl novel for the first time in my life at the semi-ripe age of 27. I had been thinking about picking it up ever since finally watching the 1971 movie that I knew the author hated because of its portrayal of Willy Wonka. I then wondered if the 2005 movie with Johnny Depp was more accurate in its portrayal. Without surprise, I found both versions took liberties, but that Johnny Depp's portrayal was closer to Dahl's vision.
While doing some research about the book, I stumbled upon an article talking about the changes you mentioned in your video and I was baffled to say the least. It reminded me of that time I wrote that my husband is "overweight" (in the context of supporting his desire to get healthy by going to the gym with him) and this woman wrote a comment under mine saying I shouldn't use that derogatory term and that she would suggest I use "differently shaped" instead (or something like that, I can't remember exactly 🥴). Or that time when I used the word "gypsy" and people jumped at my throat but then the actually Romani people told me "my grandma called herself a gypsy and it's never been a problem". Or that French actor (who has Senegalese roots) who said that white children who were curious about his hair growing up were racist (how?!). I feel bad for those children who will grow up with parents that will teach them shame (aka false inclusivity) instead of curiosity and respect towards unharmful differences. 😔
That video is impeccable! My first reaction was that the driving force behind this choice is "we want to protect Dahl's image and we want to ~protect the children~, that way we can keep selling books and parents can pretend they're engaged in what their kids consume when really, we're just removing the question so we don't have to do the work of answering it".
I'm in university studying Latin and ancient Greek and a part of that is translating original texts. We've had discussions about what word we use to translate a word in Latin/Greek. Where is the line between translating with modern sensibilities in mind and not upholding oppression/stereotypes in your translation vs. imposing modern ideas and values on the text. It's such a thin line to walk and so difficult to make the right descision.
It's obviously not exactly the same as this discussions because when you're translating, you have to make those choices anyway, while with the Roald Dahl situation, they are already in English.
Thank you so much for bringing this into the discussion, although not quite the same I think it's super relevant. I never even considered this as being a part (and a difficult one at that) of translation! What have your discussions brought up? Or is it just... "we don't know?" lol
@@Bookborn It obviously depends on the intended audience and what the goal is of making the translation, but to stay relevant in this discussion, let's assume that the translation is the end goal and you're trying to be as neutral as possible for a wider audience. Then there still isn't a full consensus. One principle is to find "the hidden GEM" where GEM is an acronym that stands for "Gets Everyone Mad". If any group of the population is 100% happy with your choices, then you've not done a great job. Editorial notes can also be useful. Outside of that, it's just "We don't know. Whatever you do, you will get hate for it." It requires a lot of cultural knowledge to find a balance and even then. Guidelines exist, but it the time it has taken me to write this comment, they've probably already changed three times.
Bottom line: Translaters don't get the appreciation they often deserve.
We live in a very soft generation. I appreciate our modern sensibility’s, but think in a lot of cases it’s taken too far. It’s all so surface level. I understand censoring harmful ideas, but the truth? If somethings black, call it black. If someone’s fat, call it fat. If someone needs a dam stool, they need a dam stool. It’s the truth. It’s the character. It’s the narrators voice. I think sheltering children is more harmful than the texts themselves imo.
As a lover of literature and history. All works are sacred no matter how profane. No alteration is ever ok. Words act as a marker in history.
I think as book readers many of us feel this way naturally (I know I do). It seems when children are involved we sometimes think differently, because we worry that children don't have the historical context to understand what they are reading. Do you agree or disagree with that?
@@Bookborn When we read books like Huckleberry Fin Context was always given. Need educators in the class room not activists
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said to just talk about it with our kids. It’s our duty as parents to provide that context. I know the entire goal is to look out for kids who may not have context providing parents, but I don’t think the answer is to remove that conversation from the parents who are.
I would much rather explain to my son the reason why Edmund Dantes married a slave to set her free then to have a future edit of The Count of Monte Cristo have her merely be a servant instead.
Or to be more on context, I think the descriptors provided in Matilda are witty and perfect. My whole life they never stood out to me as a problem. I do notice things now as a parent that stand out, like when a character in a Disney movie does any form of self harm I divert his attention. But I don’t think they should be removed for fear of tarnishing the art.
It reminds me of the old saw 'If you want to have a heart problem, see a cardiologist.'
If you hire a company based on inclusiveness thay will find all kinds of anti-ist-isms.
On a similar note, they decided just not to publish several Dr. Seuss books with questionable artwork rather than try to edit it.
You can burn books, put them on banned-books lists or rewrite them.
It's all bad because censorship is bad.
"I tell you what to think" is bad.
Greetings from Berlin
Andy 💁🏼♀️💞
There used to be a tradition where classic books were shortened - (Readers Digest) where classics were changed and to some degreed sanetized (censored). The difference was that it was cleared that this was stated that it was a chanhed/shorted and as such indeed a large clif note version - it is not the orginal.
I just added a pinned comment about this - I wish I would've talked about this more! Usually when something has been altered or abridged, it's clearly stated. I wonder if the publishers had planned from the get-go to indicate these changes, if people would've felt less weird about it. Who knows!
The one author that has been “sanitised” most is probably Enid Blyton. She has also been demonised a lot - but people also forget she was probably the first with a major trans/nb character in a children’s book series George/Georgiana in the famous five and an overweight hero Fredrick Trotteville/Fatty in the Five find-outers.
All very sad!
Excellent presentation! We are forgetting the essential art of critical thinking and even taking it away. Who will make the decision what and where to censor? An ongoing topic for sure. Thank-you!
I love your video essays. They are so interesting to listen to and well thought out. 👏❤️ Thanks 😊
Thanks for watching and the kind words 🙏
Thanks for making a video about this. I had not come across this news
The problem with changes of historical work is that they are changed according to our current understanding of morality. There are more complicated questions like "who even decides what is moral", but I want to ask slightly a different question: "Are we that arrogant to assume that our current moral landscape is the pinnacle of human species ?" Maybe in 100 years, people will look back and label us some kind of "-ist" , because we do something that we think is progressive, but not accepted in the future. In 200 years something else would need editing. Keep editing historical works until they basically become unrecognisable to the original. I am really worried that if I get to decide to read an old work to get a feel how it was like to live in the past, I am out of luck. It might be possible to dive into history with specific history books (that's a different conversation along the lines that history is written by the victors), but the censorship culture does not help for sure. What about the famous "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" ? I am okay when authors themselves greenlight the changes. But leave history to be the history please. If you want to fix our current social issues, promote the relevant works instead of changing the existing. You can always, you know, give children the books you think are good and safe.
