Valuable Testimony or Linguistically Inappropriate?: The Debate About the Alleged Censorship of Children’s Book Classics in the Course of Diversity and Anti-discrimination Discourses of the 21st Century

‘ROALD DAHL IS ruined’ headlines the British newspaper The Telegraph on 21 February 2023, criticising the new editions of Dahl’s books published by Puffin Books.1 A few days before, the Penguin Random House imprint had launched revised editions of Dahlʼs books, in which changes were made to weight, mental health, gender and race. Words like “fat” and “ugly” have completely disappeared from the stories and been replaced by more non-judgemental adjectives. Salman Rushdie calls these measures ‘absurd censorship’ about which the publisher and the Dahl estate ‘should be ashamed’.2 The columnist Tim Stanley judges with similar vehemence: ‘The butchering of Roald Dahl is an assault on liberty by a neurotic elite’.3 But is that so? Do changes in content and language such as those made in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Matilda and other children's book classics like Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Little Witch from Ottfried Preußler amount to censorship and should they, accordingly, be condemned? What speaks for and against such textual interventions, and in which discourses are they to be embedded? Such will be discussed in the following from a Eurocentric perspective.

The ideal of diversity and tolerance has increasingly become the focus of our society. While the call for tolerance has already been present for quite a long time, diversity is a comparatively new term that has gained importance in the public consciousness only in the last ten years.4 As Bielefeld University states in its strategy paper of the Protectorate for International Affairs and Diversity, the phenomenon refers to the fact that ‘people are different, that they occupy different social positions, that they bring different prerequisites – strengths and weaknesses – with them, maintain different traditions, prefer different family, religious or ideological ways of life and can belong to different societies of origin or ethnic groups due to immigration or emigration’.5 In recent years, the notion of tolerance and equality, along with the imperative of showing respect towards individuals irrespective of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, has permeated various aspects of society, including, for example, corporate philosophies, television programming, and advertising. Of course, modern education is also increasingly emphasising the pedagogical strategies for imparting these socially aspired norms and values unto children and youth. As Caroline Ali-Tani notes, prejudices are already formed at an early age. The goal, according to her, should be to teach children ‘[n]ormality in which diversity is perceived neutrally and in which everyone, regardless of origin, gender, mental and physical abilities, etc., is given the same opportunities and the same rights, appreciation and participation’.6 She maintains a conviction that instilling values in children from the outset is crucial to cultivating empathetic individuals who are vigilant against injustice, who readily embrace diversity, and who are empowered to respond critically and effectively in the face of prejudice and exclusion.7

In her statement, Ali-Tali focuses mainly on the role of educational institutions such as kindergartens and schools when it comes to the mental development of young people. An impactful determinant that she does not address in her essay is the media. These were already recognised more than half a century ago as a significant factor influencing people's thoughts and actions, as evidenced by early research such as the “Influence of the Movies on Attitudes and Behaviour”-study from 1947.8 These studies have demonstrated that the consumption of false media can lead to adverse effects, including ‘delays in speech and movement development, sleep disorders and obesity, loss of empathy, conspicuousness in social behaviour or poorer reading and general school performance’.9 However, a consensus on which media are subsequently to be regarded as “correct” has not yet been reached. Although, compared to other media forms such as films, social media, and video games, books have consistently encountered a relatively lower degree of criticism. In fact, books are typically associated with positive attributes.

Empirical evidence supports the view that reading enhances individuals' prosocial behaviour and empathy, as suggested by Rose Turner from Kingston University London.10 Furthermore, exposure to books during adolescence is linked to improved cognitive skills such as reading, writing, mathematics, and technical problem-solving, according to studies conducted by Joanna Sikora, M.D.R. Evans, and Jonathan Kelley.11 Additionally, a study conducted by Yale University indicates that reading is positively correlated with survival, thereby potentially prolonging life.12 With regards to early childhood development, the Ohio State University's highly acclaimed ‘million word’ gap study in 2019 demonstrated that young children whose parents read them five books per day enter kindergarten with approximately 1.4 million more words heard than their non-read-to peers.13

Therefore, books and the act of reading are generally regarded as positive. A media advantage they have over video games, for example which still predominantly have a negative image.14 Nevertheless, children's book classics such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda have been the subject of criticism for some time. However, it is not only the books by Roald Dahl that are under social scrutiny. The works of, inter alia, Enid Blyton, Erich Kästner and Ottfried Preußler have also been revised in recent years. Especially in German-speaking countries, the language and content of classics of children’s literature are the subject of controversial debate.

