Roald Dahl - A Safe Place to Start (an opinion piece)

It's been all over the news in the last week that Puffin Books, the editors and publishers of Roald Dahl's books, had planned to change certain words and passages of the original text due to issues of sensitivity and to ensure the books were up to date with the current cancel culture. In the words of Puffin the changes were planned so that the books 'can be enjoyed by all children'. In the last 24 hours Puffin have backtracked in light of public outcry and will now continue to publish the original versions. The specifics of the planned changes were in the grander scheme, quite small. Changing 'fat' to 'enormous' to describe Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; changing 'ugly and beastly' to 'beastly' to describe Mrs.Twit; the oompa-loompas were planned to be 'small people' instead of 'small men'. The meaning remained the same, but words that were considered less offensive or provocative replaced the originals. Occasionally extra words were going to be added - for example explaining in The Witches that although the witches were bald beneath their wigs, there were plenty of other reasons to wear wigs. Ultimately Puffin, as publishers, have the right to do as they wish to the Roald Dahl catalogue of books. Editors and publishers changing books or advising authors how to adapt their books to best meet the needs of the readers, or, ultimately, to increase sales is nothing new. Puffin have been keen to point this out. Part of the reason for the public disagreeing with the changes were because of the changes themselves - people really love these books and don't want to see them changed, and partly because of what it stood for - another chip away at our cultural heritage. This is not the time or place to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of cancel culture. Honestly I'm not even sure what the best way forward is and I'm not aware enough of the technicalities of either argument to from a solid opinion. However, with regard to the proposed changes in the Roald Dahl books, from a teachers perspective, I feel I am qualified to have an opinion. As everyone seems to have shared theirs this week I thought I'd share mine. As with all opinions, this is my own, and as with all good opinions, it is liable to change should anyone wish to provide me with evidence or opinions that sufficiently counteract it.

So straight to the point - personally I like the books just the way they are and am delighted that Puffin have decided to keep them in print unchanged. As an adult I am aware of the historical context of the books and how certain words are now perhaps at best outdated, and at worst offensive. As an adult I have the freedom to read or not read the books and the ability to judge them in context. There are two key words here for me 'offensive' and 'context'. Firstly there is a big difference between something or someone being offensive (an objective fact) and an individual being offended by something or someone (a subjective feeling). I do not think that these words or passages are in themselves offensive, however I can understand some people may be offended by them. As some of the people offended by them may be children then perhaps they need some level of protection from them - but I'm not sure changing the words in the manner suggested, which in my eyes amounted to censorship, was the best way forward. The second important word here is 'context'. This can mean a lot of things, and people often use it to mean that the situation can be explained in a paragraph or so - but, to me, it is more than this. It is about being there at the time and place, of being personally aware of the nuances and vagary of the situation. Something an explanation can never fully do justice. Given that the children now reading Roald Dahl will never be able to fully comprehend the context of language as they cannot travel in time and experience the changes pertaining the the language themselves, perhaps they need some level of support in understanding the books, but again I'm not sure the planned 'censorship' was the most appropriate option. Personally, as a Year 4 teacher, I like reading Roald Dahl to my class. I am happy to read the edgy passages in a class of pupils. I am delighted if a pupil notices the sections and raises questions about them themselves, and if not I'll do it myself. "Why has the author chosen this word?" "Is it a negative word or a positive word?" "How would the other characters feel hearing this?" "What word could we use instead?" "Does anyone know when this book was written?" "What has changed in the last 50 years?" "Has the way we use language changed?" I could go on, but you get the idea. Based on the answers of the pupils, more questions follow. I very much see texts like this as a learning experience. Governments are incredibly keen to demand that teachers are not only teaching the knowledge required to pass exams, but the skills needed for a future workforce. For me, one of the most important skills a child can learn is to be an informed and critical reader, one who does not take everything written at face value, who can consider the context, the author, the time of writing and the information included. Readers may go further and conduct further research and create dialogue about the text with their peers to formulate and share opinions. These are skills not just for the workforce but for life. In a world where children are being exposed to misinformation in multiple forms - social media, the internet, Youtube - with limited to no censorship, I'm not sure censorship of such a mild text such as Roald Dahl would have been beneficial. Surely it makes more sense to use these texts to teach the skills required to understand the nature and context of the language used in the books, and extend this skillset to be applied to various forms of media. When TV classics like 'Friends', 'Scrubs' and multiple others are readily available to stream and are very much of their time, surely it's beneficial to teach children to be aware of the differences that occur through a passage of time. That way, children can learn to be accepting of the differences in the way language, jokes, humour and society was then compared to now. That way, if they watch examples on television as previously mentioned, or find other older books which have not been updated, they can do so with the knowledge and skills to be aware that some of the terms may cause offense, but may not in themselves offensive. To be careful of replicating what has been seen due to the context of the media and how this has changed over time. Surely that is the way of moving forward rather than deliberating removing the issue. To give an imperfect analogy, albeit one that serves a purpose - if a child does not understand a Maths problem and gets upset because they don't understand it, should we simply remove it from the curriculum and pretend it never happened, or should we teach more until it is understood? In this respect I think that Roald Dahl is a safe place to start, a place where mistakes can be made and skills can be learned for use in the wider world. In a setting that is supportive, with an adult mentoring and guiding the approaches required to succeed in understanding. Isn't that what school is all about? Books in particular are a gateway to conversations that may otherwise be difficult. They offer an unreal world for the conversation to take place in, one that is one step removed from reality and therefore allowing conversation to flow. For example, discussing the use of the word 'fat' when it has been directed at a classmate comes with a whole heap of judgement, emotion, and personal turmoil. Discussing it in the context of a book is far more approachable to everyone. If everything a child reads with an adult is overly censored then we are limiting opportunities to learn. Anecdotally, as a child I remember reading a book in school about the dangers of strangers. I remember being very scared of the stranger character in the book. I was genuinely upset - but the book allowed a safer space for a conversation around stranger danger which in my opinion was worthwhile. Should we really just take away these learning opportunities because we are concerned about individuals feeling offended or upset, as I was, or should we support the bigger picture which is recognising the feeling and how to manage it appropriately? Are we really preparing pupils with the skills and knowledge they need by considering deleting the issue or are we just kicking the can down the road and potentially making a bigger problem in years to come?

With the sheer volume of second hand books out there, I'm not sure how much difference the proposed changes would have made in the short term. But in the long term who really knows. For me, I'm glad I can continue to use these texts, alongside others, to ensure my readers can be informed and critical ones; and who knows, maybe just the prospect of these changes may make my questioning structure far simpler by comparing the original Roald Dahl texts to the proposed new ones and simply posing the question - 'Why do you think they wanted to change it?'. Thanks for reading, please do get in touch or comment if you have any thoughts or opinions. Laurence