P.S.
I love your videos. You always make me think carefully. You are the only youtuber I know who actually compiled the changes instead of blindly saying "changes are bad"
This is a really great point and something I was discussing with someone just today - our views on morality and what is right shift a lot over the years, and I wonder what our feelings on our current views will be in 20, 50, 100 years. In that way, promoting new works to forward diversity seems to make more sense than editing old ones.
I am in a similar boat to you, I read a few of Dahl's books when I was in elementary school, but never much beyond that.
As a teacher I think there is a very delicate balance. Parents often worry about books in class, but let their children participate in unmonitored social media situations. I can tell you I haven't yet seen a child get in trouble from something they read, though I am sure some have. I see children get in trouble, get suspended, get expelled, and get arrested due to some really unfortunate decisions influenced by social media. As this relates to censorship I'm not saying there is a direct connection between the two, but I do think parents should be more involved all around. As a parent and teacher I am much more worried about the impact of social media than Roald Dahl. I'm on the fence when it comes to censorship or altering materials, it depends on too many factors to have a simple answer. Even better than censorship would be educating your children and helping them learn from the past and becoming better rather than pretend there was nothing wrong in the past. Family involvement and engagement would solve many more issues than changing some problematic wording from a different time.
Couldn't agree more. I always talk about how people focus too much on say...disney princesses as being "bad body image problems" instead of focusing on what really harmed me as a kid - the rampant photoshop in magazines which is still happening and even WORSE now because filters are so ubiquitous on social media. I never looked at a cartoon and really thought "I want to look that way", but I absolutely grew up looking at images in magazines that I thought were real and wanted to change. And, it's even worse now with social media. Anyway, that was a ramble, but my point is, I agree that we often worry about the wrong htings when it comes to whats influencing our kiddos. And if we talk to them about it, that's the most vital thing.
One thing's for sure. The unedited versions will now be more valuable among collectors.
Great job discussing this!
I like that take about them not accomplishing anything. The problem is the metaphor - body shape standing in for some moral meaning, character flaw etc - and metaphors are elaborate architectures in a story that can't be undone by removing "fat." That's probably even worse, because then the metaphor becomes even more covert, wheres, "fat," can serve as a red flag for a whole worldview. We're still being fed this questionable use of metaphors, but we don't have to really examine what underlies that because we can feel good about ourselves for reading a book with the word fat removed for our own comfort ..... Random plug for the Neverending story, by Michael Ende - When bastion goes to fantasia, he's able to make wishes and almost immediately wishes away his fat body. When he finally finds his way out of fantasia, there's a fountain that turns him back into himself, and it's this cute image of a fat kid splashing around in a fountain, finally happy to be himself. That book is amazing. My personal pet peeve is teeth. For a number of reasons - access socioeconomics etc etc - a few people in my family have needed a bit of dental work later in life. And that equating of imperfect teeth with flawed character is literally a medieval worldview.
YES, THIS EXACTLY. Look, it's been a LONG time since I read Huckleberry Finn, so I can't remember it - but I could guess that just simply removing the racist words out of it wouldn't change the racist undertones (or tbh overtones probably) of the book. Because like you said, it's what it stands for, more than the word, that is damaging.
And wow, I never even considered the teeth thing from a fiction lens. I've read a lot about how teeth can be a class signifier and it's a huge problem...but as a morality signifier in fiction...wow I'll be noticing that a lot more now.
That was a fair, even-handed treatment of a sensitive subject. I would be as subtle as a brick to the face. Having said that, you did not cover the most pernicious aspect of this movement. These "sensitivity" companies are carrying out a cloaked extortion campaign. They approach publishers and authors under the veil (WOT shout out) of offering a "necessary service." They say, "Let us scan your upcoming books. The last thing you want to deal with is a PR disaster from an 'unintentional' slight against a marginalized community." What is left unsaid is the threat of outing. If an author publishes a book without paying for their service, they publish the title and author's name and publicly ask what the author is hiding. They basically threaten individuals and companies with financial loss for refusing to let a group of self-appointed idealogues with no creative skill to become the gatekeepers of the publishing world. They are leeches, political apparatchiks who couldn't possibly craft a story people want to read.
Let us be guided by Gandalf and "Throw them back into the abyss" (ROTK, movie not book).
This is interesting, I hadn't heard of this happening. Do you have any articles/people this happened to that I could look into?
The fact that we believe that we know enough in our time to change the past is a major point to make against the censorship.
We, as humans will change our way of thinking often and changing the books of dead authors to fit our current world-view is very pretentious .
Who owns the rights to Roald Dahl's books? If it is his family, why aren't they protecting his legacy?
This is such a well written and clearly presented discussion of the topic. Much appreciated. Thank you!💕
Revised books should have warnings on the cover to make it clear the words have been changed from what the author intended (let's assume a case where the author has died). It's weird to sell both versions in a bookstore and not be able to easily tell which is which...
Incredible video as alwasy! One thing I think about within this conversation is how fairytales and fables changed ALL the time. My mum read me rumplestilskin when I was a kid and when she got to the part where he tears himself in two, she changed it a loud to "aannnnddd he ran away and was never seen again..." Later versions of these stories DID sensitize them to make them less brutal, scary, racist, etc. And I think thats okay (So long as the original is accessible for historical research, curiosity, or for those parents who feel like their kids can handle it/want to use it as a teaching tool.) To completely get rid of one version in favour of another is where I draw the line. Humans have to be able to choose for themselves the kinds of media they digest and let their kids digest. Some parents are perfectly fine letter their kids watch The Simpsons, other parents think its too mature. Similarly, some parents withhold reading scary stories for their kids, others believe kids can handle it. Similar, some parents will prefer the "censored" versions of books over the original, and other parents won't mind reading the original. And at the end of it all, I think this is a decision the parent needs to make, not the publisher, not the government, and not "society."
