Roaling on the River of Chocolate

“Don’t gobblefunk around with words,” Roald Dahl once warned.

This is advice some seem to have ignored.

As usual, the debate has quickly boiled down to a few inaccurate or incoherent points made by “both sides,” accompanying the cries of “but what about…?”

I will preface the rest of this article by saying I don’t believe in censorship.

Is what has happened recently with Roald Dahl books such as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “Matilda” really censorship?

Let’s look at the facts. An organization called Inclusive Minds proposed the changes, ostensibly to promote inclusiveness and sensitivity. The Roald Dahl Story Company, which owns and manages the rights of all Dahl books, agreed to the changes. It promptly blew up into another battle in the culture wars, and thus, here I am to talk about it.

As much as I despise the culture wars, as a writer, I must offer my opinion.

Both aforementioned parties are wrong in this matter if you ask me. Why? Because children have been enjoying Dahl’s books since they were written, and only now have some words become “problematic.”  Sometimes a writer uses certain words or combinations of words to evoke a particular emotion, and even if it is from an unreliable narrator, the resultant image helps give structure and nuance to the characters described. The Roald Dahl Story Company should not have agreed to the changes.

As with all issues and world events, there are certain unreported viewpoints that I feel should be addressed. Among them is the obvious. The Roald Dahl Story Company owns the rights to the books. This is not a case of the publisher neutering his words without a care for the writer. Furthermore, new editions of popular books is not a new phenomenon. Authors and publishers frequently update the language of books for new editions without anyone noticing and this is not exclusive to fiction. I recently finished a book by Carl Sagan and found that I had been reading its third or fourth edition. Editions come for a variety of reasons: to correct erroneous information, to add context, to update with newly uncovered truth, and, yes, to clean up offensive language.

As another example, the Holy Bible has been edited and retranslated countless times. Entire sections have been removed or added, and some words have been inserted and claimed as official doctrine. I do not offer this example to cast doubt on the good book, but to detail the importance of managing language to fit the modern vernacular.

I do not feel that the recent edits to Roald Dahl books meet the criteria I would select if I were the publisher or manager of the rights.

We writers are famous for choosing our words carefully. A misunderstood sentence or a clunky line of dialogue can have wide-reaching consequences for the entire story. One poorly worded passage can leave readers doubting on the true intensions of later sentences. Editors are normally sensitive to our wishes and generally help us to identify potentially faulty bits of prose for the express purpose of avoiding too many correcting editions. Once set in stone, we want our words to stand for the long haul.

A well-written book can impose real magic, which Dahl himself explained many times. We can perhaps get a clue about how he really feels about people, despite harsh descriptors of contemptuous characters. “A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly,” he explained.  “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

Inclusive Minds certainly has the right to propose edits. A good writer will welcome constructive criticism, even if he or she does not choose to alter the work. Obviously, the Roald Dahl Story company retains the rights and can change the books at their discretion, with or without input from individuals or organizations.

The broader question of censorship is worth a mention here. As I have noted many times, I despise the “what about” game. If certain people are dissatisfied with the content of certain books, they have the right to criticize and to not read them. Individuals should feel free to request that libraries move certain books to other sections, but calling for the books to be removed entirely, “canceled,” or in one local case, to dissolve the entire library district, is the ultimate form of censorship.

We tread down this path at our own peril. Children who do not read grow up to be closed-minded and unlearned. This stunted growth can have disastrous consequences later in life. As humans, we are predisposed to learn from each other, from our friends and neighbors, and from our elders. Of course, not all info is going to prove valuable and character-building. That prognosis should remain with the individual and the parent, not the school board, the library, board of directors, or any government agency.

Freedom is the most important foundation on which the United States of America was built, and the banning of books and censorship of speech is heartbreaking to witness.

I want to take this space to thank the Meridian Public Library for keeping an extensive selection of books for the public to enjoy. The library is as much a marketplace of ideas as is social media. I will defend the Meridian Public Library against the “concerned parents” trying to have it shut down. I am also donating a copy of my recent novel “Tomb of the Phoenix” as a token of appreciation and support.