Absolutely Bifsquigglingly Redunculus: The War on Roald Dahl

‘We’ll just edit a word here and a word there’- Puffin Publishing

 If one was to ruin the vision of an author, especially one as beloved as Roald Dahl, a good start would be sullying them with the unscrupulous opinions of an editor. The free and delightful mischief replaced with woke mannerisms, the words twisted to suit other narratives, and in the tangential case of Ian Fleming, ‘continuation’ books to outnumber the originals.

In recent years this has taken a worrying path; for as readers we trust that the books we pick from the shelves are the final and complete works, untouched and rightfully so. For not only does a book convey entertainment but also encapsulates the reflections of a particular time and place in history, and to revise that, a distortion of it. After all, do we imagine the humbled ‘Zarathustra’ or a sterilised ‘Lolita’, free of any deviance, to be of any literary worth?   

I should hope not, for the amendments while not only ethically dubious, are thoroughly dilutive of an author’s original vision. Think, for example, of Ian Fleming’s legacy, creator of the iconic spy, James Bond. Over the years, the Bond franchise has expanded beyond the books to include movies, video games, and merchandise. But worst still, his estate has authorised new Bond novels, written by other authors, which have been marketed as ‘continuations’ of Fleming's original works. Now while the idea of continuing the legacy of a beloved author may be appealing, and indeed, entirely within an estate’s right to do so, they do not necessarily have the same creative vision or understanding of the characters and worlds that the original author did. And in a sense it also steals from the public memory, both in arrogance of assuming that readers will either not notice or not care and in the way that it tarnishes the uniqueness of a single author.

To be clear, I don’t write of a specific spat against Puffin and the removed language and references deemed offensive or insensitive in modern times, nor of one against any attempt to make books more inclusive and respectful. Rather, I wish to highlight that if publishers can freely edit, without outcry, the works of classic authors, where does one draw the line between respectful representation and censorship?

So, it is thus my view that we, as readers, must demand transparency and respect for an author's original vision and legacy, even as the world changes around us. Only by doing so can we truly honour the rich and complex works of the past and present and ensure that they continue to inspire and challenge future generations of readers.