Again I think about Grimm's fairytales. They printed 4 versions of the stories. The first was censored, then the people outcried and a 2nd edition put the stories back to their original brutal forms. Later versions have changed and softened aspects. Then of coarse there's the Disney adaptations that changed even more elements (some for good; some for not so good). My point is this is that changing children's stories to reflect the society times is a very common, centuries old practice. Having it happen to Dahl, tells me he's "made it" from children's author to modern fairytale storyteller.. and thats kinda neat when you think about it!
Fairytales are such an intersting notion because one) many of them started from an oral tradition and so I'd say they have less "official" versions than a single work written by a single author and two) they've had much, much longer to "marinate" than many of the books we are talking about changing today. Still, it's true that nobody bats an eye at those being changed. I would argue that most people know they aren't the original versions, and aren't being advertised as such, but then again, many MANY people grew up with the Disney versions and those in some ways have become more canon than the original. It's a fascinating addition to this argument, because in this case, everyone has been perfectly fine with those changes. Is it because a longer time has passed?
It's censorship, even if the current changes are minor, it sets the precedent for bigger changes later.
What a great discussion and your arguments were very well articulated. I am always impressed by the level of effort you put into these videos and appreciate your willingness to state your opinions! Keep it up!
I think you are all over this one. It's really really hard to change things like this without unintentional consequences. For the record my gut reaction is usually to be against over censorship
Pandora's Box burst open. Protect and hide your "old" books!!!! Being a history buff...I've seen this before. Over re-action? We'll see...🤔 You can also include all the re-imaginings that are so popular today. I agree with you (from a previous video), why not just write a NEW story!!! If they want a more inclusive story, why not write it? Find a clean page, go fill it! is there a such a thing as sneaky (soft) censorship?
The thing is, I think there are a lot of great inclusive books out there already! That's why I liked what the librarian said about curating - you could always push forward and promote other books that you feel are a better indicator of how the publishing house feels today.
I can't remember where I read it, but the whole "not telling someone something for their own protection" You know historically always resulted in healthy relationships. Ha!
lmao ok good point here
Bravo! Spot on! You deserve a bigger platform (in general 😉) so more people could hear and consider what you have to say about this. You absolutely express the emotional sentiments of a great many of us, whilst to acknowledge disparate perspectives, and arrive at a place of sense, or wisdom so cohesively is masterful. Cheers!
Thank you, your words mean a lot ♥
One thing I wish I would've talked about (but it felt the video was too long already LOL) was that publishers do routine changes of books all the time - how often have you read the first edition of a book and noticed a few errors here and there? I remember in particular a large mistake in the 4th Harry Potter book when it came out that I've noticed is fixed in later editions. We usually take these as ok because they don't change the story in significant ways, or change the story in a way that it was meant to be written.
There is a chance that these changes have been done to other books in the past. Do we feel these are the most extensive, or just that we know about them? Would it change your mind if they had always planned on putting an indicator on the cover of the changes? (Similar to how you know you are buying an "abridged" version of a book?) Some more questions to ponder!
J.K Rowling would've permitted and solicited that, though. Roald Dahl did not.
Unlike Tolkien, this token playing to "wokeism" as a pejorative and I detest that playing to. It's time we need a plurality in society rather than a tiresome "both sides" that cuts off intellectual discourse in favor of stunts, distractions, and self-censorship. Read Nietzsche! And skip to last line of Atlas Shrugged and get the gist. Only book I somehow gladly did do and will ever do so. Got it for like two bucks local library sale paperback wondering what's its appeal on so many shelves of "go-getters" and limited defines of "success" with questionable role models. My theory is it's some kinda long game Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal? End tangent.
There is a difference in fixing an omission or error or typo from a first run of a book. Stuff happens. I actually appreciate it when a publisher makes fixes to text for the next run, usually the soft cover.
I do get some of these changes, and there are some that seem unnecessary to me. I might be wrong (feel free to correct me on this if i am not exactly right about this), but I feel that some of these changes might be (in a way) harming the education of the younger generation/ others that might not fully understand certain situations, disability, and lessons we might learn from these situations(teachable moments)
Man the more I watch your videos the more I like your point of view. As for your comment about how adults see things differently than kids I could not agree more. The best example I can think of is this story I was lightening to on NPR several... several years ago. (I am so old lol) Where the granddaughter or daughter of Charles Lindbergh was invited to the Smithsonian when they were installing the Spirit of Saint Louis and she brought her son. She describes this beautiful moment where she and her son are in the cherry bucket way up in the air and she's looking in the cockpit and has this surreal moment imagining what it was like for him all alone way up in the air on that historic flight. She reaches out and touches the skin of the plain and tears come to her eyes. And right then her son says man mom this is great! And thinking he was having the same experience she turns and he's looking down off the bucket and he looks up at her and says, I've always wanted to go up in one of these.... Kids are great, and just like adults, they all have their own points of view.
As for the topic of this video, changing works of literature is a very slippery slope that leads to changing works of history. Which is how we now live in a world were we are still having arguments over the cause, and issues of the U.S. Civil War. While I understand the sentiment... I don't know that I agree with the change. I would never disrespect someone by calling them the N word. But I love Samuel Clemens and his works. And he named one of his characters the N word... Seriously man!? No wonder he wrote under a pen name lol
All kidding aside, I am for making the world a more inclusive and welcoming place, but maybe add a foot note, or some other marker to bring attention to the fact that this particular piece or literature is a little outmoded. That way you as a parent can use that litterateur as a teachable moment for your children. Anyhow that's just my two cents. Hope everyone is having a good day, and go read a book.
Man I actually really like the footnote idea. Maybe even something at the beginning, or discussion questions at the end. Instead of changing it, help kids critically think or discuss it.
And also, I've definitely had my own experiences of "wow kids get something very different out of this" 🤣
I have been offended. I too have been hurt by words. Today even; but then I work on getting the funk over it and moving on with my day
One of the reasons I love your content is that it's often enlightening as well as entertaining. This was a really thoughtful breakdown of the subject. Thanks for making these videos that are always good food for thought and help me sort through my own feelings on these complicated topics.
Loved this!! 👍👍👏👏👏.... I really enjoy these deep dives!! Thanks!! 😄😄
Great discussion! 🙂
I generally agree with you.