‘Changes to the text are an offence to literature’, proclaims Ulrich Greiner in his article in Die Zeit.15 This, however, depends on one's point of view: If one considers children's book classics as contemporary witnesses that record linguistic expressions, social views, norms, values and ways of life for posterity, changes to the text may be viewed as problematic. After all, it is a historical fact that black people in the 19th century were called “niggers” and did not have the same rights as people with fair skin. Thus, the portrayal of black people as possessing the same rights and opportunities as whites is historically inaccurate. From this point of view, it is understandable that corresponding changes are met with indignation and can be perceived as an affront to their authenticity.

Nevertheless, this depends on how big the change is in relation to the literature. In 2011, David Hugendick criticized the substitution of the word “nigger” with “slave” in Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.16 He contended that Mark Twain was not a racist but a chronicler. This would become clear in the book, as he dealt with the problems of slavery and racism in particular by, among other things, being the first to literarily process the spoken language of the Southern states, their grammar and sociolects.17 That is why “nigger”, in the historical context of his work, should be acceptable to even the most so-called squeamish reader. In his opinion, works from that period should include their vocabulary.18 In terms of historical accuracy, Hugendick is initially to be agreed with on many points. However, it is questionable whether this historical accuracy is necessary in this form in a children’s book and whether it actually misrepresents the time to use the comparatively value-free term “slave” instead of the insulting term “nigger”. Similarly, on the content side, there are changes that do not recall the historical circumstances or distort the story. In a disguise scene in Ottfried Preußler’s The Little Witch, for example, the word “negro” appears. Preußler was concerned here with the tradition of carnival, it was not essential for the author that a “Negro” costume be included. The intention is not changed if one chooses a different, non-ethnic disguise, says the publisher; ‘The story is not falsified in the process’.19

Interestingly, Hugendick agrees. In a column published in 2015, he calls the revision of children‘s books in such a way as was done in The Little Witch a ‘trifle’.20 It is not justifiable, he says, to protect a word that has long since become outdate—such as the word “negro” in the aforementioned dress-up scene—just to remain faithful to the original text. With interventions like these, ‘there can be no question of censorship’.21 Nor is it excessive political correctness or ‘notoriously led virtue terror’.22 Although Hugendick vehemently advocates the erasure of the word “negro” in this article, he nevertheless emphasises that the deletion of the word “nigger” from Mark Twain's books is to be condemned. According to him, it falsifies the character of society, which the writer explicitly wanted to showcase using it.23 The fact that Hugendick makes almost radical distinctions here is hard to understand. Why does he advocate the replacement of an outdated, negatively connoted term (“neger”) with a more contemporary one, but at the same time advocate the use of an offensive term (“nigger”)? The argument that the author's intention would be weakened by the linguistic adaptation is only slightly convincing. After all, the word “slave” also implies the lower social position of these people as well as the living conditions. It is in any case questionable to unlikely that children would recognise the role of the use of such sociolects and conclude that the author is problematising racism through this.

This argument is linked to a demand that often goes hand in hand with a plea to retain the terms that are outdated and morally indefensible from today's point of view: appropriate books should be read and discussed together with children. This is reasonable, but it also entails some difficulties. It presupposes, among other things, that both parents and children are interested in and willing to talk about the relevant words as well as their backgrounds when reading together. And this with a story that only indirectly—if at all—criticises discriminatory actions and statements contained in it. Beginning a conversation around such topics in relation to these stories can be viewed as more difficult in comparison to books like The Colors of Us by Karen Katz or Daddy, Papa, and Me by Lesléa Newman, which deal decidedly with topics like racism, discrimination and diversity. In addition, discussing the concepts contained in the book together requires that those books are read (aloud) together.

In the case that books are read independently by children, Austrian children's author Christiane Nöstlinger raised a suggestion. As she told the Berliner Tagesspiegel in an interview in 2013, it could be better to explain problematic words in a footnote instead of exchanging them.24

Similar things have been implemented in children's audio plays produced by the EUROPA label. For some time now, the episodes of e.g. the audio play series Hanni and Nanni (The twins at St Clare’s), which are based on the novels by Enid Blyton, have been preceded by a disclaimer chapter. This chapter states that the audio play was developed and recorded many years ago and, as a product of its time, may contain discriminatory depictions. The publisher distances itself from such representations, but also explains that they have decided to leave the audio plays in their original version because they do not want to ‘hide the failings of the past’.25 In addition, reference is made to the label's homepage, where further information could be found.26 This is an option that Nöstlinger and Hugendick would probably welcome.

