24th February 2023
With one sterling exception, I never much cared for Roald Dahl’s stuff growing up.
The children’s books were, for me, twee and their supposed gruesomeness tame.
I much preferred reading a certain kind of second world war novel which you found in certain cardboard boxes at certain stalls in Birmingham’s rag market.
(And these were a lot worse than anything written by Dahl.)
The one sterling exception was not any of Dahl’s children’s books, but a television programme – the theme tune of which still mildly disconcerts even today.
Tales of the Unexpected was a wonder.
Not all the tales were Dahl’s – but every short episode was tightly scripted, wonderfully acted by star actors, and nicely plotted.
They were the televisual truth of Pascal’s old adage that he was was writing something long, because he did not have enough time to write it short.
Along with Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone, they were examples of what you could repeatedly achieve with short-form drama on television, if you put your mind to it.
And, of course, as the title of the programme averred, there were twists.
Sometimes you could see the twist coming, and you could feel smug when other viewers fell for stereotypes and knee-jerk reactions.
But the twists were usually satisfying, all the same.
*
Now we come to this week’s news, about the “censorship” of Dahl’s children’s books.
Like the early scenes of an episode of Tales of Unexpected, we have been led to believe a thing has happened.
We have then been encouraged to let our fears race, and to worry about outcomes and possible implications.
And in this excitement we have been helped along by glamorous celebrities playing their roles, whom you instinctively trust.
Earnest authors and pundits have appeared on our television screens to tell us of the “woke” menace.
Commentators pitched for and filed their 800 or 1,100 word articles about the terror of the censors – articles which pretty much all wrote themselves.
You can understand why so many of us hid behind our metaphorical sofas.
*
And then the twist.
There was never any censorship, all along.
All that happened is that a capitalistic publisher, presumably with the consent of the Dahl estate, issued alternate versions of certain texts so as to generate purchases which otherwise may not have been made.
None of the original texts are out of print.
None of the original texts were going to go out of print.
This was just an attempt by a publisher to appeal to an additional audience, who may not care for the original texts.
There was no censor, no censure, no clamour.
The alarmed audience for this short drama have been misled.
So the moral for this tale is that never get carried away with a panic, even – perhaps especially – when it is an author you once enjoyed (or think you enjoyed) reading yourself.
And now…
…the closing credits for this blogpost:
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
And I’m so relieved to read this! I never read Dahl as a kid, though my kids have. That said, I do like Revolting Rhymes and my fav, The Tummy Beast.
I digress however (I could never write a short story), as I came here with a suggestion. Why don’t you write a Legal Tales of the Unexpected? Or even a Tales of the Legally Unexpected (is that a thing?). Same theme tune though.
Have you not heard that they’re rewriting all ironies in Jane Austen, to ensure no-one reads between the lines?
As Jane Austen is The Master, the greatest writer in the English language, that would be a foul blasphemy.
That is of course a truth universally acknowledged, save for the addition of Chaucer and Shakespeare.
They are ok, on the second rank, with Joyce and Conrad.
We may have to arrange a duel at dawn.
Even if you won the duel, Austen would still be greater writer. Nothing would change.
Instead we’ll have to have a line by line comparison of the masters’ works.
Ah, but is what Austen does not say which makes her the greater writer.
David, you’re almost persuading me to re-read ‘Emma’, a book I studied for A-level.
Almost.
Everyone should read all her books at least 10 times! But freeing oneself from any concept of “romanticism” or costume drama.
Admittedly overall in English novels but there are other examples – Henry James for one, the latest Alan Garner, Treacle Walker for another, Waiting for Godot a third.
And Shakespeare’s layers of meaning and energy of imagination and language, plus Dickens ditto certainly don’t sink below the surface of greatness!
Oh dear, Douglas Adams has been demoted.
Are the redacted versions marked as such?
Yes, at the front
I have the full set of ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ on DVD. The one where the B&B landlady ends of being a human taxidermist. Nightmarish.
They come from a series of books he wrote (‘Kiss Kiss’, ‘Over to You’ and ‘Switch Bitch’), some of which have rather ‘daring’ covers. My set comes from a charity shop near the Fox and Goose pub in Birmingham.
But probably my favourite Dahl book is ‘My Uncle Oswald’. I would love to see an updated version of that particular story.
Had the scaremongers heard of 1984?
I have read a number of comment pieces elsewhere on this topic.
I don’t think the concern is censorship so much as Bowdlerisation.
Is it really an unobjectionable idea to take the works of a dead author, even a “children’s author” and alter them, very substantially, to sell more books? Publishers may quietly drop specific works of Blyton or Herge, they may remove a racial description or change the name of a dog, but to go through a book changing phrases willy-nilly and often with no seeming reason is, in my opinion, wrong.