I understand some people wanna preserve the classics. I think it's time to end the gatekeeping and accept they are outdated 😅. Time to support new stories and authors. Classics should be left unchanged and preservered for memory of the culture from other periods in history.
Yes, definitely want more nuanced deep-dives into controversial topics like this one! Thought this was very well researched and presented, extremely comprehensive (for an "only" 26 minute-long video!).
I definitely was aware of the Dahl book changes in the UK, but didn't know much more than that they were making changes to be more inclusive. Appreciate you sharing examples. Agree that a lot of the replacements are simply poorly written. Also appreciate you talking about sensitivity readers as...I apparently have been living under a log, because I didn't even know they were a thing!! So thanks for the education there.
My opinion - these types of wholesale changes to older books make me nervous. As a writer and reader, nothing makes me shudder more than the idea of censorship and modification of content to fit with the times. A bit Orwellian, to be sure, and though there can be many innocuous cases, I will ere on the side of leaving books unmodified every time. Yes, there will be books with problematic content and cringe-worthy scenes, especially older books! But these books are part of the history of humanity, and it makes me sick to think that we will virtuously erase the problematic parts of our history away to present a shinier, purer, falser image to our descendants. Let our history stand, warts and all. (oh wait, am I not supposed to talk about warts...?) I remember reading "Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry" when I was a kid, and that book shook me to my core. Ought we to edit that book now, to take out the disturbing passages? May it never be.
For children's books, I do understand some of the impulses to sanitize. There certainly is content that may not be appropriate or helpful for children of certain ages to consume. And I do think it's important for the parents (primarily) and schools (secondarily) to curate the materials that children are exposed to. Again, I still ere on the side of allowing our children to read more rather than less. I would rather have to awkwardly explain some odd word choices or scenarios to kids rather than keep every potentially problematic text from them. But, there are choices to be made, hence the battles that rage in local communities, families and school boards. I have some librarian friends, and it's fascinating hearing the struggles they face trying to make the right choices in which books to shelve and/or promote. It's challenging! These conversations are necessary.
But I go far afield. Obviously there are books where changes are made post-publication with full author approval, and I'm generally fine with that. There are often abridged copies of older books, and I'm fine with that too, because you generally know you are being an abridged copy and that thus there were editorial choices that had to be made! In this case with the Dahl books though, I think it went over the line. Clumsy, poorly-written replacements for original slightly-problematic lines? Please no.
One other example before I end this far-too-long example. There's also been some talk in past years about the problematic parts of the "Little House" series, a book series that a lot of kids (myself included!) grew up reading. I recently re-read these and...well, I went into it expecting them to be shockingly racist and dated but...what did I find? A series of books written giving one person's perspective on a certain time period, the time period in which she grew up and lived. A few lines that might offend some (but give a very accurate picture into certain people's attitudes back then!) and a couple scenes that shock our modern sensibilities...but that also provide an accurate depiction of certain elements of small-town American life in the latter half of the 19th century. These books should not be textbooks of modern behavior, no. But as books that give kids of today a peek at our past? Invaluable. Also, as parents and teachers? Don't just stick to the old books that were written 50 or 100 years ago. Keep seeking out good new authors and books to introduce to your kids...you don't want to fall into the trap of thinking only the classics have anything to offer. Your kids might learn something new (and you might too!!) If anything though, parents and teachers should stay a part of the process - praise and encourage reading and provide kids plenty of good quality reading material and let them make choices on what to read! And then...be open and understanding and eager to have conversations with your kids on what they're reading. I know parents who read every book that their kid is reading so they can have those conversations. I love that so much.
And sorry, I have written too much and too much off-topic. Apologies, but apparently this video provoked this type of response!!
Agreed all around with everything you said. I agree that the impulse makes sense - I often worry about sanitizing for my kids - but ultimately realize they WILL hear about it eventually, and as a book reader, I also balk at telling me kids they can't ever read something lol. If I did, I'd at least want to talk about why! Usually I say "not yet", but I'd have a hard time saying "never".
To your last point - I never got into the Little House series, so I don't know what the exact issues are, but I do think it's a difficult line to walk. If you write historical fiction and everyone loves everyone its...not very historical lol. But at the same time, with a series like Little House, I can see how people might worry kids can't parse that those notions are outdated, if our "heroes" are the ones making those statements. That's where I think talking about it is the most vital. Simply saying "people actually thought this back then - we know that's not true!" can go a long, long way.
I could easily write you a long, 10 paragraph comment, but I'll just keep it short 😄
I feel that we live in a time where folks are more sensitive than they should be, and I feel that sometimes people do things (like editing past publications) to avoid potential backlash and/or unwanted attention.
However, I, myself, feel that a) these changes are unnecessary and b) published works should just be left alone (unless authors themselves initiated). As you stated, they contain teachable moments, and reflect a history/culture that we cannot nor should attempt to hide or erase. And besides, the examples you show are awful changes!! The books will lose their humor and charm! What's next? Editing Loony Toons? Censoring Roadrunner / coyote because of "violence "?
If editing older works become a new thing, then okay, edit them for those who want it... some parents may just feel more comfortable having "clean" versions of kid stories. But let's also keep the originals intact and available, as well.
I look at this like Grimm's Fairytales... we watch the Disney version as kids, but grow up wanting to read the darker original versions.
I get it, my video is long, I'd also want to write paragraphs 😂 I agree though. Mostly, I think if you want to censor something for your kids, that's totally your right as a parent, but I don't think we need publishers making that decision. I use a website called Common Sense Media all the time to help me decide which content I want my kids to read and watch. But, I also recognize they are going to hear these words/ideas anyway, and so talking about them is important regardless!
I got to read the Grimm Fairy Tales. As a child. Unedited and in German. English translations of the unedited works are fairly close. It helps that a lot of the English language derived from German.
When the Belgian cartoon The smurfs came to america they changed all the instances where a smurf was hit with a hammer on the head to something else. Because this humorous part was deemed to riskful for American children. So there is a very long tradition of editing down content for children.
When was the last time you have seen a Roadrunner, Speedy Gonzalez, Foghorn Leghorn, etc. cartoon?
