A lot of folks are upset to hear that…
New editions of legendary works by British author Roald Dahl are being edited to remove words that could be deemed offensive to some readers, according to the late writer's company. Dahl wrote such books as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, James and the Giant Peach and Fantastic Mr. Fox.
This is one of those cases where I'm kind of on the fence, looking at both sides of the issue, not sure where I want to land. I have never been a particular fan of Mr. Dahl's work. I read a few of his books and was not motivated to seek out the others. That probably doesn't matter in this discussion, which is of the larger issues. If this hasn't already been done to some books I love, it will be.
As a writer, my natural reaction is to leave authors' works the way they wrote them…but they get changed all the time when adapted into other media. My indifference to the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is not widely shared. People love that film and other adaptations that changed what Dahl wrote. Those adaptations probably also sold a helluva lot of Roald Dahl books. His work has been kept in print and more widely read…
…and I'll bet when a lot of new readers experience the book of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory now, they're imagining Willy Wonka looking like Gene Wilder or Johnny Depp and hearing the voice of one of those men. Is that changing what Mr. Dahl wrote? Maybe. In some sense. How about if the text is unchanged but a new edition features a cover and illustrations by an artist whose drawings are contrary to what the author intended?
Seems to me there are three overriding questions here. One is should an author's work be changed at all? Should it be kept sacred, untouched and exactly like that author wrote it? If we say "No, never change it," then this discussion is over…except maybe if that author made some firm statement as to how he/she wanted his/her work handled after his/her passing. Certainly some would prefer that their work live on, be read and maybe even make money for their descendants even if that means expunging the "n" word or other things that date the work.
The second question: In the absence of clear orders from the author, who has (a) the legal authority and maybe (b) the moral authority to preside over such changes? I don't have an answer to this question but does it matter if it's a close relative who knew the author or some non-relative who never knew him or her but works for a corporation that acquired the copyrights? Some of this may come down to mind-reading dead people: "I know he would have wanted us to do this…"
Final question — and I guess these all come down to a case-by-case basis but this really does: Are the changes good changes? It's certainly possible to be on a good and proper mission but to do more damage than good. I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this regarding Dahl's books but the writer Imogen West-Knights seems to be and she thinks the changes are unnecessary and in some cases, just plain wrong.
I have no opinion on whether they are or aren't but I think this third question is the big one. If the author specified absolutely no changes, even if that means the work dies and is forgotten…well, that might not be the final word but it comes close. But then that leads us to the question about well, what if the original work remains unchanged but all adaptations are fair game? Which leads us to the question of what happens when the work goes into public domain and anyone can do anything they damn well want to it, including revisions the author would have loathed?
And before that day arrives, how likely is it that any work will be left unchanged if the entity that controls it sees an opportunity to make a lot of money off it and perhaps make it relevant to a new audience?
I apologize that this essay does not lead to many — maybe even any — real answers. But maybe that's the whole point of what I've written here. If you can make this make more sense, feel free to rewrite this piece. After I die, of course.