Roald Dahl rewrites: Instead of 'bowdlerising' his books, help children navigate history

 The latest editions of Roald Dahl's children's books have been edited to remove language which could be deemed offensive.
Although several of his best-known childrenâs books were first published in the 1960s, Roald Dahl is among the most popular authors for young people today. The recent decision by publisher Puffin, in conjunction with The Roald Dahl Story Company, to make several hundred revisions to new editions of his novels has been described as censorship by Salman Rushdie and attracted widespread criticism.
The changes, recommended by sensitivity readers, include removing or replacing words describing the appearance of characters, and adding gender-neutral language in places.Â

For instance, Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer âfatâ but âenormousâ. Mrs Twit, from The Twits, has become âbeastlyâ rather than âugly and beastlyâ. In Matilda, the protagonist no longer reads the works of Rudyard Kipling but Jane Austen.
While the term âcancel cultureâ has also been used to describe these editorial changes, there is actually a long history of altering books to meet contemporary expectations of what young people should read.
Should we consider childrenâs literature on a par with adult literature, where altering the authorâs original words is roundly condemned? Or do we accept that childrenâs fiction should be treated differently because it has a role in inducting them into the contemporary world?
Thomas Bowdlerâs
was published in 1807 and contained 20 of the authorâs plays. It removed âwords and expressions ⊠which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a familyâ, specifically in front of women and children.âBowdlerisingâ has since come to refer to the process of altering literary works on moral grounds, and bowdlerised editions of Shakespeare continued to be used in schools throughout the 20th century.
While Shakespeareâs works were not intended specifically for children, the fiction of Enid Blyton is a more recent example of bowdlerisation of works regarded as classics of childrenâs literature. There have been several waves of changes made to her books in the past four decades, including to
and series.While Blytonâs fiction is often regarded as formulaic and devoid of literary value, attempts to modernise names and remove references to corporal punishment, for example, nevertheless upset adults who were nostalgic for the books and wished to share them with children and grandchildren.

Childrenâs literature implicitly shapes the minds of child readers by presenting particular social and cultural values as normal and natural. The term we use for this process within the study of childrenâs literature is âsocialisationâ.
People do not view literature for adults as directly forming how they think in this way, even if certain books might be seen as obscene or morally repugnant.
While many people are outraged at the overt censorship of Dahlâs novels, there are several layers of covert censorship that impact on the production of all childrenâs books.
Childrenâs authors know that certain content and language will prevent their book from being published. Publishers are aware that controversial topics, such as sex and gender identity, may see books excluded from libraries and school curriculums, or targeted for protest. Librarians and teachers may select, or refuse to select, books because of the potential for complaint, or because of their own political beliefs.
Several of Dahlâs books have previously been the subject of adult attempts to rewrite or ban them. Most notably,
(1964) was partially rewritten by Dahl in 1973 after pressure from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and childrenâs literature professionals.Dahlâs original Oompa Loompas were âa tribe of tiny miniature pygmiesâ whom Willy Wonka âdiscoveredâ and âbrought over from Africaâ to work in his factory for no payment other than cacao beans.
While Dahl vehemently denied that the novel depicted black people negatively, he revised the book. The Oompa Loompas then became residents of âLoompalandâ with âgolden-brown hairâ and ârosy-white skinâ.
Childrenâs literature scholar Phil Nel suggests in
 that we have three options when deciding how to treat books containing language and ideas that would not appear in titles published today.First, we can consider these books as âcultural artefactsâ with historical significance, but which we discourage children from reading. This option works as a covert form of censorship, given the power adults hold over what books children can access.
Second, we can permit children only to read bowdlerised versions of these books, like those recently issued by Dahlâs publisher. This undermines the principle that literary works are valuable cultural objects, which must remain unchanged. In addition, revising occasional words will usually not shift the values now regarded as outdated in the text, only make it harder to identify and question them.
Third, we can allow children to read any version of a book, original or bowdlerised. This option allows for the possibility of child readers who might resist the bookâs intended meaning.
It also enables discussion of topics such as racism and sexism with parents and educators, more easily achieved if the original language remains intact. While Nel favours this approach, he also acknowledges that refusing to alter texts may still be troubling for segments of the readership (for example, black children reading editions of Mark Twainâs
in which the N-word has not been removed).
Dahlâs novel Matilda emphasises the power of books to enrich and transform the lives of children, while also acknowledging their intelligence as readers.
Although many aspects of the fictional past do not accord with the ideal version of the world we might wish to present to children, as adults we can help them to navigate that history, rather than hoping we can rewrite it.