Disclaimer: As an Asian person who grew up on Roald Dahl and similar authors without realising their problematic elements until much later, I understand that the issues of racism and censorship are intertwined and complex. This blog post is my personal perspective on the topic. It is just one facet of a much larger debate, and I do not speak for other races or anyone else affected by the potentially harmful representations in these works.
The book and publishing community is all up in arms about the recent Roald Dahl drama. Many prominent figures, including Rushdie and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, have weighed in on the issue. While my opinion isn’t a particularly unique one, I thought I’d throw it into the mix for shits and gigs.
A few notable changes, as I’ve read, include the description of Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: from “enormously fat” to simply “enormous”; and a bit in Witches: from the description of a witch as potentially an ordinary woman working as a “cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman” to “top scientist or running a business.”
Censorship is a touchy subject, and incredibly nuanced. Harmful stereotypes of a certain demographic, particularly in children’s literature, can not only hurt their reading experience and self-perception, but also shape and enforce broader racist, sexist, and bigoted views.
But does that mean we should go full 1984 and start combing through thousands of years of literature and scribbling everything out? To what extent should we take media censorship?
II. Harry Potter and the Weight of Words
Roald Dahl’s children’s books are familiar to me, as are that of Enid Blyton; I practically inhaled them as a child. Now, as an adult who enjoys reading Romantic and Gothic novels, which are rife with cultural and gender stereotypes, I can understand why the ‘product of its time’ argument is so popular. However, it’s worth noting that even its parametres are demarcated by thin, grey lines as well.
This is a list of some of the changes in his books:
Children's media over the years has hammered into us the idea that villains are always ugly and undesirable, so the fact we’ve associated these terms with character flaws isn’t very baffling. Like, let’s not kid ourselves. "Fat" is a word, and so is “crazy”. They have negative non-physical connotations because we have given them those ancillary meanings. Now, the word ‘fat’ no longer refers to the layer that keeps us warm and that too much of may result in health problems; ‘fat’ implies laziness and lack of motivation.
The Harry Potter book and film series perfectly exemplify this. In the books, the Slytherins, whom J.K. decidedly anointed as antagonists, are often described by our ‘beloved’ protagonists — mostly Gryffindors — as grotesque and ugly: resident mean girl Pansy Parkinson is “pug-faced” while Milicent Bulstrode looks like a “hag” and is “no pixie” (subtitles: she is a fat ugly bitch). In the films, the actor of Slytherin Quidditch captain Marcus Flint was made to wear fake teeth, probably because he’s described in the books by Harry as looking like he had “troll blood” (derogatory).
I’m not familiar with all of the specific changes in Dahl’s books, but in select cases, the ‘product of its time’ argument holds some weight. At the time of the publication of Witches, many ordinary, working-class women were cashiers and personal assistants. That’s just history.
Language was not something carved into stone tablets by our ancestors as dictated by some higher power — it is fluid, and changes with ever-volatile political, social, and economic conditions. We don’t deny the Holocaust or colonialism, or prevent our children from learning about them (and if you do, go find jesus); and preserving works by authors like Roald Dahl or Enid Blyton for educational purposes is undeniably important. And that is, essentially, what the ‘product of our time’ argument is advocating for.
Critical consumption of media and literature includes understanding themes and context (i.e. the state of the world at the time of writing/publishing, the author’s intent, etc.). In the spirit of catering to modern culture, the censorship of media, when taken too far so as to change the context and author’s original intent, can disrupt this critical process of dismantling and understanding these authors and their works.
It may sound like I’m shaking my fists at ‘woke culture’, but all I’m asking is: Are we really thinking critically when championing censorship in media? Or do we rush in, pens blazing, ready to scribble out anything that steps one toe outside the boundaries of what we have deemed appropriate — regardless of whether it is genuinely harmful to the social discourse of this age? Why aren’t we showing this same energy for, say, Kipling’s The Female of the Species or that weird-as-hell Anne Frank House scene from Green’s The Fault in Our Stars?
III. Because it’s different for children’s literature
Dahl’s books are read by children during their formative years when they may internalize harmful terms and ideas. This could potentially manifest in the unconscious internalisation of harmful rhetorics and subtext as a truth. However, the issue here, then, is that critical consumption of literature and media isn’t taught or reiterated by schools or parents as much as it should be.
Before censorship, we must ensure that the target audience is well-equipped to consume media mindfully. Are they guided to practice conscientious reading? Are we encouraging conversation about such topics and pushing them to question information, or teaching them to defend or ignore these negative stereotypes?
But, see, the problem is that not every child has access to the right kind of resources and tools to hone these necessary skills. So we must look to the publishers and media companies, and ask if they are doing enough to inform and educate, while keeping to their duty of maintaining the integrity of artistic and literary works.
Disney is one such company, in my opinion, that has done a fairly okay job at this. The original releases of many of their older cartoons contained multiple caricatures of minority races. Many of them contained racial caricatures that would make your eyes roll. Remember Sunflower, the black centaurette from Fantasia? She had a donkey's body and exaggerated facial features, and her job was to primp and preen the other (white) centaurettes. Major yikes.
At some point, Disney decided to crop out Sunflower completely. In cases where it’s impossible to remove these characters without reducing the film to like, two scenes, they have added the disclaimer: “This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions.” The blurbs can be found on Disney+ for the animated versions of Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, and Dumbo, amongst others.
Of course, there's still more work to be done. Children may not read the disclaimer, and some depictions are so harmful that cropping out or removing entire scenes and characters is necessary.
Disney isn’t perfect by any means — they’re still definitely the big, evil conglomerate villain who deserves all the side-eyes. But they’re at least attempting to take accountability for these long-dead animators and producers they employed.
I mean, as a person of Chinese descent, I was particularly miffed when I realised the Siamese cat twins in Lady and the Tramp were a caricature of how Westerners viewed the Chinese at the time. However, would I necessarily advocate for the removal of those scenes, which are so pivotal to the plot? Personally, I’d say no. But, you know, that doesn’t mean other Chinese may feel offended by it, and that’s rightfully okay, too.
IV. Roald Dahl… It’s time to sashay away
So, yes, Penguin should remove these depictions where feasible. But where editors decided to completely change the essence of the material, a disclaimer at the beginning of the book would have given people a chance to approach the text with a critical eye and presented an opportunity for conversations about how attitudes and beliefs have changed over time, while also acknowledging the need for progress and inclusivity.
Censorship is not necessarily education. In many instances, it’s an easy cop-out to avoid instigating any real improvement in our educational systems and our efforts to instil literacy in young, impressionable children. But at the end of the day, educating children about the harmful effects of racism and outdated cultural depictions requires all hands on deck. As my Filipina bestie, who is an early childhood educator, always reiterates, "It takes a village to raise a child."
And where all else fails, I quote another person I admire: the great Philip Pullman, who, in the spirit of giving absolutely zero fucks, said on BBC Radio 4 regarding this Dahl saga, “we must let these works fade away” and “read better writers.”