Classic Mistake: Tampering With Old Books

Also, Dilbert gets the last laugh.

Does it matter if a character in a book is described as “enormously fat” or just “enormous”? The organization Inclusive Minds thought so when it reviewed Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” along with his other children’s books. Inclusive Minds also took offense with the Oompa Loompas being called “small men” (“small people” was deemed preferable) and a naughty child being in need “of a really good spanking” (when a “really good talking to” will suffice).

Inclusive Minds, which focuses on strengthening “authentic inclusion” in children’s books, had been given the green light to review and suggest edits for Dahl’s collections by book publisher Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company, owner of the rights to Dahl’s works. (The Roald Dahl Story Company was acquired by Netflix in 2021.) The company said in a statement that changes made to Dahl’s books were “small and carefully considered.”

The Daily Telegraph, however, noted that at least 59 changes had been made to Dahl’s “The Witches.” Words also appeared in the edited version that weren’t in Dahl’s original work. For example, in a section of the book that explains why the witches wear wigs and are bald underneath them, this line was added: “There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

The goal of editing and rewriting Dahl’s books, according to Puffin, was so that the works could “continue to be enjoyed by all today.” Fans of his books and literary aficionados in general were having none of that. Articles decrying the changes appeared in numerous publications, and angry comments flooded social media.

Less than two weeks after news broke about the changes to Dahl’s books, Puffin announced that it was going to be releasing the new, edited versions and keeping the originals.

One has to question why Dahl’s books were scrutinized in the first place. Perhaps it’s because they came with built-in controversy.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” made its debut on bookshelves in 1964. The Oompa Loompas at that time were depicted as African Black pygmies. Willie Wonka basically enslaves the Oompa Loompas within the chocolate factory. In 1973, Dahl made his own revisions to the book and transformed the Oompa Loompas to rosy-white characters.

Dahl has in recent years been called out as an antisemite. The author, who died in 1990, commented in a 1983 interview about “a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity.” He acknowledged he had “become antisemitic” during an interview seven years later. Dahl’s family apologized for his remarks 10 years after his death.

It would be understandable, then, to scrutinize Dahl’s works for hateful speech. When doing so, the observer needs to keep in mind several ideas. First, was something in the book acceptable at the time or likely to not cause a stir? Does the wording reflect a particular era rather than an individual writer’s prejudices? Can the existing content be used as a way of observing changes in culture and attitudes through the years?

Inclusive Minds reviewed with an ultra-modern lens, not just looking for what might be offensive to a race or ethnicity, but removing words that change the complexion of Dahl’s books in an attempt to make everyone feel comfortable.

So as to not fat-shame kids, Inclusive Minds switched to “enormous” instead of the original “enormously fat” in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” Enormous, though, is just another word to describe something that’s large, so it’s debatable how much of a difference that change makes. Also, references to specific genders got the red pen in the revised version. In addition to the Oompa Loompas becoming gender neutral, “boys and girls” are now simply referred to as “children,” and “moms and dads” are melded into “parents.”

In one of the more absurd changes to “James and the Giant Peach,” the centipede’s original song

"Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that," and, "Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier." 

turned into 

"Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit," and, "Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame."

Instead of calling out Aunt Sponge for her girth, the new song now justifies her being squashed by fruit. Is that somehow gentler?

Such radical revisions of original works deprive readers of several benefits:

• The chance to use one’s imagination by interpreting a writer’s descriptions.

• A lesson in how differences in people are an important part of their individual makeup.

• A unique opportunity to travel to the past and note changes in language, culture and attitudes.

• The respect that is due all readers, no matter how young, to be able to read a book and think for themselves about what is acceptable.

Suzanne Noseel, chief executive of PEN America, a community of 7,500 writers that “celebrate words and fight for the right to be heard,” summed it up well: “If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society.”

---

Dilbert Gets the Last Laugh

Dilbert, the long-running and highly praised comic strip, was recently pulled from newspapers around the country after its creator, Scott Adams, sounded off about race on his Youtube Channel.

Adams noted a recent Rasmussen Poll that asked 1,000 people, both Black and White, if it was “okay to be White.” According to the poll, 72% of White respondents said it was, along with 53% of Black respondents. The poll also revealed a majority of people believe both Black and White people can be racist.

It feels like a poll that is just looking for trouble. “It’s okay to be white,” it turns out, is a slogan popular with far-right extremist groups and is considered a hate chant by the Anti-Defamation League.

Adams saw the poll as an opportunity to talk to his YouTube subscribers about the current state of racial affairs in the United States. He chose a controversial tone to get his point across. He said later that he assumed people would understand he was “using hyperbole.” That is not how it was interpreted by social media and most news sources.

Newspapers like USA Today and Cleveland’s Plain Dealer dropped the Dilbert comic strip soon after Adams’ YouTube comments spread. “It’s a staggering string of statements, all but certain to result in the loss of his livelihood,” Plain Dealer editor Chris Quinn said of Adams’ comments. Indeed, Adams lost his contract with Andrews McMeel Universal, which syndicated Dilbert, as well as upcoming book contracts.

Adams’ comments were indeed controversial. He was struck by the idea that 47% of Blacks in the Rasmussen Poll either thought it was not okay to be White or wouldn’t commit to a yes or no answer. “Would you have imagined that could have happened?” he asked his YouTube audience. He went on to say that he had been identifying as Black because “I like to be on the winning team.” (Not sure if that was tongue-in-cheek.) He also noted that he likes “to focus a lot of my attention on helping Black Americans.

“This is the first political poll that ever changed my activities,” Adams said. “As of today, I’m going to re-identify as White. I accidentally joined a hate group.”

He didn’t stop there. “I would say to White people…get the hell away from Black people. Wherever you have to go, just get away. There’s no fixing this.”

His advice for Black Americans was to focus on education. “Everybody who focuses on education does well. It can’t be my problem if the solution is so clear and people don’t want to take it. It [education] is available to everybody.”

It’s not hard to see why Adams’ soliloquy was dubbed “racist” and “hateful” by so many. Watching the video, though, one gets the sense that this is how Adams engages with his audience: by speaking in a dry but controversial way. The “rant” was in the middle of his 57-minute YouTube show; he simply moved on to the next topic when he was done announcing his thoughts on Blacks and Whites in America.

Once the cancellations of Dilbert began, Adams took to Twitter, neither to apologize nor to defend what he said. He instead began feverishly tweeting about race relations deteriorating not simply because of racism but because of “mass hysteria” fueled by a number of factors.

Adams has been inviting conversation around the topic on Twitter and a few syndicated podcasts. He had a captivating talk with Black media personality and performance artist Hotep Jesus just days after he was “cancelled.” The two found a lot of common ground on the struggles of Black Americans and the chasm that seems to exist between Blacks and Whites. It’s worth your time to listen to the interview and Adams’ YouTube segment above to draw your own conclusions.

Was Adams showing his true racist self on his YouTube channel, or was he highlighting problems in today’s culture? Was he spewing hate as a White man offended that his good deeds went unappreciated, or was he carefully crafting his words to generate a higher level of conversation around a difficult topic?

Whatever his reasons, Adams has indeed gotten people to think about race as it’s perceived in the media and on social media, forcing them to determine if those perceptions help or hurt the ongoing quest for racial unity. Scott Adams is either a hate-filled, washed up artist or a clever communicator thinking outside of the box (or in Dilbert’s case, outside of the cubicle). Either way, he doesn’t seem to mind the attention, be it good or bad.