Dahl wrote an adult short story (“They shall not grow old”) where a character expresses the view that being a prostitute would be the perfect preparation for being a wife. That seems not only indecent but also out of keeping with modern sensibilities. It adds little to the story – why not remove it?
And how long will it be cost-effective to keep different versions in print?
I must disagree.
I repeat, 1984, George Orwell.
I agree. I have been following this story in several languages, and I haven’t seen anyone refer to it (implicitly or explicitly) as censorship.
I did not, however, appreciate that the old version would continue to be in print. My understanding was that the new edition would be the only one for sale (outside of second hand bookstores).
“Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship” – Salman Rushdie, quoted at BBC and various other sources, “in several languages” (as you would put it).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64702224
I have no idea why you and Tony would think I would say something like this in a post without there being a source. This is not that kind of blog. Indeed, it was seeing Rushdie’s comment which prompted this very post.
A tightly plotted blogpost with a satisfying twist at the end, you say? Is that homage or synecdoche?
Re: marriage and prostitution.
Wasn’t a similar view expressed by Ibsen and Bernard Shaw?
Bearing in mind Dahl’s generation (and Norwegian heritage), I think those were likely influences.
Dahl had to rewrite Charlie & the Chocolate Factory in the 70s, as the original version portrayed the Oompa-Loompas as ‘pygmies’ who had been rescued by Willy Wonka from a life of caterpillar-eating misery in ‘darkest Africa’. This is the version I remember being read to us by a teacher in a Warwickshire primary school in the mid 70s. By then racism in children’s literature was starting to become controversial.
I read Matilda to my daughter as propaganda for reading, but I don’t think much of Dahl and later told her I thought most of his children’s books were unpleasant revenge fantasies. By the age of twelve she agreed with me. The revenge is mostly carried out by magical means, which gives it a plausible deniability – we have no magic finger in real life – but how does that develop respect for the rule of law?
Fine use of the adjective ‘alternate’.
(Here is this other text. You can use it if you like. It can stand in for the words that Dahl actually wrote.)
Congratulations for spotting the marketing ploy, David. Many did not.
My main thought that the shouted claim that this is a new result of ‘cancel culture’ is part of the reason this country struggles with its racist past.
If it was more widly known that Ompa Loompas were originally slaves (probably from Belgian congo), or if we addressed that the Jungle Book does not stop with Mowgli and has a story called ‘His Majesty’s Servants’ that is straight up white supremacist propoganda, we would be closer to the reckoning than we currently are.
I’m not sure it’s quite the non-issue that this post suggests. As far as I can tell, the decision to keep the unexpurgated versions in print was only made after – and as a direct result of – the backlash:
“The publisher of Roald Dahl has announced that it will produce uncensored versions of his stories following a backlash over changes to his work.
Puffin UK said it would release ‘The Roald Dahl Classic Collection’, to keep the author’s ‘classic texts in print’.
The publisher said it had ‘listened to the debate’ and understood there were ‘very real questions around how stories can be kept relevant for new generations’.”
(Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/24/roald-dahl-publisher-gives-ground-woke-changes-caused-storm/)
One might even wonder whether the publisher was complicit in spreading, or even generating, the alarmist scare stories about censorship. After all, what better way to encourage people to rush out and buy a copy of the older texts before they became forever unavailable.
“The adventures of Huckleberry Finn” contains the following dialogue between Huck (speaking first) and Aunt Sally:
“We blowed out a cylinder head.”
“Gracious! anybody hurt”
“No’m. Killed a nigger.”
I’m told versions have been published recently with that devastating exchange re-written by deleting the last word and substituting another. Anyone who read such a version believing it was what Twain wrote has been cheated, and deprived of an opportunity to understand a sometimes irritating but great writer.
I’m disappointed by your views on Austen, but remind myself that you’re still a young chap.
I am reminded that when the 1960s deep cold war Marvel Comics stories were reprinted in the UK Marvel Comics weeklies (from 1972) most references to “The Reds” , Soviets or Russians were edited and replaced with an invented nation called Bodavia – the Bodavians thus for a time, became a recurrent enemy for the Hulk etc .
At the time , as a 9/10 year old, I had assumed this tiny Eastern European country was certainly punching above it’s weight.
On the moral rights of the author under copyright law.
See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright#:~:text=Moral%20rights%20protect%20those%20non,choose%20to%20waive%20these%20rights.
If Dahl were alive it is virtually certain he would not have waived those rights to allow what happened to his work. But Netflix — who, bought the rights to his books from his estate and is now presumably the copyright holder, did. For finanicial reasons.
It’s a bad precedent. At the very least, it should be a wake-up call to authors to think carefully what provisions about the treatment of their books they make in appointing literary executors and bequests to their heirs.