@@EricMcLuen more recently than I'm proud to admit... but it's been a few years though
I just found your channel this week and I'm very glad I did. We have similar taste in books and I liked your discussion of them so I subscribed, but you also have a kid about the same age as mine and you provide suggestions for the kiddos to read...Awesome! Glad I subscribed!
Now I find out your favorite podcast is The Adventure Zone!?! Double Awesome!
Great video concerning changes in literature here. I difficult subject to navigate, but you handled it well!
Such a great discussion in your video! It really rubs me the wrong way that those works are being altered, it's like changing history. I personally always found Roald Dahl's works quite weird and even as a kid made me uncomfortable, but to just change stuff like that without the consent of the author feels like a weird form of sheltering, and it is definitely a form of censorship
lol, I know, same, they weren't really my style as a kid. That's why I think it's interesting that even as someone that has no connection to the work, I STILL recognize that the changes feel...weird and too much.
We are different now than at the time these stories were written. My old (or should I say former as he was only middle aged) history teacher said "you can't judge the people of the past by the standards of today" and that has really stuck with me over the last 15 years since he said it. By all means have a disclaimer at the start but we shouldn't change history or we won't learn from it (hello 1984 anyone??) if people want to change it, just make sure the original version is still available so people can decide.
I can only speak for myself, but as a woman, I don't like censorship of sexism in books that were written in a different time, or even modern books that put sexism in to reflect society or make a statement about it. It's not helpful, it's degrading and insulting, as if I can't understand the context and need my delicate sensibilities protected.
I’ve been a subscriber for a while now but rarely comment. But a video this good, this well thought out, and so well articulated deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. If more comments help the YT algorithms promote your videos, I’m happy to do my part. Great job with this.
Excellent video. Lot the nuanced talk about a difficult subject ...lol so many of those changes are straight up baffling
You articulated your feelings on this well! I couldn’t have said it better myself, and you said things that I couldn’t articulate! I think this is a great topic of discussion and absolutely needs to be discussed. Censorship is a dangerous slope. Some things I do agree need to be censored, especially for children, but I feel there is a line. The author’s intent should be brought into consideration and considering he is not here to approve the changes, it’s hard to know what he would have wanted. But here I think they do go too far, and it feels like something they did in order to be “woke”, possibly?
Yeah and I think censorship may just be more in the hands of...the parents. I technically censor stuff all the time for my kids! They have to be a certain age to watch movies and books! I look up ratings and content before I allow them to read or watch something! That's technically all censorship.
Wow. Thanks for this video. I knew the general story about the changes, but had not seen the details, and…wow. They are, in large part, stupid. I get the underlying premise - the overall picture of people and society in books is subconsciously teaching children what is normal, acceptable, and to some extent true. This really speaks to the point you made about needing to talk to our children about things as you read them to provide context and to teach values. I think of myself as a young reader, though, and I didn’t just accept what I read as correct. I grew up in the 70s, so there was much written that would be considered offensive, now. I didn’t just take that and internalize it as how things should be. The values instilled in me by my parents informed how I reacted to what I read. that is the main truth for me. The problems of stigmatizing, labeling, discrimination, etc. come more from parents teaching reprehensible views to their children, not from books. Changing “offensive” books won’t fix that. In the end, our children are more resilient and discerning than we credit. There are two things that particularly offend me about these changes. First, how poorly done they are. Seriously, any change to an author’s work is fraught with risk that the editor isn’t understanding what they are editing. Humor, sarcasm, shaded meanings, and many other complexities and nuances of any written work may not be understood by the person editing and changes can destroy the intent of the author. The changes that you showed are awkward, stilted, and lack Dahl’s irreverent voice. They exude politically correct insincerity that I think most kids will see right through. The text reads as if written by a committee. These are not sensitive changes that retain the character of the original. Second, how does a publisher have a legal right to do this to a deceased author’s works? How can they make changes and retain his name as the author making it look like he wrote those words? Are they in the public domain, now? I find it unethical. If there is a book that by it’s nature is unacceptably offensive (yeah, don’t ask me to define that, but I mean something like, promoting the holocaust as good, or a how-to on rape) then don’t publish it. For other books, like Dahl’s, if there is concern, then maybe include a forward providing context and some discussion. Beyond that, books should be allowed to succeed or fail based on readers’ opinions. If a publisher wants to keep making money off an author’s work, then publish it as written. If people find it offensive, they can choose not to buy it. That is the worry driving these changes, in my cynical view, worry of controversy or negative press leading to decreased sales, and they don’t want to lose sales. They are treating a work of creation/art as a commodity. The worst part is the ham-handed changes seriously lessen the work without doing anything substantial to address the purported concerns.
This is so interesting and I agree that this is a very important topic to be discussed!
11:07 - I feel the new version is actually more likely to potentially cast a negative light or subconscious bias on women as a whole, because it removes the clarification that - despite the fact that all witches are women - not all women are witches. The whole point of the original passage[ at least as far as I can tell without reading it in more context] was to make it clear that you really can't suspect a woman of being a witch just for being a woman, even though if you ever do encounter a witch then that witch will undoubtedly be female. And if you're worried about the word "lovely" being taken to mean 'physically pretty to look at' and not 'perfectly wonderful/respectable people to be around' or such... _^sighs^_ I can't even begin to dig into that one with a ten foot pole.
((And, as far as I can tell, that's much the same with the later passage about gloves or wigs or such too-like the original version is saying that you can't just target any random person, because if you treat people this way without any actual reason and are wrong about them there will[ quite rightly] be negative consequences for having targeted them so unjustly.))
This is a fantastic video. The two books you dropped I have to read. “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria” I need
Fantastic content as always. I'm so glad you addressed this topic, and you handled it extremely well. btw the comment section is reflective of the quality of your videos. It's always such a great discussion here and I always read all the comments.
My general take on this kind of topic is usually, if you don't like a piece of art, make your own. We need more creators, not more editing of other creators' work. I can see some nuance in some situations, but in this particular example? I find it hard to believe anyone who takes history and literature seriously would engage in this type of nonsense. And being against this type of editing is in no way supportive of any kind of attack on inclusiveness. There are simply far, far better ways to achieve that worthy goal.
