3 March 2023

Should books be edited retrospectively to be more 'politically correct'?

| Zoya Patel
Join the conversation
Heartbreak High cast

The cast of Netflix’s Heartbreak High remake is even more diverse than the original. Photo: Netflix.

We’ve all had that feeling – you pick up a favourite childhood book or switch on a classic movie only to find yourself cringing regularly at all the things contained within it that don’t really age well.

It might be casual racism or sexism, gender stereotypes or references to people’s appearances, abilities, etc. It’s rare to find a classic from decades ago that doesn’t fall foul of today’s standards when it comes to inclusivity, equality and diversity.

We’ve seen plenty of remakes over the years, which take a much-loved piece of culture from the past and recreate it with today’s expectations and standards incorporated. I’m thinking of the all-female remakes of classic films like Ghostbusters and Oceans 11, or Netflix’s remake of The Baby-Sitter’s Club to include more diversity and redress gender expectations (though I will say the original books were ahead of their times in many ways), or the new Heartbreak High which has a really diverse cast and takes a close look at issues around gender, sexuality, race and disability with a level of empathy and nuance that is very in line with contemporary audiences.

Viewers have generally welcomed these remakes, but what about returning to classic works of literature and editing them to remove language and references we now recognise as discriminatory or prejudiced?

READ ALSO Getting loud about live music and the night-time economy

Recently, it’s been announced that Roald Dahl’s publishers are working through his canon of children’s books with a team of sensitivity readers and editing out language and references that are considered inappropriate or discriminatory.

For example, removing descriptions that link characters who are evil or nasty with being ‘fat’ or ‘ugly’ or taking the word ‘black’ out of descriptions where it is used to connote something negative. The thinking behind this is that young readers need to read content that aligns with social values and that these references could be confusing or reinforce negative attitudes.

After these proposed changes were announced, all hell broke loose.

Many readers felt like it was censorship to change the original language Dahl wrote, and made the point that literature is art and reflects the time in which it was created, while Dahl’s choice of language doesn’t stack up against our progressive values today, at the time it was widely accepted.

Others, however, argue that it’s important we reflect the growth and change in our social understanding of equality with the content we consume. Given these books are still in high circulation, adjusting them to meet modern standards is necessary, especially given the target audience’s age.

I feel very conflicted about this.

READ ALSO A film crew wants actors for local Stephen King adaptation and they’re looking at you

In general, I am always in favour of ensuring the language and attitudes we promote in art and culture are aligned with principles of equality and inclusion. I’m quick to call out new books, TV shows, movies and music that promote discriminatory or prejudiced attitudes – but when I think about applying that lens retrospectively to literature created in the past and when the author is no longer able to weigh in on the topic, it doesn’t feel quite right.

As a child, reading Roald Dahl’s books (which I loved), I was always encouraged to talk about what I was reading and to discuss it with my parents. There was an opportunity, then, for us to unpack things like the fatphobic or casually racist elements in the books and to talk about them. In that way, I was both learning about the standard in the past and how that was changing in the present.

Part of me feels that the way to address this gap between what Dahl’s works convey and what we now accept is to have those conversations with children reading the books, not to cushion them from the reality of history.

And importantly, changing the works would also mean erasing the historical artefact of the original texts, which have had a massive impact on readers worldwide.

But is retaining the works as is to the detriment of progress? Is it potentially damaging for young readers to read content that reinforces offensive attitudes that they may still come into contact with in real life?

In the end, the backlash to the proposed edits was so great that the publisher announced they will be releasing Dahl’s original works as written, as well as a new edition of his books with the adjustments made by sensitivity readers, leaving the choice up to the consumer.

The conundrum now is, which one do you choose?

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

George Orwell from his grave is muttering I told you so…

So many proud capitalists here until it comes to the rights of private businesses to make changes to their products for saleability that they happen to object to.

Nobody runs around complaining about the umpteen revisions to the Bible

Just a bunch of manufactured outrage

Nonsense…..the Bible hasnt been revised. Translations vary , but the core codexes are still intact and havent changed.

Does this mean that people cant use their own brain to determine whats a historic book without having to go crying to mummy becasue the poor snowflakes cant handle anything that makes them uncomfortable? Boo hoo…..

Trying watching the movie “Battle of Britain” where one of the pilots dog is called “Nigger” which he calls to . The dog happens to be black FYI, but I havent seen anyone trying to edit that out ( the movie was made in the 1960s and is a classic ) , but people are happy to try and brainwash kids to use PC and all that nonsense.

I think people need to grow a backbone and a brain, and start using it.

This is what happens when you put children in charge, time for the adults to step in again…..

Surely sensitivity editors are the censors of yesterday.

Zoya really does live in a different world than a lot of other people.

Can’t say I’ve ever experienced the “cringe” that she feels around reading older artistic pieces, films or literature. Sensible people are able to understand the context that they were created in and how they reflect the standards of the time.

Also LOL at the suggestion that the remakes of some of these books and films with “modern sensibilities” were generally taken well by viewers. Viewers have generally panned these remakes and the majority were complete flops commercially. But of course you get labelled a “bigot” or any number of other “isms” if you don’t like them.

Stephen Saunders11:54 am 02 Mar 23

Yeah, let’s start by fixing up Mansfield Park. In which Fanny rejects both Henry and Edmund, and instead runs off with a black servant girl, brought back from Antigua by Sir Thomas.

There is a book that covers this topic already, George Orwell’s 1984. He even tells us the methods to rewrite everything historical.

Funny last time I read 1984 it’d been change to include more trans and LGBTI characters and I’m pretty sure the totalitarian state was run by Big Sister.

No. By all means use them to illustrate how social conventions have changed, but leave them alone. Bowdlerization isn’t the way to go.

I am really starting to resent capitalist projects being reframed as projects of ‘inclusion and diversity’ and conflating these types of projects with left politics. It doesn’t derive from a left framework. The stories were rewritten to find new markets, not to address systemic prejudices.

The new market is north America and ‘woke’ middle class British people who’ve become highly sensitive to authors of late. It plays into our obsession with identity politics, which seems to be the only political discourse anymore.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.