This decision on the part of the publisher demonstrates a willingness to critically examine their own (successful) products. In addition, they are accommodating for fans of the series who may want to hear the episodes in their original version—along with the nostalgia that arises from the outdated language and the audibly old recordings. However, it must be critically questioned whether the advance disclaimer actually serves its purpose. The disclaimer's general validity is problematic, as it does not clearly indicate which representations in the audio plays are to be considered discriminatory and therefore unacceptable according to contemporary social standards. Furthermore, the responsibility falls on the listeners to identify which passages the disclaimer refers to. There are also doubts as to whether the disclaimer is acknowledged or fully understood by listeners, especially younger listeners who may skip the disclaimer chapter or not pay much attention to it, as it is always the same text that is not part of the audio play itself.

This may be of little relevance in the audio plays about the twin sisters Hanni and Nanni, as there are only a few passages in the stories that are no longer justifiable from today's perspective. One of these passages appears in episode five of 1973 Hanni und Nanni gründen einen Club (in English: ‘Hanni and Nanni form a club’). There Hanni and Nanni's cousin Elli says that two Italians cannot be trusted because they are foreigners.27 These statements would probably be deleted or changed in a rewrite. However, since voices in an audio play from 50 years ago cannot simply be replaced to have the characters say something different, publishers are left with few options. One possibility for adaptation would be to delete the relevant passages. However, since the problematic statements are often in the middle of dialogue, there is a danger that the content would not only be distorted but become incoherent. Footnotes as they are made in books are not possible in audio plays—insertions of spoken language at the respective points would massively impair the flow of the narrative. In this respect, audio plays are at an overall disadvantage.

This shows the advantage of books, since adaptations are more easily possible. Regardless of how old the story is, terms can be exchanged and whole passages rewritten without this having to be visible in the text. If it is done well, only those who know the original text will notice the differences. That the changes are nevertheless not welcomed by lovers of the original text is understandable, but nostalgia should not be a reason for continuing to spread discriminatory and offensive statements. Moreover, adaptations are made more frequently than many may realise. As Felix Giesa, researcher at the Institute for Children's and Young People’s Book Research in Frankfurt states, revision of literature for children is nothing new historically, but rather the rule; ‘A character like Heidi would not be recognised by today's children, or even my generation, who grew up with different series and films, in the original version by Johanna Spyri’.28 In what form changes should be made to the text is yet another discussion. Here the rule should be: as little as possible, but as much as necessary. Whether a supermarket cashier and a secretary should be changed into a scientist and a businesswoman, as in the case of Roald Dahl, is therefore rightly questionable. However, it should be legitimate, if not self-evident, that blatantly discriminatory terms, which are not relevant to history and can easily be removed or replaced, should be deleted or changed from children's books.

A question that is surprisingly rarely asked in this context is: “Who wants to read these words aloud to his or her children?” Can joy really still be found in reading such words, or does one not wince when the little witch dresses up as a “negro” and wishes she would have made a different choice? Hugendick sums it up well in his commentary when he writes, ‘do you want to read the word again [...]: N-e-g-e-r. Not nice, is it?’.29

Hence, with all due understanding of nostalgia and the desire to preserve the original character of a book. It can be argued that just because something has always been done or existed in a certain way does not mean that it should be continued. As long as changes aim to remove inappropriate content and, as already described, this is done thoughtfully and not arbitrarily or to an excessive degree, there is little to be said against it. Nor can there be any talk of censorship in relation to the recent changes in childrenʼs books. For, as Hugendick also points out, these are consequences that arise from a social consensus on language and not from external authorities—e.g. the government—forcing these changes upon society. They are often well-considered case-by-case decisions made by publishers in agreement with the author or the author's descendants.30

It is important to realise at this point that the original texts are not meant to disappear in the modern day per se, nor are they forbidden. The aim is merely to provide the opportunity to engage with stories in a light-hearted way without being confronted with terms or concepts that are outdated and controversial in today's society. To create literature that takes into account the diversity of our society and encourages and educates children to be open to people, regardless of their origin, gender, religion, mental and physical abilities or others. Findings such as Caroline Ali-Tani's, that prejudices are formed at a young age, urge publishers and authors to consciously reflect on the images they create in readers with their stories. In this way, texts can be created through which no one feels insulted, discriminated against, excluded or otherwise attacked. Adult readers who know the books from their childhood can be encouraged to take a critical (not automatically condemning!) look at texts they received as a child. If only because they notice that the story is no less beautiful or fun to read just because the little witch is not wearing a Negro costume and there is no nigger but a slave in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. These possibilities are offered by the publishers. The books of Ottfried Preußler, Erich Kästner and Co. are available in both modified and original versions. Roald Dahlʼs books can also still be read in the original version, as Puffin announced on February 23rd, 2023, ‘Readers will be free to choose which version of [the] stories they prefer’.31

Bibliography

Ali-Tani, Caroline, ‘Wie Kinder Vielfalt wahrnehmen: Vorurteile in der frühen Kindheit und die pädagogischen Konsequenzen’, Kitatexte, July 2017. <https://www.kita-fachtexte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/KiTaFT_AliTani_2017_WIeKinderVielfaltwahrnehmen.pdf> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Bavishi, Avni, Martin D. Slade, and Becca R. Levy, ‘A chapter a day: Association of book reading with longevity’, Social Science Research, 164 (2016).