Yea I remember in kindergarten in the 90s we’d continuously comment on the shade or texture of our hair, our skin color etc.
A fair society isn’t one that doesn’t see color, but one that doesn’t factor it when judging fellow humans
I think it is best to keep the book in its original form and add a foreword that addresses the issues. Changing the authors words without their consent changes their artistic intent. Honestly, if I read some of these rewrites I would question Roald Dahl's proficiency as an author more than I would judge him a racist, sexist, ableist, etc. with the original wording. It's just so clunky and unimaginative.
One of the most confusing changes to me was removing the words “black” and “white” when they don’t even have anything to do with race. The spider is black. That’s a fact. Why do we need to call it a dark-colored spider instead of a black spider when its color is literally black? Are black and white not allowed to exist as colors anymore without someone being seen as racist for using then, regardless of context? Am I missing something?
No, I think those are the weirdest changes as well. Just like going "red in the face" when someone was angry or embarrassed. I understand that "red" can have a bad racial connotation if used that way, but...peoples faces DO go red when they are angry, etc. So it's so weird that they took that out as if it's offensive or a slur.
I do believe it should be clearly stated if a work has been changed. I’m highly against changing things so you like them better. There is a reason people say we learn from past mistakes, kind of need to see the before to appreciate the after.
Thank you for the video
Thank you for the compact overview. I think banning those books or only making rewritten books available at school is the wrong approach. Especially when it comes to controversial books. Reading them in a supervised surrounding like in class should be considered educational. Even better when you have easy to engage and fun books. I fondly remember the time we dissected the mindset behind some books written in the NS time (not the mainstream propaganda, but authors that still were successful during that time) and how society influenced them.
No artistic product should be censored. It's a form of expression of the creator. Not even they should change it. It's a mark of their own journey and of the time it represents.
More than that censorship always fails. As an ex-soviet union citizen I can attest that censorship doesn't work. On the contrary, it only makes the public's hunger to consume forbidden art even greater.
While I agree we should do better in terms of representation and not perpetuating stereotypes, we shouldn't do it by erasure, but by writing new, better books.
But here's the kicker, they've 1984'ed:
1. the james bond books (which are for adults),
2. the goosebumps books (without alerting the author, who's alive and well),
3. the entire catalogue of ladybird fairytales,
Those are just the ones we know about. Just saying, this slope is beginning to feel real slippery.
I’m completely against changing the language used in an existing work. Sensitivity reading is fine and can be helpful but the time to address these issues is during the editing process or, in the case of an older book where the author is no longer living, in the preface or forward. You’re absolutely right about it being a slippery slope. Where does it end? And who gets to decide? I am the daughter of a librarian so censorship was a frequently discussed topic in our house. My mother was firmly against it. History can be instructive, she said. There is value in seeing what we came from and how we have evolved. There is value in reading something and asking oneself, “Do I agree with this?” I myself am frequently appalled and outraged by the misogyny present within fantasy and sci books but I would not for one minute advocate editing the already published text. It would be much better to include a forward or an author Q&A at the end in which they are asked about any issues present in the book. If the author has problems with gender, ethnicity, weight, etc. it’s far better for the reader to know that about them. Know who you’re supporting, in other words. I’m very late in commenting so I don’t know if you will even see this, but in any case, great video!
I don't understand who's the audience for new versions. If I would have a problem with Roald Dahl's language, why would I buy revised versions, since I wouldn't know what they take out and what they put in, unless I am willing to do an exhausting amount of research, which no one will do for the author that they have serious problems with, there're plenty of other children books.
And this is just a fantastic point, period. There are books I don't buy for my kids because I don't like their contents (language, sex, whatever). I think that's the best way, tbh. We can let things fade if they no longer are relevant.
This is such a difficult topic. I can see the spirit of what they're trying to do here, and I appreciate the heart behind it, but I'm a little bit wary of what might happen if we're not careful regarding these practices. I personally think context and conversations are king. It's SO important to have conversations about books, especially older works, rather than just trying to read them in isolation. I'm not sure if this works as well for children's books, but for the older audiences, I think a dialogue about these topics is SO important.
Most of the outcry I see in book reviews for the older classics seems to be by people who automatically assume things with no context...I could be totally wrong about that of course, but it's what I've observed recently. I'm not sure about Dahl specifically...I didn't really get into him as an author specifically...but as for other works, I feel like it's important to have context and create opportunities to learn about the history/circumstances behind classic works before automatically jumping on the idea of revising them.
At the end of the day, I'm just a small "Movie Essay" TH-camr and am not really qualified to make the decisions about cultural relevancy and the ethics of editing regarding books...I just hope people are careful and do research about the time period in which something was made before they automatically condemn any piece of art...
You made an interesting statement about writers use experts when it comes to science and biology for example. I agree with you nothing wrong with also using experts about culture and people when you are creating a NEW book.
I totally in favour of more inclusion of all kinds of people in tv series, films, books and society in general. However I want it to feel natural and not to be politically correct. So if people want TV series that are more inclusive create them, make your own world with your own story and have inclusion in it from the bottom up. Do not take an old story and change it just so it is more inclusive. I personally find it cheap that they rebooted Charmed and now made the story about three black sisters. You take something that has proven itself and now recycle it so you can say: "look how inclusive we are". If you think a tv series about three black sisters has potential than it also deserves its own original story instead of it being based or inspired by an other series.
If something you desire to depict is not in your source material. Create your own new source that takes into account what you want there to be depicted. That is what writers do today, they are making books where kids have two mothers or fathers, there are books about gender, there are books with more racial inclusion and there are books where the disability is also positively displayed. Writers saw the gaps and started to fill them in. That is in my opinion the answer to wanting to be inclusive.
With the news about the changes to Roald Dahl's story reaching the Netherlands there were also some examples of how publishers changed books. A very famous series from the 1950's for example is still very popular to this day. However certain things like a coal storage/cellar do not exist anymore so they changed it to cellar since that is something that kids still understand. They did not change the premise they just made sure kids are still able to understand the story. I think that such changes are okay since they allow for stories to last. However you should not do it with every book since reading older books is also a nice way to understand how society was and has changed over the years. Especially if you talk about it wigh your children you can help them understand what is written in those books and how it relates to today.
