Roald Dahl’s books rewritten to remove ‘offensive’ bits: The edits, the outrage, and other similar attempts

On February 19, author Salam Rushdie tweeted, “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”

Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed. https://t.co/sdjMfBr7WW

— Salman Rushdie (@SalmanRushdie) February 18, 2023

Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of writers’ association PEN America, posted a thread on Twitter, saying, “At PEN America we are alarmed at news of “hundreds of changes” to venerated works by Roald Dahl in a purported effort to scrub the books of that which might offend someone… Amidst fierce battles against book bans and strictures on what can be taught and read, selective editing to make works of literature conform to particular sensibilities could represent a dangerous new weapon. Those who might cheer specific edits to Dahl’s work should consider how the power to rewrite books might be used in the hands of those who do not share their values and sensibilities.”

What exactly has been done to Dahl’s works?

The changes to the books have been made by Puffin Books, a division of Penguin Random House. The rights to the books are controlled by The Roald Dahl Story Company, which worked with Puffin to review the texts to ensure that “Dahl’s wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today”. The review was carried out with the help of Inclusive Minds, a group that works to make children’s literature more inclusive.

“When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details, including a book’s cover and page layout,’’ The Roald Dahl Story Company said, as reported by The Guardian. “Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text.”

Dahl has long been criticised for his anti-semitic views, which his family apologised for in 2020. Parts of his books – loved by children across nations and generations — can also be seen as provocative and not meeting the highest standards of correctness. But the recent changes have attracted criticism on primarily two counts: the extent to which an author’s work can be rewritten, and the arguably ridiculous nature of the changes made.

For example, as cited in a detailed report in The Telegraph, Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer “enormously fat,” just “enormous”. In the Witches, which says a witch could be posing as a woman who “is working as cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman”, the passage has been changed to a woman who “may be working as a top scientist or running a business”.

In Matilda, where the character is learning about books’ powers to transport a reader, the line “she went on olden-day sailing ships with Joseph Conrad” has been changed to “she went to nineteenth century estates with Jane Austen”. Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have been changed to Cloud-People, while the Earthworm with “lovely pink” skin now has “lovely smooth skin”.

As The Guardian has reported, in James and the Giant Peach, the line “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” has been changed to “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit”.

Criticism, and questions

This is not the first time Dahl’s works have undergone revisions. In his own lifetime, Dahl changed the description of the Oompa-Loompas of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to take away their pronounced African features. As The Telegraph reports, “In the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (1964), the Oompa-Loompas were black pygmies, enslaved by Willy Wonka from “the deepest and darkest part of the African jungle” and paid in cocoa beans. Dahl rewrote the characters in the late 1960s to “de-Negro” them, in his words. For Mel Stuart’s 1971 film starring Gene Wilder, the Oompas became green-haired, orange-skinned figures. By a 1973 edition of the book, they had become “little fantasy creatures”.”

However, the current changes are being made about 30 years after Dahl’s death. Many have argued that the “offending” lines cannot be seen in isolation but are part of Dahl’s universe of dark humour, rebellion, and mischievousness, and the introduction of moralistic insipidities goes against the spirit of the books. Also, if long-dead authors’ works begin to be rewritten, both literature and offended sensibilities are endless.

A more sensible approach, critics have argued, would be to add a passage in the beginning of the book explaining the problematic parts of the author and the work.

This was the approach taken by the charity English Heritage (behind the iconic blue plaques at sites where Britain’s important cultural figures lived or worked) to another beloved and equally controversial author, Enid Blyton. While millions of children have devoured and loved Blyton’s work, there is no denying the book’s patriarchal and often racist depictions of characters.

In 2021, English Heritage said while they would not remove Blyton’s blue plaque, they added a note to it saying, “Blyton’s work has been criticised during her lifetime and after for its racism, xenophobia and lack of literary merit. A 1966 Guardian article noted the racism of The Little Black Doll (1966), in which the doll of the title, Sambo, is only accepted by his owner once his ‘ugly black face’ is washed ‘clean’ by rain. In 1960 the publisher Macmillan refused to publish her story The Mystery That Never Was for what it called its ‘faint but unattractive touch of old-fashioned xenophobia’…”

Other prominent authors who have been re-evaluated

Dahl and Blyton are not the only authors criticised for racism or sexism.

In 2021, six children’s books by Dr. Seuss (Theodor Seuss Geisel) were pulled from publication over racist and insensitive imagery. “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises said in a statement explaining why it was stopping their publication, as reported by Reuters.

Rudyard Kipling, while an immensely popular author, has long faced criticism for his racism. His The White Man’s Burden, to give one example, goes: ‘To wait in heavy harness/ On fluttered folk and wild/ Your new-caught sullen peoples/ Half devil and half child.”

The Adventures of Tintin, by Belgian artist Georges Remi who wrote under the pen name Herge, have also been criticised for racism. In 2012, a Belgian court rejected an application to ban Tintin in the Congo, which showed an African tribe worshipping Tintin and another saying “White master very fair… Him very good white.” Herge had later said he was not happy with this book.

In more recent times, author JK Rowling has repeatedly been criticised and appeals made to boycott her work for her “transphobic” views, an accusation she denies. However, Rowling herself has tried to retrospectively “woke-fy” her novels – peopled by White, straight characters – by saying Albus Dumbledore was gay or that Hermoine Granger could be played by a Black actor.

Indeed, the word ‘bowdlerize’ comes from another zealous editor, Thomas Bowdler, who in 1818 published his Family Shakspeare, removing from William Shakespeare’s works “those words and expressions which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family”.

The debate

While most people agree that worldviews espoused by authors when straight white men pretty much ruled the world should be challenged, and that depictions of overweight or dark-skinned people as unattractive or evil can impact children, the argument is around how to carry out the exercise in an effective and non-gimmicky manner. Removing the word “fat” from books, as the Dahl rewrite has done, will hardly make children more sensitive towards the issues of body image.

Arguments have been made that solutions lie in the present – teaching children sensitivity in classrooms, writing new books that carry the right lessons – than in reaching back into history and twisting pens in pointless circles.