Opinion Salman Rushdie is right — ‘sanitising’ James Bond books is mere virtue signalling

Championing inclusive, diverse literature demands more than simply rewriting the past

In a video address he delivered to the British Book Awards on May 15, Salman Rushdie rebuked publishers for “looking to bowdlerise the work of such people as Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming.” (Reuters/File)

Rohan Banerjee

MumbaiMay 19, 2023 12:27 PM IST First published on: May 19, 2023 at 12:27 PM IST

The works of William Shakespeare may feature in school curricula today and parents may think nothing of exposing their children to his epochal genius, but in the Britain of the early 1800s, he was viewed by many as being far from family-friendly. Thomas Bowdler — a doctor by profession — and his sister Henrietta, are perhaps the most famous of that ilk. They are credited with having produced two editions of Shakespeare’s collected plays: the first in 1807 and the second in 1818. What makes the story interesting, however, is the zealous editorial role they took upon themselves when compiling Shakespeare’s works.

While the Bowdlers may have been avowed fans of the Bard, they could not bring themselves to get behind some of the more colourful phrases Shakespeare was wont to use, particularly the blasphemous utterances and sexual references. As a result, when their labour of love — titled The Family Shakespeare — was finally completed, it ended up looking a lot different from the playwright’s original texts. Characters and lines which were deemed to be offensive were altered or omitted altogether. Indeed, an advertisement for the second edition of the book in The Times (August 10, 1819) punctiliously explained that “nothing is added to the original text: But those words and expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a Family.” The limits of such propriety were, of course, determined by the Bowdlers.

More than two centuries later, the sanctimonious spirit of the Bowdlers — who have been infamously commemorated by the term “bowdlerise” — was once again invoked in a debate surrounding the re-writing of books; this time by none other than Salman Rushdie himself.

Earlier this year, it was reported that Ian Fleming Publications Ltd, the owner of literary rights to the James Bond books, had commissioned a sensitivity review prior to the release of new issues of the iconic series. The new issues were intended to mark the 70th anniversary of the publication of Casino Royale, the book that spawned a multi-billion-dollar franchise and which would, in many ways, go on to shape popular culture across the world. Hoping to temper the James Bond books to match today’s sensibilities, a number of edits were reported to have been made including excising racist terms, omitting references to the ethnicity of some characters, and reworking or removing some depictions of Black people. A disclaimer was also reported to have been added to the books, explaining how the books were written: “at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace.”

To Salman Rushdie, this attempt to politically correct James Bond books is “almost comical”. In a video address he delivered to the British Book Awards on May 15, he rebuked publishers for “looking to bowdlerise the work of such people as Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming.” (A few months ago, Puffin, the publisher of Roald Dahl’s books, had made headlines when they released a sanitised edition of his works. This attempt to modernise Dahl’s oeuvre, to make his books conversant with the cultural lingua franca of this age, was met with widespread outrage. Eventually, Puffin had to cede ground and announced they would release a separate collection which would contain the unaltered, original text.)

In a world where social capital is earned almost exclusively through virtue-signalling and public posturing, this recent flurry of “sensitisation exercises” and censoring of popular — if somewhat problematic — texts, is not surprising. But for all its attractiveness as a means for publishers to advertise their woke credentials, such revisionist initiatives are inherently flawed and do not further the cause of inclusivity.

Express View | Rushdie isn’t woke

When books are edited to remove or alter words that are now viewed as being outdated and inappropriate, the result is only a superficial change to mask what we now find unsavoury. Such an exercise is convenient but it does not address, or even try to engage with, the problems in the prevalent morality or worldview when the book was written. Books, as Salman Rushdie has so eloquently stated, are products of their time and must be viewed from that perspective. Tinkering with a few words to give them the veneer of inclusivity is futile because yesterday’s work cannot — should not — be remade in “in the light of today’s attitudes.” In fact, new readers picking up the books of Fleming and Dahl should be able to read what they wrote and the context in which they wrote them.

More importantly, continuing debates on editing and revision of the works of established, mainstream authors does nothing to further the conversations around how literature needs more representation from varied voices. Instead of expending resources and time arguing over how we should engage with the books of Fleming and Dahl in modern times, publishers and the literary community may be better served channelling those efforts to highlight the works of other lesser-known, marginalised writers; writers of different backgrounds and cultures and languages; writers who can perhaps broaden our horizons and show us a different way of perceiving the world.

Championing inclusive, diverse literature demands more than simply rewriting the past. It is only by granting recognition and providing a platform to a wider spectrum of writers, that the cause of inclusivity, and indeed, the cause of literature itself, would be serviced.

The writer is a Mumbai-based lawyer