Ok, that witch man actually makes it sound way worse.
The worst thing you do with censorship is taking away agency from the reader.
Not always an update is bad, but currently we seem to be forcing a certain worldview into everything. And at that point it's, in my opinion at least, well, the opinion of the person rewriting the story.
I would rather have them write a commentary on the book, adding footnotes and what not, instead of determining what it is that you are allowed to read. And what opinions you should have.
Besides, if you want to avoid hurting anyone's feeling you will have an extremely dull book.
It’s really like they almost sabotaged the project to provoke backlash…
My understanding of a sensitivity reader is that this person is from the marginalized group and notes the things they find offensive. (Everthing I know about this came from the writing excuses podcast). They are key when when you are righting "the other" so you don't do it wrong. I'm sure we've all seen the video of the white guy dressed in the poncho, fake droopy mustache, and sombrero who gets chastised by college students (who aren't hispanic) for cultural appropriation. He then goes to a Mexican community where he is welcomed in and nobody finds his outfit offensive in the least. If you aren't in the marginalized group you may overreact to things that don't matter or not notice things that really are offensive.
Hopefully they will clearly label the cover of something.
Like ..
*_book title_*
_revised edition_
/
*_book title_*
_original edition_
(Or something along those lines)
..so, that way, even people not already in the know can be aware that there is a difference and be alerted that they may need to ask a bookstore employee or look into it themselves before making a purchase choice themself.
Just write new books that don't have those issues.
So Sensitivity Reading is a part of cultural consulting. Cultural Consulting is for corporate cultures that differ (American to British, European to Non-European, etc.). Sensitivity Reading is usually done to aid sub-cultures most people aren't aware of. Diabetes is notorious for having very few sensitivity reading groups because most people assume that the only things we care about are food & insulin. Paul Blart assumed you could revive a downed diabetic with a dozen donuts. If tried that I would not be chasing the "bad guys" I'd be experiencing a half-hour of vasovagal syncope (blacking out from intense blood pressure pain). Now I get that it's a comedy so I'm not "supposed" to "take it seriously" but implied"permission" to hurt myself is actively saying "diabetic pain is fine, actually". Just my 2¢
Imo, the bottom line is very clear. When an artist creates art, that is their artistic expression. If a person doesn’t like that art, they are free to not consume it. Other people ethically should not touch that work. I don’t think you should even be able to change things that you are “morally” right about. A writer carefully chooses the words they use to express not only their opinions, but the opinions of the characters they are attempting to portray. Kurt Vonnegut describes one of his characters as fat “as big as a house” in slaughterhouse five. That observation later made the book so much more powerful when the character talks about how much he loves his wife (the fat woman) be cause you realize with the character that what’s inside a person is so much more important than what’s on the outside. He describes their relationship as mostly happy their entire life, and for that he loves her. Cut the offending words, the human words and you steal the power of the book. That example aside, if it isn’t your art, keep your damn hands off it.
Thank you for this deep dive. I'm honestly shocked by the number and type of changes. And I see two very big problems:
First, and we've seen this with disease or politically sensitive topics. We tend to blame the word rather than the behaviour or attitude (you touch upon this with the black part). This will just move the connotations from word to word. For example: By taking away the word fat and keeping enormous, as we keep doing that, in time we will just move the negative connotation of 'fat' towards 'enormous'.
Second, it also invalidates in part human experiences. For example: yes of course it is perfectly fine to wear a wig. And actually I can't think of a person I know who judges people for wearing wigs, unless they are so unnatural that it starts to come to the level of wearing unflattering clothes or distasteful jewelry or something. I do know several people who wear wigs who struggle with shame. But it's usually not from being judged, but from dealing with emotions of not being able to have or grow their own hair. It is not because they think society at large laughs at them for wearing wigs. But they hate to have wigs and saying having to wear one is perfectly fine, I'd say that is not their experience and they will disagree, not because they judge others, but because they just don't feel that way about their wigs ;)
It is interesting to note that the Oompa Loompas were already censored during the 70s-80s I think. It was extremely messed up and do the research at your own risk, they were insanely insensitive.
1. What is with the librarian thinking it's her job to protect the world from "oppression?" That's a censorious mindset.
2. Sensitivity reading is TOTALLY different from authors doing research. Authors choose to do research for the benefit of their characters. Sensitivity readers are forced on authors by publishers trying to cover their asses.
3. The idea that only people who are in a particular group can judge "sensitivity" gives outsized power to people who aren't authors or editors. All sensitivity readers do is push their own political agendas. If they want to do that, they should write their own material, not use others' work as an avenue for their ideas.
I still have yet to see proof yet that sensitivity readers are always forced on their authors! Sanderson clearly chose to work with his - he said so in a Reddit AMA. My husband, and indie author chose freely to ask someone to sensitivity read for him. A lot of authors do it for research! There may have been an experience at some point where it was forced… but I’ve yet to read about it from an actual author and not as a scare tactic.
@@Bookborn I could tell you about a few. If an author chooses to have someone read their work for "sensitivity," that's just research and I couldn't have a problem with it. That's the author's decision.
Thanks for another thoughtful chat about this topic and sharing the link to the Telegraph!
I agree that the writing of the changes was really poor.
Part of what made so many of the changes so bad is injecting affirmative bias when a neutral one would do. For instead instead of replacing cashier and typist with top scientist and running a business, it could be “… working as a researcher in a lab or writing press releases for companies” - STEM being a place where women work but don’t dominate and the other in public relations where women have a stronger foothold. The original turn of phrase had an everyday feeling to it - jobs kids could see something tangible (a cash register) or someone doing something (typing).
Not honoring the premise of the original writing undoes some of the textual quality. I’d rather they kept the premise and updated the gender associations.
I fully support eliminating language about fat mice - I’m a mouse of girth and my fellow mice and I were offended by that statement because we weren’t allowed to play any raindeer games with the emaciated mice growing up. 🙃
Some of the "I do not understand" examples are (at around 18:50) quite understandable I think. By removing connotations like using dark and black together with bad or scary adjectives/verbs, we are deconditioning the child readers from associating dark skin with scariness. The tiny-little and all the rest of the ableism (for example, the stuff with the 'simple creature' regarding the tortoise) is also related to that. Ultimately, I did get surprised by the amount of backlash these changes received all while people kept saying they do not even see the point in them. This kinda is the point. Unconditioned glances at these passages do not tell us much, as to us, these words are like water to a fish. Not reproducing these unnecessary eugenical connotations is what matters here, imho.
