Time and again, we have observed freedom of expression wavering between the extremes of incitement and oppression. And then something like this happens. The question of sensitivity readers, political correctness, bowdlerization, redaction, and editing start assuming a lot of importance.
Consider the oompa-loompas who were challenged by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for their portrayal as African “pygmies” in Roald Dahl’s ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’. Originally, Dahl had written about the oompa-loompas as being brought by Willy Wonka in crates with holes for air; reminiscent of slave labour prevalent at the time.
Sensitivity readers are not a new thing. Or even a bad thing. Even Shakespeare, Charles Dickens and Enid Blyton had their essays, plays and novels edited to pare away the offensive parts. It is not too odd to respond to discriminatory references in books and upbraid authors for their parochial outlooks, boycott their works, and criticize them. But changes of this (Dahl’s edits) magnitude can make us forget that such systems existed in the first place, that this is how the society perceived things, and most importantly, the truth needs to be told; the truth that such works carry between the lines of their pages as a reflection of how society at the time was.
In Dahl’s case, his antisemitism, racism and misogyny were well-known. As Salman Rushdie said, “he was no angel but this is absurd censorship.” The question is what would be gained by editing those phrases now? In any case, books go out of print once they stop resonating with readers. Perhaps, instead of changing these phrases, these books could be allowed to go out of print slowly the way many others have.
Many popular authors have been boycotted and criticized for their other unpopular beliefs. Take Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling, Virginia Woolf; in fact, Ayn Rand’s championing of capitalism, JK Rowling’s transphobia, Enid Blyton’s classist and xenophobic views gave the literary circles much food for thought. The truth is written works have historically been bashed, attacked and openly denounced but that very critique provides a key to the kind of world that existed then.
Besides, by removing certain words like ‘fat’ from ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’, we assign these words quite a lot of power, making them important enough to offend us. To use them as simple tools of speech without looking at them any other way might have been a better idea. With censorship comes clarifications, edits and ultimately, the author’s original voice is lost. Perhaps, a stark change in the writings of yesteryears and today’s might serve better to teach generations about how things have changed and how more positive transformations can be brought about.
The intention to make these novels more readable and contemporary for kids so they grow up with the correct mindset is noble. However, this can enter the dangerous territory of literary policing which might stray into the arenas of bowdlerization and censorship.
Modernization of old literature may be going a bit too far. Sensitivity readers had not been so major in the publishing arena until edits to Roald Dahl’s works got noticed by the Queen, UK PM, Salman Rushdie and others. Usually, these editors are hired to provide specialized editing services in the sense that they vet the script in terms of cultural maelstroms, political correctness etc. especially when dealing with themes of gender parity and pluralism, religion, politics, culture and the like. It is mostly to make sure that no inadvertent offences are committed and no one is hurt unconsciously. Instead of being limiting to the authors’ work, it is more like an eye-opener that can help avoid future storms and give a balanced authenticity to characters and narratives.
But the redaction of Dahl’s text happened in a different context; it went a bit too far. For someone as well-known as Dahl, editing his works changes the literary landscape in a big way and that is something which appears to be more commercial than culture-sensitive.
An author is a creator of imaginary worlds and sometimes, has to assume many roles to get the story just right. Political correctness may not always be possible but there are some ideals that a writer should aspire to, one of the most important ones of which is adherence and as much proximity to the truth as possible. Having an unbiased opinion of things and presenting them as they are is one of the strongest tenets of the writer’s code. But what the industry has to understand is that a writer deems their creative space as sacred and any infringement of their rights to express their world view can border on intellectual oppression. And that’s definitely not what we want, do we?
Aashisha Chakraborty is author, columnist and poet