I don’t see why you think it “virtually certain” that he would not have allowed these changes if he were alive. While he actually was alive he did make changes to his already-published texts to accommodate developing sensibilities about what was acceptable or appropriate, which is precisely what his happening here.
Owners of texts making changes to them to maintain their acceptability/marketability is commonplace. Far from being “censorship”, it’s an exercise of free speech rights.
I don’t think it’s about censorship or “free speech.” It’s about the moral rights of the author, as set out in international copyright law. He did make earlier changes, but a) he made them, or at least approved them, himself; and b) the most recent changes are considerably more extensive and are considered by some as re-writes rather than edits. So, as long as a work is in copyright, there should be some restraint about what can be done to the text. Netflix, as the buyer of the rights of course, cared not about the integritiy of Dahl’s work, but the preservation of its franchise. As for his estate, they gave up the game when they did the deal with Netflix. Note that in France, which has a stricter version of the moral rights clause, the publisher https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/french-roald-dahl-publisher-says-non-text-changes-2023-02-23/
It’s the copyright holder that is making/approving these changes. They are an exercise of the moral right, not an infringement of it.
You object, perhaps, to the copyright and associated moral rights being assigned to Netflix, but these are not your rights; the holder of the rights may deal with them as they please. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t be “rights”, would they?
No; moral rights are an entirely different thing to copyright. The moral rights always and only rest with the original author, they cannot be licensed, sold or traded. Copyright, on the other hand, can be sold, licensed, traded and inherited.
The specific issue here, of course, is that the moral rights on these works expired along with their author. So nobody has any further legally protected right to object to any decisions made by the economics rights holders.
I don’t like to admit to daytime TV watching, but I’ve been enjoying a couple of episodes of Tales of the Unexpected each weekday afternoon on Sky Arts. As you say tightly scripted and terrific actors.
That’s a sound and balance argument.
We should remember that it’s not new; Mr Bowdler did a similar thing to Shakespeare, producing a version “…that could be read aloud in families without embarrassment”. This oft derided version gave its name to the process … but Shakespeare’s true work survived the assault, as will no doubt the ‘writings of Roald’.
Bowdlerising editors should, however, make it clear to their customers what it is they have done to the text.
I paused over your:
“None of the original texts were going to go out of print.
This was just an attempt by a publisher to appeal to an additional audience, who may not care for the original texts.”
The implication seems to be that Puffin’s statement on 24 February[1] that “We’ve listened to the debate over the past week” and will publish the new versions “to keep the author’s classic texts in print” was disingenuous as it was all part of a deliberate marketing ploy.
You may well be right. But I can’t help but wonder if there is evidence that it was that rather than a response to the critcism.
[1] https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/company-article/puffin-announces-the-roald-dahl-classic-collection-to-keep-authors-classic-texts-in-print
I am sure the position will become clear over time
I left a comment to that same very effect but it was deleted, I know not why.
I have no trace of any other comment from you.
Hmm, strange. It showed here as “awaiting moderation” for a day or so and then just disappeared. Still, thanks for confirming that you didn’t censor me 😉
It appears that digital copies of the book that have been purchased already are being forcibly “updated” with the bowdlerised text. This would suggest that they are not distinct editions.
Last Tuesday I was in my favourite bookshop – Oxfam – and as I approached the counter there was a lady loading a whole stack of Roald Dahl books into her bag. I asked if she was saving them from the book-burners and she laughed and declared they were just for her grandchildren – they liked them.
Anyway, publshing is about making money and this looks an example of ‘run it up the flagpole….’. No such thing as bad publicity.
I do feel we perhaps have too many people with too much time on their hands. Perhaps that is natural now we have got rid of the tractor factories and coal mines and are no longer obsessed by grain and coal production statistics.
On the question of whether someone’s culture has in reality been cancelled, see also Adam Bienkov:
https://adambienkov.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-myth-of-cancel-culture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It always seemed to me that the concern was overblown. If Dahl’s literary estate and his commercial publisher wish to tweak his dated language to sell more books, so what? Most of Dahl’s books were written in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and they are undoubtedly showing their age, compared to many more recent works of children’s literature. The text is adapted for films or plays or musicals – so why not adapt the text in books to become more appealing to today’s children and their parents?
Dahl is not high literature, but we are not losing the original authentic text anyway, for what it is worth. No doubt there will be masters and doctoral theses in which future English students will be able to discuss the changes at length. “Evil and obesity in Dahl’s oeuvre”, anyone?
I also wondered how many of the outraged people wailing about “censorship” – as if there was some overbearing government official standing by with a blue pencil – had actually bought or read any of his books, and when they last did so.