I don’t feel the need to change old books, but I do think putting some sort of a disclaimer or having a foreword that maybe explains historical context of a text is good. After all, they used to do it to old shows and movies, just put a disclaimer at the beginning that explains things.
I think I'm OK with an edit that is permitted by the author or his/her estate as long as it is clearly called out somewhere that this isn't the "original" text. My strong preference would also be to have access to the original unedited version (again it could be called out clearly that it's unedited). I think the only time that the originals should no longer be available is at the request of the author or his/her estate. On a side, my understanding is that R.L Stine's books have been edited and he was completely unaware of this until recently. There's definitely a problem with that.
It was a great 30 minutes spent. You did great. There is one thing you could have mentioned which maybe you didn’t want to take more time with and that is that a book is an artistic expression. With that in mind, do we have the right to change someone’s creation? Otherwise, let me take the opportunity to say that I enjoy your creations and hope to continue to do so.
Yeah, art is weird, huh. At what point do we feel like art is owned by the artist or owned by the public. That's an intersting question that I probably can't answer
I'm a little confused, it reads that "all witches are women" and not "all women are witches." Maybe everyone reads it as the second, but I've never read any of these books and I read that and saw the change and just saw that they got rid of the statement that most women are lovely, which just made me sad and feel like they just made it worse.
With the Roald Dahl books I feel the whole thing was also a publicity stunt. They were very quick to say they will release both editions and even had covers ready to show for both of them. On another note: I think there are indeed problems with some of the tropes of Dahl books but these are in the core of the books so they can not be changed without completely rewriting the book. (which they might have tried to do based on your examples. 🙂) I think as long as you talk to your kids and also let them read more modern books with other takes on these issues they will be fine. And I also agree: I've been reading quite some of the Roald Dahl books as bedtime stories the last year or so and the very outrageous parts are what my son really likes. (Oh my god, the principal used someones braid to catapult them into the air.)
YES. I sometimes think that wild stuff is an outlet for things kids can't do. On a lesser note, it's why the argument for "why are these parents letting kids do stuff??" in kids books drives me bonkers. The point of children's books is so that they can see themselves as the heroes. Of COURSE it doesn't make sense. It's not supposed to!
@@Bookborn I have friends who do not let their children watch Peppa Pig because Peppa is a bad example for their kids. I wonder how they would feel about these books.
I prefer the idea of promoting new material over altering existing work for children and schoolwork, theres so many books published every year theres no need for static reading lists. I liked your point about patent/ teacher to student discussion about problomatic material and rhink that is a better approach than sanitization.
In terms of the mainstream I think the orginal text of the book is important in recognizing its message and context which needn't be agreed with or promoted by th he reader, I think santising books inhibits facing diffcult questions about past attitudes and behaviors.
Almost like removing a consequence and theregore the lesson attached.
Trigger warnings can also be effectively used to prevent harm to people who may experoence trauma with the attached material but then again I think all media ahould warn of triggering content.
In the ethics of censorship you discuss that the reasoning for the censorship isn't to uphold inequality but to combat inequality. That is very interesting, because we have to look at power dynamics. To enact censorship (or cleaning up language or whatever) you need power. If I at home 'fix' Roald Dahl it is of no consequence to anyone, as I cannot enforce anyone to read 'my' version of it. Penguin House on the other hand is a big publishing company with a lot of money and influence, and they critically hold the exclusive rights to publish Dahl works, so they can enforce their version of it. Also Inclusivity Minds (the organization mentioned) is not the one in power here, even if they may have pointed to possibly offending phrases in the books. Penguin House is the one with the actual power and they hired Inclusivity Minds.
But that all is an interesting thing to think about here for a moment. Because ultimately nobody ever said they changed or outlawed books because they wanted to oppress, they always explained it with the good they wanted to do. The times the church was powerful they used to clean up language that 'would damage the immortal soul' of the readers. But as the ones in power their look on what is good, right, justified was always differing from what people without power think. So if Penguin House declares they want to change it for good of society, I ask myself what they gain from it. The most probable answer, as they are a company, is that they clean up their image to improve sales overall. And if that is the actual purpose, then it doesn't matter if they achieve the declared purpose. They might have also failed to clean their image with that backlash, but that was something they probably didn't expected.
A side note about fat. It is purely speculation on my part, I have no research, but I feel like the fat, lazy, stupid connotations are initially springing from an attack on upper-class, because there were a time when only upper-class members could actually become fat. So the fat lazy kid as I remember often is a fat, lazy, *rich* kid, that doesn't even can appreciate all the toys it has and only wants them as a status symbol, meanwhile the skinny, energetic, smart kid often (as I remember) is poor and only has one broken toy. I may misremembering or I may put more emphasis on this connotation than actually is in the books I read, but that is my impression.
I'm not sure if I agree with your comparision between sensitivity readers and authors performing research for their novels.
Art is allowed to do anything and is obliged to nothing.
If I were an author and I wanted to write a book that makes a point by slapping you in the face (figuratively speaking of course) by being as offensive as can be, I'm quite sure that a sensitivity reader could only decrease the quality of that book.
This has nothing to do with any research I might have made beforehand.
But sensitivity readers are a *choice* is the point; and so yes, if you were writing a book to slap people in the face, you might not employ sensitivity writers. OR, you might employ readers to see if your point got across accurately.
The point is that not ALL sensitivity reading should immediately be thrown in the trash; I think this case is much more suspect because the author wasn't involved, and it seems to be missing the point of what *good* sensitivity reading can do.
Those who forget history...
I grew up with Dahl, Tolkien,
Blyton and patrick o'brian- two of whom are now being edited and one of whom is criticised. I think we should take note of how we have evolved as a society but- censorship is not the way to do that. If reading a book with children that has language that is no longer appropriate then have the discussion afterwards with the child about why that language would no longer be used?
Why don't they simply write a new book instead of vandalizing existing culture. I'm sure Tolkien has an epic quote about this behaviour..