Blyton, Enid, Hanni und Nanni gründen einen Club (Hamburg: EUROPA, 5 April 1986), 0:28–0:30 [on CD].

Deacon, Michael, ‘Roald Dahl is ruined. Could these five classic children’s books be next?’, The Telegraph, 21 February, 2023. <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/02/21/roald-dahl-ruined-could-five-classic-childrens-books-next/> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Greiner, Ulrich, ‘Die kleine Hexenjagd’, Die Zeit, 17 March 2013. <https://www.zeit.de/2013/04/Kinderbuch-Sprache-Politisch-Korrekt> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Hugendick, David, ‘Von Zensur kann keine Rede sein’, Die Zeit, 26 November 2015. <https://www.zeit.de/kultur/literatur/2013-01/kinderbuecher-kommentar> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Jakubowski, Alex, ‘Wenn Kinderbücher aus der Zeit fallen’, Tagesschau, 12 March 2023. <https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/kinderbuch-streit-101.html> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Liebert, R.M., ‘Effects of television on children and adolescents’, J Dev Behav Pediatr., 7.1 (1986).

Logan, Jessica A. R., et al, ‘When Children Are Not Read to at Home: The Million Word Gap’, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 40 (2019).

Mößle, Thomas, and Julia Föcker, ‘Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie des Kindes- und Jugendalters. Der Einfluss der Medien auf die kindliche und jugendliche Psyche’, e.Medpedia von Springer Medizin, 2022. <https://www.springermedizin.de/emedpedia/psychiatrie-und-psychotherapie-des-kindes-und-jugendalters/der-einfluss-der-medien-auf-die-kindliche-und-jugendliche-psyche?epediaDoi=10.1007%2F978-3-662-49289-5_48> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Nolte, Barbara, ‘Kinderbuchautorin: “Meine Enkelin speit, wenn sie zur Schule muss”’, Tagesspiegel, 27 January 2013. <https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/literatur/meine-enkelin-speit-wenn-sie-zur-schule-muss-6979807.html> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Penguin, ‘Puffin Announces The Roald Dahl Classic Collection to keep author’s classic texts in print’, Penguin, 23 February 2023. <https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/company-article/puffin-announces-the-roald-dahl-classic-collection-to-keep-authors-classic-texts-in-print> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Rushdie, Salman, ‘Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed’ (@SalmanRushdie, 18 February 2023).

Schwesig, Annette, ‘Wörter und Werte’, Stuttgarter Zeitung, 18 February 2013. <https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.kinderbuch-zensur-woerter-und-werte.60ac863a-471a-4346-bec5-da68d2b4ae24.html#:~:text=Bei%20Zensur%20handelt%20es%20sich,in%20jeden%20einzelnen%20Schritt%20involviert> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Sikora, Joanna, M.D.R. Evans, and Jonathan Kelley, ‘Scholarly culture: How books in adolescence enhance adult literacy, numeracy and technology skills in 31 societies’, Social Science Research, 77 (2019).

Stanley, Tim, ‘The butchering of Roald Dahl is an assault on liberty by a neurotic elite’, The Telegraph, 19 February 2023, <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/19/butchering-roald-dahl-assault-liberty-neurotic-elite/> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Turner, Rose, ‘The Benefits of Fiction-engagement for Empathic Abilities: A Multidimensional Approach’ (PhD dissertation, Kingston University London, 2020).

Universität Bielefeld, ‘Diversität in der Gesellschaft und der Umgang mit Diversität an der Universität Bielefeld. Strategiepapier’, <https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/themen/diversitaet/diversity-policy/strategiepapier-diversity.pdf> [accessed 2 April 2023].

Verhovnik, Melanie, ‘Alles nur ein Spiel? Gewalt in Computer- und Videospielen und ihre Wirkung’, Zeitschrift für Medienethik und Kommunikation in Kirche und Gesellschaft, 47.3 (2014), pp. 302–319.

Elena Hoch studies Book Studies and Comparative Literature at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany. In her research, she is particularly interested in reading research, narratology, literary theory, and children’s literature studies. Currently, she is working on the mediality and materiality of the book and its semantic functionalisation in the novel.